[quote=EconProf]You underestimate the dynamic and self-correcting nature of our market system, and also ignore some beneficial effects of such an event.
First, SDSU students are not stupid–they will go to other neighborhoods, etc., saddling the new foreign owners with huge vacancies. Second, those new areas receiving the influx of students, will boost their prices, spurring the building of more rentals, subdividing houses, etc. In addition, the happy sellers of all the SDSU-near housing and apts must have been paid a pretty penny to sell out–they will now spend, save, and invest, leading to more beneficial effects.
I think it was at the height of the Japanese boom in the 1980s when all the US-bashers thought we would be overwhelmed by the Japanese buyers (before their 2 decades of stagnation), that Japanese investors bought the famous Pebble Beach, for about $1 billion I believe. They way overpaid for it, and sold for a lot less years later. Vancouver may some day experience the same.
We need to keep our country open for business, preserve property rights and the rule of law, and welcome foreign investors while we hope they keep on welcoming us.[/quote]
The problem with the “self-correcting nature of our market system” is the time lag between when the distortions begin and when the market corrects. It can take YEARS, and in that time, irreversible damage can be done.
For a clear example of this, look at our housing market. IMHO, we reached the top of the “normal” RE cycle in about 2001; then the credit bubble took over from there. Trillions of dollars have been added to our debt because of the time lag of at least 6-7 years between the beginning of the credit/housing bubble, and the collapse. Unfortunately, the PTB thinks the “collapse” is the problem, so they have spent trillions more trying to keep the market from “self-correcting.”
Though the “efficient market” hypothesis sounds nice on paper, our market system really creates tremendous boom/bust cycles during these time lags, which can be so damaging that people (and countries) will NEVER be able to recover in their lifetimes.
Owning a home is not a basic need and to classify it in the same breathe as air, water, food, even freedom is a joke.
Once more to place arbitrary restrictions on markets such as home ownership does not solve basic problems due to differentials in wealth.
You can apply your same line of reasoning to cars, to jobs, to food, to water, to anything. Carrying your logic to a not so unreasonable conclusion would imply everyone should have access to everything no matter what they have accomplished in life.
Owning a home is not a basic need and to classify it in the same breathe as air, water, food, even freedom is a joke.
Once more to place arbitrary restrictions on markets such as home ownership does not solve basic problems due to differentials in wealth.
You can apply your same line of reasoning to cars, to jobs, to food, to water, to anything. Carrying your logic to a not so unreasonable conclusion would imply everyone should have access to everything no matter what they have accomplished in life.
Owning a home is not a basic need and to classify it in the same breathe as air, water, food, even freedom is a joke.
Once more to place arbitrary restrictions on markets such as home ownership does not solve basic problems due to differentials in wealth.
You can apply your same line of reasoning to cars, to jobs, to food, to water, to anything. Carrying your logic to a not so unreasonable conclusion would imply everyone should have access to everything no matter what they have accomplished in life.
Owning a home is not a basic need and to classify it in the same breathe as air, water, food, even freedom is a joke.
Once more to place arbitrary restrictions on markets such as home ownership does not solve basic problems due to differentials in wealth.
You can apply your same line of reasoning to cars, to jobs, to food, to water, to anything. Carrying your logic to a not so unreasonable conclusion would imply everyone should have access to everything no matter what they have accomplished in life.
Owning a home is not a basic need and to classify it in the same breathe as air, water, food, even freedom is a joke.
Once more to place arbitrary restrictions on markets such as home ownership does not solve basic problems due to differentials in wealth.
You can apply your same line of reasoning to cars, to jobs, to food, to water, to anything. Carrying your logic to a not so unreasonable conclusion would imply everyone should have access to everything no matter what they have accomplished in life.
[quote=walterwhite]food and water are basic needs[/quote]
Yep, without food and water, you will DIE. There are plenty of homeless people around and so far, they’re not dying. There are plenty more renters around and so far, many are thriving. Just look at CAR :-).
[quote=walterwhite]food and water are basic needs[/quote]
Yep, without food and water, you will DIE. There are plenty of homeless people around and so far, they’re not dying. There are plenty more renters around and so far, many are thriving. Just look at CAR :-).
[quote=walterwhite]food and water are basic needs[/quote]
Yep, without food and water, you will DIE. There are plenty of homeless people around and so far, they’re not dying. There are plenty more renters around and so far, many are thriving. Just look at CAR :-).
[quote=walterwhite]food and water are basic needs[/quote]
Yep, without food and water, you will DIE. There are plenty of homeless people around and so far, they’re not dying. There are plenty more renters around and so far, many are thriving. Just look at CAR :-).
