Why not outlaw landlordism?

[thundley4]

True Blue Door (2,940 posts)  Tue Aug 4, 2015, 01:37 PM


Why not outlaw landlordism?

Consider for a moment: What would happen if real estate could not be rented, leased, or borrowed against, but only either bought, sold, or used by the owner?

An obvious initial objection would be "But most people can't afford to buy real estate!" Then a beautiful thought occurs: Because they can't afford it, and the owners can no longer rent it out, lease it out, or borrow against it, owners have only two ways to make money from it - either sell it or use it as productive capital that creates jobs.

Since the vast majority of people - including (in fact, especially) real estate speculators - have no interest in or capacity to run a productive enterprise, the only practical avenue of profit for most real estate owners would be to sell the property. If they have no personal or professional use for it, they're only in it for the money, and they can't make money on it except by selling it, then that is what they will do.

So what happens when people with property want to sell it, but consumers can't afford to buy it? The price goes down. And without the hugely inflationary forces of bubble-speculation and landlordism, it would go down massively. It would go down as far as necessary for people to afford it, resulting in a huge redistribution of wealth back to the average person.

Sure, some holders of surplus real estate would try to hold on to their property and wait for a more favorable market, but unless owners acted as a single giant monopoly, enough would sell that the price would just keep going lower, causing still more to sell to avoid future losses. The price would then stabilize far below what it is in a market supported by renting, leasing, and borrowing.

Also, since you can't borrow against it, homeowners would be less tempted to use their property as a cash machine, meaning they would be more likely to hold on to it in the long-term.

Pass the law such that it unfolds gradually, so that present renters are not thrown out on the street, and I don't see a downside.

Thoughts?

(Edit: Wow, I didn't realize I was thinking so far outside the box here. It just seems like common sense that the tenant-landlord relationship is a fundamentally Bad Thing for society and democracy, given that it reduces a "free" market into a medieval Manorial estate. This should not be a radical idea on a liberal discussion forum. Be less conservative and more thoughtful about how things can be better, folks.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027041862

Star Member geek tragedy (49,354 posts)
13. Ugh, really?

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.
2. Which would mean more urban sprawl, more carbon consumption, more habitat destruction for wildlife, etc.
3. people who are currently renting would be prisoners in their own homes, literally. They couldn't move, because then they'd be homeless.
4. You'd screw every single homeowning household in the country, since they owe mortgages on the properties they own. Massively devaluing their homes, on purpose, amounts to theft.

Sorry, this idea is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

True Blue Door (2,940 posts)
33. Yes, really.

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.

Wrong. They would sell the apartments rather than renting or leasing them.

2. Which would mean more urban sprawl

You're saying it's a good thing that fewer and fewer people can afford to live where they want?

more carbon consumption

Until we fix our environmental policies, more prosperity will inevitably mean that. So are you saying poverty is good until we develop a totally GHG-free economy?

more habitat destruction for wildlife, etc.

Same deal as with GHGs. If people have more money, they can afford to be more environmentally conscious.

[SVPete]

TBD must be late with his/her rent.

[franksolich]

TBD must be late with his/her rent.

That was my thought too, but I wasn't as quick as you.

[Ptarmigan]

That was my thought too, but I wasn't as quick as you.

Same here.

[BannedFromDU]

Same here.

     Great minds.

     Recall that True Blue Door is a DUmmy-come-lately who generally writes very long posts and gives the DUmmies homework, viz., reply with their absolute agreement. Ifr a DUmmy dares disagree, he gets very snippy and puts the offending DUmmy on ignore (news flash: you already ignore everyone, TBD. The ignore list is superfluous).

     All of which to say that he gives the DUmmies doses of their own medicine, and the results are generally hilarious.

[diesel driver]

Star Member geek tragedy (49,354 posts)
13. Ugh, really?

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.

True Blue Door (2,940 posts)
33. Yes, really.

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.

Wrong. They would sell the apartments rather than renting or leasing them.

