Due to property/land.
http://www.petesisco.com/you-dont-own-y ... ever-will/
Home "ownership" isn't real
Re: Home "ownership" isn't real
Its all explained here (with simplification, animation, and conspiracy theories).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM
Re: Home "ownership" isn't real
I've only watched the first 6 minutes but my interpretation is that people are stupid. Other interpretations probably include "banks are evil."
The sentiment of "how much money do they need?" is ridiculous and I'm tired of it being perpetuated by popular culture. You might as well say "whoa, iPad Mini? How much money does Apple need anyway?" "BMW 4-series? How much money does BMW need?" I dunno but people are happy to buy iPad Minis and BMW 4-series, just like they were happy to NOT read the fine print and sign whatever to get a loan (there was supply to meet the demand, bam, economy).
It's a ridiculous thing to say, unless your basis for comparison is a commune.
The video touched on fed-backed loans, but I noticed it did not say why. The reason was so people who couldn't afford homes could finance a home loan. The Fed was saying "even though you wouldn't normally lend to these folks, do so with this money, cause you know, they 'deserve' a home, for some reason." I think that's an important detail. So the banks, having lent [too much] money to these bad credit types, figured out a way to make money anyway (the whole derivative market). The lesson is, and continues to be, when making policy, never underestimate the bad side effects. Half-regulation was worse than the less regulation that preceeded it. Another fitting cliche would be "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." That describes a lot of policy, I think.
The sentiment of "how much money do they need?" is ridiculous and I'm tired of it being perpetuated by popular culture. You might as well say "whoa, iPad Mini? How much money does Apple need anyway?" "BMW 4-series? How much money does BMW need?" I dunno but people are happy to buy iPad Minis and BMW 4-series, just like they were happy to NOT read the fine print and sign whatever to get a loan (there was supply to meet the demand, bam, economy).
It's a ridiculous thing to say, unless your basis for comparison is a commune.
The video touched on fed-backed loans, but I noticed it did not say why. The reason was so people who couldn't afford homes could finance a home loan. The Fed was saying "even though you wouldn't normally lend to these folks, do so with this money, cause you know, they 'deserve' a home, for some reason." I think that's an important detail. So the banks, having lent [too much] money to these bad credit types, figured out a way to make money anyway (the whole derivative market). The lesson is, and continues to be, when making policy, never underestimate the bad side effects. Half-regulation was worse than the less regulation that preceeded it. Another fitting cliche would be "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." That describes a lot of policy, I think.
Re: Home "ownership" isn't real
You should watch the rest of it too, but you got the basic idea. There are some humorous bits as well.
Re: Home "ownership" isn't real
Also, you haven't really gotten to the best conspiracy theories yet.