[EconProf]

The difficulty with barter is you have to have the exact good or service someone else wants, and they have to have the particular good or service you want.
That’s why they invented money.

[EconProf]

The difficulty with barter is you have to have the exact good or service someone else wants, and they have to have the particular good or service you want.
That’s why they invented money.

[EconProf]

The difficulty with barter is you have to have the exact good or service someone else wants, and they have to have the particular good or service you want.
That’s why they invented money.

[EconProf]

The difficulty with barter is you have to have the exact good or service someone else wants, and they have to have the particular good or service you want.
That’s why they invented money.

[EconProf]

This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

[EconProf]

This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

[EconProf]

This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

[EconProf]

This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

[EconProf]

This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.

[EconProf]

Good points The End, and welcome to the Piggs.
Quite right that a lot of flipper properties show hastiness and superficial improvements, while a deeper look will reveal an inferior job that, in truth, should not add much to the market value. Of course, to the seller its perfect, and should be priced accordingly.
On a related subject, I’m a big believer that an “improvement” should not be made until the existing component is really past its useful life. In the example cited, windows in a 1990 house were probably already dual-glazed. Only if they were single-glazed are they truely obsolete and deserving of replacement. Likewise, 20-year old stucco should not need paint or replacement. A 20-year old kitchen and bath? Probably OK unless this house is in a super location and deserves the huge expense of dealing with K’s and Ba’s. Another factor, when the seller does all this work, their designs and color choices do not necessarily match that of the target market. Better to let the buyer decide these choices and keep the selling price low as a result.

[EconProf]

Good points The End, and welcome to the Piggs.
Quite right that a lot of flipper properties show hastiness and superficial improvements, while a deeper look will reveal an inferior job that, in truth, should not add much to the market value. Of course, to the seller its perfect, and should be priced accordingly.
On a related subject, I’m a big believer that an “improvement” should not be made until the existing component is really past its useful life. In the example cited, windows in a 1990 house were probably already dual-glazed. Only if they were single-glazed are they truely obsolete and deserving of replacement. Likewise, 20-year old stucco should not need paint or replacement. A 20-year old kitchen and bath? Probably OK unless this house is in a super location and deserves the huge expense of dealing with K’s and Ba’s. Another factor, when the seller does all this work, their designs and color choices do not necessarily match that of the target market. Better to let the buyer decide these choices and keep the selling price low as a result.

[EconProf]

Good points The End, and welcome to the Piggs.
Quite right that a lot of flipper properties show hastiness and superficial improvements, while a deeper look will reveal an inferior job that, in truth, should not add much to the market value. Of course, to the seller its perfect, and should be priced accordingly.
On a related subject, I’m a big believer that an “improvement” should not be made until the existing component is really past its useful life. In the example cited, windows in a 1990 house were probably already dual-glazed. Only if they were single-glazed are they truely obsolete and deserving of replacement. Likewise, 20-year old stucco should not need paint or replacement. A 20-year old kitchen and bath? Probably OK unless this house is in a super location and deserves the huge expense of dealing with K’s and Ba’s. Another factor, when the seller does all this work, their designs and color choices do not necessarily match that of the target market. Better to let the buyer decide these choices and keep the selling price low as a result.

[EconProf]

Good points The End, and welcome to the Piggs.
Quite right that a lot of flipper properties show hastiness and superficial improvements, while a deeper look will reveal an inferior job that, in truth, should not add much to the market value. Of course, to the seller its perfect, and should be priced accordingly.
On a related subject, I’m a big believer that an “improvement” should not be made until the existing component is really past its useful life. In the example cited, windows in a 1990 house were probably already dual-glazed. Only if they were single-glazed are they truely obsolete and deserving of replacement. Likewise, 20-year old stucco should not need paint or replacement. A 20-year old kitchen and bath? Probably OK unless this house is in a super location and deserves the huge expense of dealing with K’s and Ba’s. Another factor, when the seller does all this work, their designs and color choices do not necessarily match that of the target market. Better to let the buyer decide these choices and keep the selling price low as a result.

[EconProf]

Good points The End, and welcome to the Piggs.
Quite right that a lot of flipper properties show hastiness and superficial improvements, while a deeper look will reveal an inferior job that, in truth, should not add much to the market value. Of course, to the seller its perfect, and should be priced accordingly.
On a related subject, I’m a big believer that an “improvement” should not be made until the existing component is really past its useful life. In the example cited, windows in a 1990 house were probably already dual-glazed. Only if they were single-glazed are they truely obsolete and deserving of replacement. Likewise, 20-year old stucco should not need paint or replacement. A 20-year old kitchen and bath? Probably OK unless this house is in a super location and deserves the huge expense of dealing with K’s and Ba’s. Another factor, when the seller does all this work, their designs and color choices do not necessarily match that of the target market. Better to let the buyer decide these choices and keep the selling price low as a result.

[EconProf]

Renters saving up to buy a home should be furious at their government for this. Their own taxes are being used to keep them from buying their first house. I love the part describing the program: “By keeping cheap foreclosed properties from reaching the market the program could give a boost to home values in general.”

[Author]

Posts