Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Wait, what? Wouldn't it mean that a pool of prospective buyers that couldn't afford 20% but can afford 5% are now able to buy a house?

No. Real property doesn't work that way at all.

The effect of most of this kind of government intervention in the housing market is to subsidise developers.

In fact it's so bad that in the UK shareholders of such a developer are outraged because the uncapped bonus structure for executives at the developer means they get enormous (many times annual salary) bonuses essentially directly funded by central government which the shareholders of course think instead ought to all be profits assignable as dividends, not "bonus payments" for executives whose "performance" amounts to just sitting back and collecting free money from central government.

Like there's not even doubt there about what this government money does, it goes to the house builders, it can't and doesn't magically produce more homes, the argument is about who gets to keep the loot.

Government can intervene to actually build homes, and that would actually work, but NIMBYs hate it, so if a government doesn't actually care about housing people then a policy that can be headlined as support for home buyers but actually just puts money in the pockets of the wealthy is a good choice.

>No. Real property doesn't work that way at all.

I carefully read through the rest of the comment after this sentence, waiting for the support for this claim, and feel as though I came away emptyhanded. I get that the shareholders anecdote is supposed to support it, but that came off as really fuzzy and unclear, and not something that directly engaged with my question. Are you saying there are no new buyers? Do you have any article that talks in more detail about the systematic relationship between shareholder expectation of dividends and their relationship to the switch from 20% to 5%? Or some elaboration on how the debate between shareholders vs executives relates systematically to the change in requirement for down payments in a way that clearly describes how it absorbs most of the gov funds?

I gotta lay my cards on the table, here. I feel like if any of this were true, I would have received a really simple, one sentence reply of "sure, here's a link!" that links to an article deep in comprehensive macroeconomic data, and not a weird meandering anecdote about developers carried not by any evidence, but mostly by the gravitas of emphatic personal assurance that just declares that "this is how it really works".

The rest of the comment isn't support for the claim that real property isn't like this - instead it assumes you've been shaken awake by the realisation that oh, these aren't toasters or smartphones, they're homes, and thus real property, and so the usual free market hand waving doesn't apply at all.

But if it wasn't clear I'll explain. The reason real property isn't like this ought to be entirely obvious at a very high level, the planet's surface area is independent of economic forces. If we've got twice as much money for smartphones, we can buy twice as many smartphones. But if we've got twice as much money for buying land in Ohio, there is still only the same amount of Ohio, and so the price just goes up.

Does that help?

You know, I actually thought you knew what you were talking about and were going to have something thoughtful to say. To answer directly: nope, this does not help at all. I was expecting something like a discussion of, I don't know, pertinent micro or macroeconomic forces, maybe something about elasticity as applied to housing, or citation of some article illustrating how a change in financing in one region had a measurable impact on prices and the number of buyers, or something of that nature.

Instead you are condescendingly lecturing me about the shape of the earth, and telling me the rest of it is so obvious you can't bother explaining it. But even I know we haven't run up against absolute geographical limits, and to to the extent that the shape of the earth is an influence, it one among many, in a process that is also mediated by additional influences, as well: constraints of availability of housing already built, the rate of new construction, changes in financing, population growth, people's savings, changes in how many people choose to stay at home, etc. I was waiting for some economically literate discussion of those kinds of elements.

Developers can't get FHA loans

Things that give your buyer pool more money/more access helps your selling position, even if you can’t get the money straight from the tap.

That's correct. Developers sell homes. The FHA loan uses government money to allow people who buy homes to pay more money for the same home, this money goes to the developers.

Student loans situation, but for housing instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com