https://lemmy.ml/comment/2686472

Yes that’s exactly it. Thanks for the link.

This process of investing your saved money to grow your wealth by choosing investments that align with your financial goals is called wealth creation.

I guess it is. I don’t cover I’d this article the financial difference between buying and renting, because most people already understand that. Buying is usually better.

Some of the other comments have decent explanations.

where

When I talk about inflation here, I am referring exclusively to inflation in house prices. The effect of inflation in other markets is not covered here.

Oh like a security for further borrowing? Could be.

Yes. But consider the whole cycle. You must buy before you can upsize/downsize. And if you have children who need to upsize again. The homeowner always loses from inflation in the end and the investors always win.

borrowing against that value

Yes I guess so.

counter against inflation, estate planning

I think you still lose. You can only realise the benefits by selling and being homeless. Your estate has higher value which is wiped out by your children buying houses at inflated prices.

people who downsize

They do really profit from inflation. But if they have children who then want to buy houses, overall the family loses just the same. Only investors win in the end.

prices don’t rise uniformly

It is true. I just limit the scope of the argument to uniform changes, to make it easier to explain. Including the effects of non-uniformity would make it much longer.

access to cheaper credit

You mean how it is cheaper to remortgage than to get a normal loan? This is something I did not consider. Does that change anything for the overall argument?

still better to have an asset that is also increasing in price

Yes true.

I agree. I think that’s already widely understood though.

Of course in a democracy we could create laws to limit that. But that’s a subject for a different day.

They are not assumptions. They are constraints. I’m limiting the scope of the argument to make it simpler to explain.

The non-uniform changes could be discussed in a different article. Then the real changes are the sum of the uniform and the non-uniform. That would be a rigorous treatment. Here I’m instead just explaining the general principle.

Many people buy a house for life, and sell it when they are retiring, live of their equity and rent or buy for a fraction of the money in a lower cost of living area.

This is an interesting idea. The people who do this, who eventually sell and live in a nursing home or rent, they profit from an inflating housing market… But if they have children who then want to buy houses, they still lose, because their estate is devalued by inflation.

Any update on this?

I couldn’t find any comment from the devs. Was there one?

There is an extra problem, not mentioned here. When there are subs with the same name, it is actually impossible to know of choose which sub I am posting to. Like here.

The fools talk much more than the wise. I wonder about just blocking most of the people I don’t find interesting. Then I could only see writings from sensible and interesting people.

Maybe there is a technical solution, which doesn’t require so much effort by the user.

How do you mean “a powerful tool”? Tool for what?

The argument is mostly valid. But the real point is that capital gains tax needs to change. That would solve the stated problem, without reducing home ownership.

As a result, a majority of the population is literally invested in seeing the value of homes always go up.

This is actually not true. In general, ome owners do not benefit from global house price increases.

This seems like the right approach. You can get different answers depending on which measure you use

You could compare

1.Willful killings in total

2. willful killings per year

3. willful killings during the 1920s-40s

4. willful killings during Churchill’s regime versus Hitler’s regime.

I guess the UK will have higher numbers by every measure except 1. The figures should be easy to find.

But what’s the reason for posting a screenshot instead of a link? Lots of people are doing it. It must be more effort for you than posting a link.

here?

most of those behind were for being “reactionary” or “not an answer”. sounds more like general censorship of ideas and opinions. there was even a post banned for “bad faith arguments, downplaying severity of western settler-colonialism, and both sidesing Ukraine conflict”.

the mod logs interesting. but i don’t see anything relevant. or maybe i don’t see how it is relevant.

is there any evidence that this actually happens, or would happen?

all i ever see is humans being blocked or frustrated by the bot. i have never seen any kind of malicious spamming that could have been prevented by such a bot. spammers are normally thwarted by human mods.

the bot seems obsolete.