        

Proof right there DUmmies shouldn't be in charge of anything more complicated than a rock, or play with anything sharper than a bowling ball.   

I was hoping I could be assured no REAL person could/can actually "think" this way, then I realize who/what I'm talking about, where they post, and who they got elected as POTUS, TWICE, and I become fearful for the future of our once great nation.  I was hoping DUmmie TBD was joking, but DUmmies have no sense of humor, and even less sense.

I need some aspirin, and a stiff drink.  Have to pass on the drink for now, heading off to work.  Normally, this wouldn't stop a DUmmie, but I ain't no DUmmie!   

[Carl]

They are funny when they try to discuss basic economic issues. 

[tanstaafl]

They are funny when they try to discuss basic economic issues. 

Yeah.

Hilarious.

And these idiots think they should be in control.

One question for TBD: What about Real Estate Taxes? Does he think that the local and State Governments will willingly give up billions of dollars and not be able to employ their worthless relatives?

[txradioguy]

One question for TBD: What about Real Estate Taxes? Does he think that the local and State Governments will willingly give up billions of dollars and not be able to employ their worthless relatives?

Easy...just make all those evil rich mansion owners pay higher property taxes to compensate.  I mean it's not they they can't afford it. [/DU mode]

[Carl]

Doubled down on the crazy with another identical thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027043168

Response to True Blue Door (Original post)

Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:12 AM

meaculpa2011 (628 posts)
94. Land-use regulations, even when serving a legitimate...

public interest, cannot deprive the land owner of viable economic benefit from their property.

It's that pesky Bill of Rights again.

We wonder why observers consider us kooks and crackpots.

Ya think! 

[SVPete]

Ya know, when a long-time DU member like "Star Member geek tragedy (49,354 posts)" points out some of the real-world problems with a "brilliant" idea, it shows how incredibly dumb that idea is.

[USA4ME]

True Blue Door

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.

Wrong. They would sell the apartments rather than renting or leasing them.

Not everyone wants to live in a condo, doofus. And how about people who are only going to live in an area for 6 months or a year? Or who want a place to rent and stay because every couple of weeks they roll into town to take care of a parent or loved one and they just want their own place to come "home" to?

True Blue Door

Why not outlaw landlordism?

No.

Next stupid question.

.

[ChuckJ]

Star Member geek tragedy (49,354 posts)
13. Ugh, really?

1. No more apartment buildings would be built, ever.
2. Which would mean more urban sprawl, more carbon consumption, more habitat destruction for wildlife, etc.
3. people who are currently renting would be prisoners in their own homes, literally. They couldn't move, because then they'd be homeless.
4. You'd screw every single homeowning household in the country, since they owe mortgages on the properties they own. Massively devaluing their homes, on purpose, amounts to theft.

Sorry, this idea is so stupid it makes my head hurt.

Strange. All of a sudden theft matters to a DUmmie. Most of the time they are in favor of theft.

[SVPete]

Strange. All of a sudden theft matters to a DUmmie. Most of the time they are in favor of theft.

Maybe "Star Member geek tragedy" owns his/her home?

The destruction TBD's idea would cause is hard for me to fathom. Rental housing provides housing to those unable to afford to buy, or who do not want to buy, a house or condo. TBD's brilliant idea would create an almost instant housing shortage, with the building of apartment coming to a near-instant halt. With that scarcity, the prices of owner-occupied housing would climb, if not skyrocket. Then, over a period of months and years what were once rental apartments owned by inept and economically marginal "owners" would deteriorate: commons areas, including laundry equipment and children's play equipment, would become non-functional; the plumbing in apartments owned by inept and economically marginal "owners" would be ruined, spreading sewage in the affected apartments and into neighboring apartments; eventually, due to the latter, entire buildings would be declared uninhabitable, with "owners" forced out, by government building inspectors. IOW, 50 years of Detroit-style deterioration and destruction would get compressed into 10-20 years.

