Novus America wrote:Kubra wrote: Taking out home equity is, frankly, partially the point of what is proposed. You know, to reduce a home to the status of a commodity, rather than something you cash in later. Personally speaking, the idea of housing as an "investment" has been one of the main problems of the housing market in general.
The problem is that the money paid out is not equivalent to what is produced. Ideally, one produces things for use and can thus access things for use, but in the case of defense the exchange is fairly one-sided. One receives wages that they can spend on things for use, but without producing things for use. That's the core of economics: making and receiving things of use.
Beyond that, lemme tell ya, them detroit homes need a bit of work before they're viable for living, Gotta replace the copper, for one.
That equity though is very important. People who have it do not want to lose it.
It makes a huge difference. I own significant equity in my home, and was also able to use it to consolidate loans into a lower interest rate single loan using some of the equity.
Eliminating the equity would be eliminating most of my net worth.
Equity in a home is extremely helpful and eliminating it would do immense harm, essentially wiping out much of the wealth of the working and middle class. Ironically the wealthy would be less harmed as most of their wealth is not stored in equity in their house.
And there is no other good substitute for it. Even those who might not like the concept on some esoteric or theoretical level have to contend with the fact that houses as an investment or store of value, while also being a place to live, played a huge role in building up the middle and a significant portion of the working class, and removing it would devastate them.
And I am sure care far more about the practical benefits of equity in their house over any sort of esoteric Marxist critiques and such. So from any feasible perspective that is a non starter. Saying to someone “we are going to eliminate the majority of your net worth” is not going to fly.
Anytime the government does anything redistributive it is arguably spending without producing sufficient value in return.
If the government pays someone to pick up trash or paint a picture on a post office wall is this actually producing more value? It depends on how value is defined which is rather subjective.
But anyways we actually do have use for military deterrence. It gets wonky but if a deterrent costs a trillion, and averts a war that would cost 5 trillion it still is can be justified by a cost benefit analysis. And if it averts an existential war, or helps you win it what price do you place on your country’s very independence and existence?
Or when an aircraft carrier is used to deliver humanitarian aid, what about that value? From a neoliberal perspective sure it is still a loss because saving those people does not produce equal monetary wealth in return. But again I am not a neoliberal.
And that is not even getting into things like NAVSTAR GPS or recycling old missiles to launch civilian satellites. NAVSTAR GPS almost certainly produced far more value than the military spends on it by any measure.
Of course like any cost benefit analysis there is a lot of subjectivity and guess work especially when you are involving so many externalities and question of a nations security and existence which are not easy to price. What is the value of the existence of Taiwan? Is it only in the semi conductors it produces? What is the value on the lives of its people, its strategic position, its freedoms, and the damage to the concept of freedom that would be incurred if it was eliminated?
Then you have the issue is buying stupid plastic crap from the PRC actually producing value? And for whom? And then you have to consider the PRC is using money made from selling that functionally useless plastic crap to us, they are using it to buy weapons for use against us.
Anyways it need not be solely distributed via defense spending, though that is a major way to do it, which also tends to draw most bipartisan support. And again cutting it caused a lot of the housing problem in the first place. A lot of people who will reject spending on “welfare” would welcome reopening a military base in their town.
I am also for rebuilding our mental health system, and focusing on building it in areas that are struggling (in part because it was shut down in the first place). But does that produce more value than it costs? One can argue it is more expensive to keep the mentally ill in the streets and jails, but looking at it solely from material value is a dangerous road, because one can make the argument their very existence is a loss and thus they should be eliminated to stop that loss, because they cost more than they produce regardless of if you give them housing or leave them to rot in the streets or in jail.
How exactly to use governmental spending to geographically re-redistribute jobs and funding back to the areas that they were taken away from can be debated, but it is a valid method of addressing the issue. And regardless of how you do it is is going to arguably cost more than the value it produces.
And I am fully aware, those houses in Detroit build 100 years ago and abandoned 50 years ago are not going to be cheap to get functional again. There is a reason they can sell them for a dollar and still get no buyers. Lead remediation, new heating and cooling, beyond the fact some literally have trees growing inside them.
But again I am okay with having the government spend money to help the social good of reducing overcrowding in overcrowded areas and making housing more affordable. Even if it does not produce the same monetary value it costs.
Equity was useful to you because it let you move around interest rates. That should already clue you in as to the problem of equity over use.
And speaking of which, let's talk the value of a house. For one thing, everyone knows that the value ain't in the house. Blue book ain't kind on older models, and anyone who has worked in residential construction can tell you what a sham most houses are. It's in land/location and the raising of the price of everything (the aging house included) because of demand. In esoteric marxist terms, it is fictitious capital allowing you to juggle other values of fictitious capital. If homeownership declines, something in the process of occurring and will continue without policy changes, all a sudden a lot less folks as a percentage of population buy into that shit, you feel?
Like shit, dislike of homes as investment don't come from homeowners, you know?
Murals and trash cleaning affect us in a quotidian manner. They make our living spaces look nicer, and the latter more hygienic. A missile at best does not affect this, and at worst, well, you know. We could sell them, sure, but this is a very strange position for one to take morally. I don't think our daily bread is worth a bullet in anothers mouth, personally. You do you, I guess?
In any case, the US is the largest economy and spends more cash in absolute terms than any other nation on the planet in terms of defense. Unless you're convinced of an impending war with China (which, well, you clearly are) butter tends to be superior to guns, and its production benefits every butter-eater, not simply the butter-makers.
Now, as for those detroit homes, don't let housing prices fool you. Very little of the cost of a house has to do with its cost of production, once the issue of land for development is sorted development itself is pennies, even the bigger infrastructural bits. It's cheaper to simply tear down and build new than straight up restore, but that then begs the question of "why Detroit, then?"
