▲ 535 ▼ Me_irl (lemmy.today) submitted 5 months ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/me_irl@lemmy.world 132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 10 points 5 months ago (5 children) What? You're confused. Lower is always better. I bought my house when interest was 2.5%, pretty much the bottom of the interest rates during the start of covid. My house loan was around 450K. By the time I've paid off my loan (if I were to make the normal monthly payment) I'll have given the bank over 750K dollars. Even at an amazing rate, some bank gets 2/3s the cost of my house in interest. At 12%, a 30 year, $450,000 loan would have you paying the bank 1.8M dollars, meaning some bank gets over 3x the cost of your house in interest. That's insane. I get that you're saying people will buy worse houses to not borrow as much money, but that's not really a win. A family of 5 can't fit in a one bedroom apartment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) That's just not true. To buy my house right now on a 12% loan for 8 years, the monthly payment would be $10,000. If someone were to buy it right now on a 6% loan for 16 years (trying to match your numbers to the current state of the market), their monthly payment would be $5500. And they'd pay just a few thousand dollars less than I did in interest. Why? Because prices went up along with interest rates. For what you are saying to be true, prices would need to drop when interest rates go up, but that isn't the case. Most people can't afford to drop $10k a month on a loan just to save a few thousand long-term, let alone $5.5k. My monthly payment is less than half that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile. If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens. Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (36 children) Nothing you said was correct or made sense... Lower interest rates are better. You waste less money paying to bank to exist and profit from you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 36 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children) This isn't true at all. They don't suddenly have more money to burn, and in fact, in the US, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit score, not the going interest rate. I still don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest. You owe the bank less at lower interest rates. Higher interest rates cause you to owe the bank more. You do not have to buy outside of your means if the interest rates are low, and in fact, the financially responsible thing to do is to buy well within your means while they're low and lock in lower interest for the term of the loan. I think what you're trying to say is that when interest rates are low it becomes a seller's market. While true, this is not permanent and you will save money in the long run if you buy with lower rates. I think you're stuck on the short term and not thinking of the long term. For example, rentals in my area have surpassed my mortgage payment by a good amount. If I didn't buy when rates were low, this: 1, may have not been the case due to higher monthly payments, and 2, I might have gotten trapped in the rental cycle and never been able to own a home, ending up paying more than what I would have if I purchased a home while rates were low. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (13 children) I'm neither talking about sellers markets or buy vs rent. I'll put it as short as I can: if people can borrow more, then prices will go up, because everyone needs a home, and there is a finite number of homes. You are basically fighting with everyone else who want to buy a home when you want to buy. So if everyone can borrow more (low rates) then that doesn't give you a better house, because everyone can now bid higher too. And the reverse when it's expensive to borrow of course. You are talking about day to day economics, and yes I am sure you made a good choice stopping renting (economically). But you seem to think, that in a market with very expensive loans, it's worse somehow. If it's very expensive to borrow, the 450k house suddenly has no buyers and has to drop the price. Over time it becomes a 300k house (for example). Are you better off with that? Yes. Not because you'll pay your bank less, but you'll pay them during a smaller time (at 12% it doesn't help taking out a 25 year loan, it doesn't make sense). Also, as a bonus, usually when we already own, we go from less hood to better (better/bigger/more expensive) so if prices are low it's cheaper to upgrade. And on a final note, the "450k worth", is not useful money, except if you sell it to live in a less good place (or if you have many houses) which people rarely do. Hope it clears it up a bit! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) If you feel so strongly, I'm certain the big banks will take your donations. It will help others get loans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (18 children) Ha ha. It's sad you think you're funny actually. I mean I know they don't teach economics in the usa (guess you're from there) but man, it's not that hard to understand. Less money=>cheaper housing, access to more money=>more expensive housing. But you need to think 2cm farther than how it is for you yourself right now today. I have never said that you should change for an expensive bank loan, lol, but just how market dynamics work when loand are expensive. Well well, good luck to you all! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago (9 children) Lower is definitely always better in this case, there is no upside to paying more interest since you can typically get around the same range (give or take) no matter the term length. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children) It doesn't track. I didn't buy out of my means when I purchased a home at a low rate. In fact, it allowed me to afford a better home for a cheaper price. You are not suddenly worse off at lower interest rates, infact, you owe the bank less. That doesn't mean the duration of your loan changes. Referencing your example, you can still get the same term loan (12 yr is what you used, but in the US that would be an unusual duration), and the loan itself is cheaper. Why would I give the bank extra money? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* ++rate is only better if you already have a lower rate because it generally means appreciation of the property asking price, and depreciation of your payment and the amount you still owe, all have accelerated. This is because loan rates rise and fall with the prime rate, which is mostly tied to inflation rate, AKA the rate of currency depreciation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carrot@lemmy.today 10 points 5 months ago (5 children) What? You're confused. Lower is always better. I bought my house when interest was 2.5%, pretty much the bottom of the interest rates during the start of covid. My house loan was around 450K. By the time I've paid off my loan (if I were to make the normal monthly payment) I'll have given the bank over 750K dollars. Even at an amazing rate, some bank gets 2/3s the cost of my house in interest. At 12%, a 30 year, $450,000 loan would have you paying the bank 1.8M dollars, meaning some bank gets over 3x the cost of your house in interest. That's insane. I get that you're saying people will buy worse houses to not borrow as much money, but that's not really a win. A family of 5 can't fit in a one bedroom apartment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) That's just not true. To buy my house right now on a 12% loan for 8 years, the monthly payment would be $10,000. If someone were to buy it right now on a 6% loan for 16 years (trying to match your numbers to the current state of the market), their monthly payment would be $5500. And they'd pay just a few thousand dollars less than I did in interest. Why? Because prices went up along with interest rates. For what you are saying to be true, prices would need to drop when interest rates go up, but that isn't the case. Most people can't afford to drop $10k a month on a loan just to save a few thousand long-term, let alone $5.5k. My monthly payment is less than half that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile. If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens. Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) That's just not true. To buy my house right now on a 12% loan for 8 years, the monthly payment would be $10,000. If someone were to buy it right now on a 6% loan for 16 years (trying to match your numbers to the current state of the market), their monthly payment would be $5500. And they'd pay just a few thousand dollars less than I did in interest. Why? Because prices went up along with interest rates. For what you are saying to be true, prices would need to drop when interest rates go up, but that isn't the case. Most people can't afford to drop $10k a month on a loan just to save a few thousand long-term, let alone $5.5k. My monthly payment is less than half that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile. If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens. Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) That's just not true. To buy my house right now on a 12% loan for 8 years, the monthly payment would be $10,000. If someone were to buy it right now on a 6% loan for 16 years (trying to match your numbers to the current state of the market), their monthly payment would be $5500. And they'd pay just a few thousand dollars less than I did in interest. Why? Because prices went up along with interest rates. For what you are saying to be true, prices would need to drop when interest rates go up, but that isn't the case. Most people can't afford to drop $10k a month on a loan just to save a few thousand long-term, let alone $5.5k. My monthly payment is less than half that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile. If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens. Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile. If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens. Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carrot@lemmy.today 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy. But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (36 children) Nothing you said was correct or made sense... Lower interest rates are better. You waste less money paying to bank to exist and profit from you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 36 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children) This isn't true at all. They don't suddenly have more money to burn, and in fact, in the US, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit score, not the going interest rate. I still don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest. You owe the bank less at lower interest rates. Higher interest rates cause you to owe the bank more. You do not have to buy outside of your means if the interest rates are low, and in fact, the financially responsible thing to do is to buy well within your means while they're low and lock in lower interest for the term of the loan. I think what you're trying to say is that when interest rates are low it becomes a seller's market. While true, this is not permanent and you will save money in the long run if you buy with lower rates. I think you're stuck on the short term and not thinking of the long term. For example, rentals in my area have surpassed my mortgage payment by a good amount. If I didn't buy when rates were low, this: 1, may have not been the case due to higher monthly payments, and 2, I might have gotten trapped in the rental cycle and never been able to own a home, ending up paying more than what I would have if I purchased a home while rates were low. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (13 children) I'm neither talking about sellers markets or buy vs rent. I'll put it as short as I can: if people can borrow more, then prices will go up, because everyone needs a home, and there is a finite number of homes. You are basically fighting with everyone else who want to buy a home when you want to buy. So if everyone can borrow more (low rates) then that doesn't give you a better house, because everyone can now bid higher too. And the reverse when it's expensive to borrow of course. You are talking about day to day economics, and yes I am sure you made a good choice stopping renting (economically). But you seem to think, that in a market with very expensive loans, it's worse somehow. If it's very expensive to borrow, the 450k house suddenly has no buyers and has to drop the price. Over time it becomes a 300k house (for example). Are you better off with that? Yes. Not because you'll pay your bank less, but you'll pay them during a smaller time (at 12% it doesn't help taking out a 25 year loan, it doesn't make sense). Also, as a bonus, usually when we already own, we go from less hood to better (better/bigger/more expensive) so if prices are low it's cheaper to upgrade. And on a final note, the "450k worth", is not useful money, except if you sell it to live in a less good place (or if you have many houses) which people rarely do. Hope it clears it up a bit! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) If you feel so strongly, I'm certain the big banks will take your donations. It will help others get loans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (18 children) Ha ha. It's sad you think you're funny actually. I mean I know they don't teach economics in the usa (guess you're from there) but man, it's not that hard to understand. Less money=>cheaper housing, access to more money=>more expensive housing. But you need to think 2cm farther than how it is for you yourself right now today. I have never said that you should change for an expensive bank loan, lol, but just how market dynamics work when loand are expensive. Well well, good luck to you all! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children) This isn't true at all. They don't suddenly have more money to burn, and in fact, in the US, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit score, not the going interest rate. I still don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest. You owe the bank less at lower interest rates. Higher interest rates cause you to owe the bank more. You do not have to buy outside of your means if the interest rates are low, and in fact, the financially responsible thing to do is to buy well within your means while they're low and lock in lower interest for the term of the loan. I think what you're trying to say is that when interest rates are low it becomes a seller's market. While true, this is not permanent and you will save money in the long run if you buy with lower rates. I think you're stuck on the short term and not thinking of the long term. For example, rentals in my area have surpassed my mortgage payment by a good amount. If I didn't buy when rates were low, this: 1, may have not been the case due to higher monthly payments, and 2, I might have gotten trapped in the rental cycle and never been able to own a home, ending up paying more than what I would have if I purchased a home while rates were low. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (13 children) I'm neither talking about sellers markets or buy vs rent. I'll put it as short as I can: if people can borrow more, then prices will go up, because everyone needs a home, and there is a finite number of homes. You are basically fighting with everyone else who want to buy a home when you want to buy. So if everyone can borrow more (low rates) then that doesn't give you a better house, because everyone can now bid higher too. And the reverse when it's expensive to borrow of course. You are talking about day to day economics, and yes I am sure you made a good choice stopping renting (economically). But you seem to think, that in a market with very expensive loans, it's worse somehow. If it's very expensive to borrow, the 450k house suddenly has no buyers and has to drop the price. Over time it becomes a 300k house (for example). Are you better off with that? Yes. Not because you'll pay your bank less, but you'll pay them during a smaller time (at 12% it doesn't help taking out a 25 year loan, it doesn't make sense). Also, as a bonus, usually when we already own, we go from less hood to better (better/bigger/more expensive) so if prices are low it's cheaper to upgrade. And on a final note, the "450k worth", is not useful money, except if you sell it to live in a less good place (or if you have many houses) which people rarely do. Hope it clears it up a bit! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) If you feel so strongly, I'm certain the big banks will take your donations. It will help others get loans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (18 children) Ha ha. It's sad you think you're funny actually. I mean I know they don't teach economics in the usa (guess you're from there) but man, it's not that hard to understand. Less money=>cheaper housing, access to more money=>more expensive housing. But you need to think 2cm farther than how it is for you yourself right now today. I have never said that you should change for an expensive bank loan, lol, but just how market dynamics work when loand are expensive. Well well, good luck to you all! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children) This isn't true at all. They don't suddenly have more money to burn, and in fact, in the US, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit score, not the going interest rate. I still don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest. You owe the bank less at lower interest rates. Higher interest rates cause you to owe the bank more. You do not have to buy outside of your means if the interest rates are low, and in fact, the financially responsible thing to do is to buy well within your means while they're low and lock in lower interest for the term of the loan. I think what you're trying to say is that when interest rates are low it becomes a seller's market. While true, this is not permanent and you will save money in the long run if you buy with lower rates. I think you're stuck on the short term and not thinking of the long term. For example, rentals in my area have surpassed my mortgage payment by a good amount. If I didn't buy when rates were low, this: 1, may have not been the case due to higher monthly payments, and 2, I might have gotten trapped in the rental cycle and never been able to own a home, ending up paying more than what I would have if I purchased a home while rates were low. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (13 children) I'm neither talking about sellers markets or buy vs rent. I'll put it as short as I can: if people can borrow more, then prices will go up, because everyone needs a home, and there is a finite number of homes. You are basically fighting with everyone else who want to buy a home when you want to buy. So if everyone can borrow more (low rates) then that doesn't give you a better house, because everyone can now bid higher too. And the reverse when it's expensive to borrow of course. You are talking about day to day economics, and yes I am sure you made a good choice stopping renting (economically). But you seem to think, that in a market with very expensive loans, it's worse somehow. If it's very expensive to borrow, the 450k house suddenly has no buyers and has to drop the price. Over time it becomes a 300k house (for example). Are you better off with that? Yes. Not because you'll pay your bank less, but you'll pay them during a smaller time (at 12% it doesn't help taking out a 25 year loan, it doesn't make sense). Also, as a bonus, usually when we already own, we go from less hood to better (better/bigger/more expensive) so if prices are low it's cheaper to upgrade. And on a final note, the "450k worth", is not useful money, except if you sell it to live in a less good place (or if you have many houses) which people rarely do. Hope it clears it up a bit! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 5 months ago (13 children) I'm neither talking about sellers markets or buy vs rent. I'll put it as short as I can: if people can borrow more, then prices will go up, because everyone needs a home, and there is a finite number of homes. You are basically fighting with everyone else who want to buy a home when you want to buy. So if everyone can borrow more (low rates) then that doesn't give you a better house, because everyone can now bid higher too. And the reverse when it's expensive to borrow of course. You are talking about day to day economics, and yes I am sure you made a good choice stopping renting (economically). But you seem to think, that in a market with very expensive loans, it's worse somehow. If it's very expensive to borrow, the 450k house suddenly has no buyers and has to drop the price. Over time it becomes a 300k house (for example). Are you better off with that? Yes. Not because you'll pay your bank less, but you'll pay them during a smaller time (at 12% it doesn't help taking out a 25 year loan, it doesn't make sense). Also, as a bonus, usually when we already own, we go from less hood to better (better/bigger/more expensive) so if prices are low it's cheaper to upgrade. And on a final note, the "450k worth", is not useful money, except if you sell it to live in a less good place (or if you have many houses) which people rarely do. Hope it clears it up a bit! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (12 children) People cannot suddenly borrow more, not in the US. That is just not how it works here. The amount you can borrow is decided by income and credit score. Interest rates do not affect the loan durations you have available, you can always decide to get 10, 15, or 30 year fixed. Yes, 10 and 15 have higher monthly payments, but if your income fits, you can always get them, regardless of interest rate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (11 children) Of course they can. If suddenly it's at 12% then you can borrow less (or you live in some place where mathematics does not apply), and conversely if it drops from 12 to 2 you can borrow more. Maybe not YOU, but you as in the general population. You have just never experienced it, as you have to go back to maybe the 1980s to find those expensive loans. All countries have laws and rules based on income and whatnot, the usa is not exceptional. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (10 children) As you say, loans with interest rates that high no longer exist. But you are still incorrect with how mortgages work in the US. You absolutely cannot suddenly borrow more with lower interest rates. Once again, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit scores and income, NOT interest rates. Sure, maybe you could borrow like $25k more, maybe even $50k. But that is nothing compared to your full loan, and no bank is going to see that interest rates are low and be willing to suddenly take on more risk with little gain. What would the bank's motivation be? They gain nothing but risk by doing that, so they don't do it. They do allow for more risk when interest rates are high, because they make more money off of loans. It's the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. The US is exceptional here, maybe not in a good way, however, we definitely are. I don't understand why you are trying to tell me that my lived experience is wrong and that your vague and incorrect assumptions about the US mortgage market are correct. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower. It's basic math. Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level. Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to. Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference. Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation. Look at this one: Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children) I do not assume that. sigh. What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down. Edit: correct the second for inflation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children) They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems. Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down. Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep. Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children) Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are! I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today? 😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling! Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼♀️ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US. The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) If you feel so strongly, I'm certain the big banks will take your donations. It will help others get loans. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (18 children) Ha ha. It's sad you think you're funny actually. I mean I know they don't teach economics in the usa (guess you're from there) but man, it's not that hard to understand. Less money=>cheaper housing, access to more money=>more expensive housing. But you need to think 2cm farther than how it is for you yourself right now today. I have never said that you should change for an expensive bank loan, lol, but just how market dynamics work when loand are expensive. Well well, good luck to you all! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (18 children) Ha ha. It's sad you think you're funny actually. I mean I know they don't teach economics in the usa (guess you're from there) but man, it's not that hard to understand. Less money=>cheaper housing, access to more money=>more expensive housing. But you need to think 2cm farther than how it is for you yourself right now today. I have never said that you should change for an expensive bank loan, lol, but just how market dynamics work when loand are expensive. Well well, good luck to you all! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago You are making sweeping claims about the US mortgage system without ever having had participated in it. You have not been correct about how any of it works here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (16 children) You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality. I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (15 children) Lol no I did not say that, to the contrary, I said there are a set number of houses (it does change but not very fast, not like other commodities like tomatoes or oil). And everyone needs one (1). That's why when people can borrow loads of cheap money, prices go up. That's so hard to grasp? Fascinating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (14 children) There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (13 children) That's good and all and has an effect of course (many things do). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy. You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here. The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago* (11 children) Insults is what the idiot uses when he's out of rhetoric. It's not my fault you don't understand the the housing supply chain. Maybe you shouldn't try to "explain the basics" and sit back and think about it, it's not the simplest of things to be fair. I'm just answering because you seem eager to understand (and the lol is responses to more or less "u so stoopid, stoopid"). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yeah, they have no idea what they're talking about. They cannot provide any data to back up their claims, but apparently this hill is what they've chosen to die on. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting. That will get you nowhere lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does. The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (6 children) "no one cares about you" what a stellar argument. Do I "care" you think? Here is how much I care about some homeowner who thinks he's smarter than economy professors: Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Wait, you are referring to yourself as an "economy professor" now? Lol. Child, I'm a university professor. Please stop using credentials like mine to play act. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago Lol. "Blocked." A powerful last word from someone with nothing to say. Lol. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago They are very smart™ internet trolls. The truth is they are pretty easy to deal with. Actual argument? They just lol. Explain to them that they have no credentials or real argument? Suddenly they really pissed. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) Ah, you are the same account. Blocked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 months ago Lmao, that makes you seem a bit unhindged. Too bad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago (9 children) Lower is definitely always better in this case, there is no upside to paying more interest since you can typically get around the same range (give or take) no matter the term length. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children) It doesn't track. I didn't buy out of my means when I purchased a home at a low rate. In fact, it allowed me to afford a better home for a cheaper price. You are not suddenly worse off at lower interest rates, infact, you owe the bank less. That doesn't mean the duration of your loan changes. Referencing your example, you can still get the same term loan (12 yr is what you used, but in the US that would be an unusual duration), and the loan itself is cheaper. Why would I give the bank extra money? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children) It doesn't track. I didn't buy out of my means when I purchased a home at a low rate. In fact, it allowed me to afford a better home for a cheaper price. You are not suddenly worse off at lower interest rates, infact, you owe the bank less. That doesn't mean the duration of your loan changes. Referencing your example, you can still get the same term loan (12 yr is what you used, but in the US that would be an unusual duration), and the loan itself is cheaper. Why would I give the bank extra money? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children) It doesn't track. I didn't buy out of my means when I purchased a home at a low rate. In fact, it allowed me to afford a better home for a cheaper price. You are not suddenly worse off at lower interest rates, infact, you owe the bank less. That doesn't mean the duration of your loan changes. Referencing your example, you can still get the same term loan (12 yr is what you used, but in the US that would be an unusual duration), and the loan itself is cheaper. Why would I give the bank extra money? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children) As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now. Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (4 children) Okay, so take your pocket calculator and simulate a 30 year loan at 12%. Won't happen. Check out how it was like not last year but 20 years ago (maybe more). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (3 children) At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course. At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save. This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (2 children) Which proves my point. Housing will automatically become cheaper at 12% because people will have less money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right? Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible. Let's break it down for my home. With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21. In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts. So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates. You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets. I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* ++rate is only better if you already have a lower rate because it generally means appreciation of the property asking price, and depreciation of your payment and the amount you still owe, all have accelerated. This is because loan rates rise and fall with the prime rate, which is mostly tied to inflation rate, AKA the rate of currency depreciation. permalink fedilink source parent