[Big Dog]

Maybe "Star Member geek tragedy" owns his/her home?

The destruction TBD's idea would cause is hard for me to fathom.

I'll take 'genocide' for $500, Alex.

Rental housing provides housing to those unable to afford to buy, or who do not want to buy, a house or condo. TBD's brilliant idea would create an almost instant housing shortage, with the building of apartment coming to a near-instant halt. With that scarcity, the prices of owner-occupied housing would climb, if not skyrocket. Then, over a period of months and years what were once rental apartments owned by inept and economically marginal "owners" would deteriorate: commons areas, including laundry equipment and children's play equipment, would become non-functional; the plumbing in apartments owned by inept and economically marginal "owners" would be ruined, spreading sewage in the affected apartments and into neighboring apartments; eventually, due to the latter, entire buildings would be declared uninhabitable, with "owners" forced out, by government building inspectors. IOW, 50 years of Detroit-style deterioration and destruction would get compressed into 10-20 years.

The DUmmy has a plan for that, too.

1. Forced confiscation of all private property by the State.
2. Redistribution of the confiscated property "to each, according to his need"- said "need" defined by the State, of course.

DUmmies are so predictable.

[Chris_]

The DUmmy has a plan for that, too.

1. Forced confiscation of all private property by the State.
2. Redistribution of the confiscated property "to each, according to his need"- said "need" defined by the State, of course.

DUmmies are so predictable.

He would make a good, obedient Bolshevik.

[GOBUCKS]

The DUmmy has a plan for that, too.

1. Forced confiscation of all private property by the State.
2. Redistribution of the confiscated property "to each, according to his need"- said "need" defined by the State, of course.

DUmmies are so predictable.

It works. It's the key to Zimbabwean prosperity.

[Big Dog]

It works. It's the key to Zimbabwean prosperity.

There you go! The government responsible for...

[67 Rover]

There you go! The government responsible for...

I would still trust that more than Barry's 1T coin.

[Karin]

Be less conservative and more thoughtful about how things can be better, folks.)

Look what a scold this douchebag is. 

This thread is also featured at CU, I saw it earlier today.  In my opinion, this stands as the DUmbest thread of the year.  I was shocked by the sheer lack of any consideration of consequences. 

We wonder why observers consider us kooks and crackpots.

 

I rowed over.  Boy, when every single DUmmie is pissing all over your idea, you may want to rethink your idea.  But he keeps doubling down (incoherently).

lumberjack_jeff (30,460 posts)
150. "You could have transfers of ownership that are shares in the property"

Great idea! And who better to loan the buyer the funds needed to purchase this short-term ownership than the seller!

When the buyer no longer needs the property and wants to move, the seller can agree to retake control of the building, giving the buyer the security of knowing he's not going to be stuck with a property at a place in which he no longer wants to live. Of course, the seller is entitled to some interest on his loan.

This is actually what we do today, but we call this interest "rent".

Thinking outside the box? Sometimes the box is there for a reason.

Star Member True Blue Door (2,945 posts)
114. Except I haven't heard a single objection that withstands the simplest scrutiny.

A lot of folks are just giving knee-jerk reactions rather than rational thoughts.

He heard about 100 good reasons why his little plan is a POS, and still he says this.  They must just want to smack him over there. 

snooper2 (24,646 posts)
48. You are in the running for first place FYI...probably will at least get 2nd

We shall see!

DOTY? 

[lastparker]

He's describing Detroit, isn't he?

[Big Dog]

DOTY? 

Definitely!

[DumbAss Tanker]

Property is theft, Comrade!  Why destroy the purity of the workers and peasants by giving them ownership of their flats, once they are liberated from the yoke of the oppressors?

 

[98ZJUSMC]

He would make a good, obedient Bolshevik.

[Duke Nukum]

I think it is such a brilliant idea, TBD should lead the way! Like that CEO who raised the minimum wage of everyone in his company to $70,000/year.

Brilliant ideas like this should have vast consequences for their originators.