this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
337 points (98.0% liked)
World News
239 readers
450 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe. A million houses only puts a small dent in things. Who is making these million houses?
Also, will there be something in place to prevent everyone from just charging a lot more for houses? At 5%apr you may only be able to afford a 150,000 home, but at 0% they can charge you 400,000 for it.
According to the article the government is building them, selling them, and providing subsidized loans for them.
I’ve found that money is only really an issue when it’s being used to deny things. If we actually need it to get done, somehow people seem to get it done regardless of finances.
So the only thing that really matters is whether we want to help people or not. If not, people like you will bring up this topic as a way to stall or deny the helping of people.
That doesn't answer the question I had. Whenever prices of expensive things get subsidized, it makes the prices go up. Prices are based on how much a company thinks it can get for something from the people buying. If a car is selling for $40k and then it gets subsidized to give a buyer $20k off, that car quickly turns into a $55k car and the company just profits more.
The car example is kinda bad since dealers always markup the cars.
Anyway, it would still help to have a million more homes enter the market. The price is also partly determined by the availability of the product, so adding more supply should lower prices.