housing price increases are irrelevant to the feds actions, we artificially keep housing supply low because we're a nation of nimby's who have been told your house is your best asset and our local politics are run by wealthy people who want to increase their wealth by securing house prices only go up its toxic as shit and needs to change
CA is especially guilty of what you decry, and I'd gladly give up a fair portion of my equity value if it meant that my kids could afford shit when it's time for them to buy into the system
this article got passed around a lot the other day so I imagine you saw it, SF easily the worst offender caveat being this all gets exacerbated by being somewhere people want to live
Whenever a parcel of land in LA gets zoned for apartments they always jam in a cheaply built behemoth with $3000/month studios. Rich get richer and prices stay up.
Yeahbut that's SF, an already crowded city at the top of a crowded peninsula. The rest of the Bay Area isn't down with higher density housing and entry-level condos/townhouses, especially around transit hubs, which makes the problem bad all around. Who the fuck wants to live in SF proper anyway
type of housing (luxury vs market vs subsidized etc) is mostly irrelevant and muddies the discussions (and is wielded in bad faith by people) just build build build build
Appreciate the rec, but over the last 4+ years I'd venture a guess that I've spent well over 1,000 hours reading/listening to everyone from anti-btc economists (Steve Hanke, George Selgin, Roubini), pro-btc economists (Ammous), traditional macro investors (Ray Dalio, PTJ, Lyn Alden, Mike Green who hates btc, Raoul Pal, Luke Grommen, Grant Williams who hates btc, Erik Townsend who hates btc, etc.) and everyone in between. If there's a negative talking point, I've read about it, listened to counters to it, listened to btc "thought leaders" explain their positions on it, and come to my own conclusions as to whether it's concerning. I'd like to think that I'm reasonably informed and educated on the topic. I don't particularly care about changing the entire economic system or why inflation at 0% is bad. My goal is just to position my portfolio in a way that I think makes sense in light of what is, not what I think should be. My conclusion is to save money that I don't otherwise need for expenses in btc and to wait years/decades for my thesis to play out.
The point I was trying to get across is that even when you think there is hope that high density housing will move into a desirable area the supply comes nowhere near meeting the demand and the value proposition for the renter is abhorrent. I agree build build build.
You're not going to get disagreement from me on most of this except for the irrelevant to fed's actions point. But yes agreed that people have been told that their house is an asset, and believe that housing prices need to go up forever, and that they can store wealth in a house, etc. In that environment, I think the fed's actions do impact house prices. Either way, the reality is that if I desire to own a house, then the prices have gone up dramatically more than general CPI numbers. Not sure how else to describe that besides an increase on my personal bucket of inflation.
i genuinely dont give a shit about that first paragraph, we were beyond crypto into actual economics on the second one that's fine, i think you'd benefit from learning it because you clearly have ingested and parrot a lot of economic ideology that you don't understand where it comes from and are making a very high risk bet
i dont know how the fed is supposed to have an impact on cities intentionally not building enough housing but i'm curious how you think they can do it
Ehhhhh there's other factors at play but a major factor in the last 18 months has been the low rates on mortgages. People can afford more house when they pay less interest. I deal with it daily. Supply is a huge factor too but rates do play a role.
A large part of Ammous' book is Keynesian v. Austrian economics. It's a boring debate. I'm sure someone from the Mises message board will spar with you on it. I care about btc as an asset and a monetary network. If, as you argue, btc is just Austrian econ reincarnate and that approach has been rejected/debunked, then it'll go to zero (query why it hasn't already and instead got to $1T faster than anything else in history). It's an entirely voluntary network. People will opt in for the monetary characteristics of credibly enforcing a supply cap of 21 million, or they won't. They don't have to be an Austrian or Keynesian to make that decision. And no offense, but you advising me on it being a "very high risk bet" is not an opinion that I respect or give any credibility to. My own opinion is that on a risk adjusted basis it's the best investment I could possibly make. And I've bet ~85+% of my net worth on that opinion.
the issue is if the fed operated based on mortgage rates it'd have INSANE impacts on the entire economy while trying to make up for things happening outside of its control so yes, the fed influences mortgage rates, should the fed change its behavior because of that? not in a million years
Straw man much? The fed's monetary policy drives up hard assets (see: btc, equities, fine art, fucking collectible cards/memorabilia, and yes housing). Do we agree on that point? You have issues with intentionally limiting housing options? Great, generally speaking i'm sure that more supply would lower pricing; not rocket science. That doesn't change the broader point above.
just fyi but this is where i'll punch out, you have zero interest in the "boring" debate that underlies all the ideology you parrot when it's the literal most important part of any discussion here.
No, I never said that. I think I read this wrong. I read it as you saying the feds actions don't affect housing prices but I now see you were saying the fed shouldn't act according to housing prices.
The Fed is literally buying $40 billion/month in mortgage securities to keep rates low and to think it doesn’t correlate with housing prices is just…
Nah. And it's not particularly close. Btc is a $10-$100T+ addressable market purely as a digital store of value. That's it. The entire economy can keep operating on US dollars (hell, half the btc people think the digital dollar will dominate right alongside btc), with inflation, central banks, and Keynesian economics, and btc can just be off in the corner storing wealth. It doesn't need to supplant the entire system to be one of the most important inventions of the last 100 years (shout out to that earlier debate). The economics debate is nowhere near the most important part of the discussion.
You’ve been right a lot recently… Can you give me a heads up when it’s safe to look at my wallet again?
If it makes you feel any better I bought this morning. Possible we go down to 29.7k but past that (if we hold below that level), thesis invalidated and we lose this range we've been in - which means probably somewhere 20-24k as a landing spot. In general think we go 24k before >40k again, just to shake more people out. That could take another month+ - we could be ping ponging between 32-34k for weeks. I think volatility is going back down again (once this move here is done) for the rest of Q3 before up in Q4.
Ha. I’m a novice that has any idea what any of that means (sold what little I had in Bitcoin I had at a profit before it started to dovetail). Couldn’t find the investing thread; am I stupid for trying to buy in on Robinhood’s IPO? I know its rise has close relations to crypto, but my assumption is that a shitload of millenials and Zs will continue to use it regardless.
People also gonna drive themselves nuts if we sit here in a 3k range on Bitcoin for another two months. It’s happened before bottom finally fell out in 2018. Volatility can go much lower than already is