And I thought Joe Biden was Stupid . . .

Wow . . . "Kamala Harris has called for millions of new-build homes and first-time buyer help, tax breaks for families and a ban on grocery "price-gouging" in her first speech focused on economic policy."


First off, let's understand why Harris wants millions of new homes built. It's because America doesn't have shelter for the more than ten million illegal aliens to which she and Jobie facilitated entry.

The fix to that problem is clear . . . that extra capacity is not necessary. Those millions of shelters sit vacant in the countries they left. If we return them to those nations and require that they immigrate through ports of entry, it accomplishes 2 things . . . (1) It regulates the influx of immigrants according to our laws, ensuring that we better filter out habitual law-breakers, and (2) it provides a more realistic rate of absorption on our part.

As for help for first-time buyers, help should not be necessary. Prices are high because of the abrupt increase in demand. Attenuate that demand, and prices will similarly moderate. Increase that demand, and today's prices will only rise more.

Memorably, the affordable housing mandates of the 1990s fostered a burgeoning construction boom and shaky financing market that both resulted in the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis of 2007-2008. Harris wants to repeat mistakes already made. Slow learners, liberals are . . . give free money to buy a house, and those destined to default will take full advantage of the free money. Make them have skin in the game . . . always.


Price Gouging . . .

• Who determines how much higher a price is before it's considered gouging?
• Is it gouging because the seller is a conservative, and not if a liberal?
• Is it gouging, even if extra services / convenience are offered by the seller whose prices are higher?
• Doesn't the marketplace suitably decide which sellers deserve to survive, and which will whither on the vine?
• Don't new sellers fill the vacuum left by those whose customers abandon them?

There's an inherent contradiction in the two goals stated by Harris yesterday . . . on the one hand, she wants to limit prices, and on the other she wants to throw more money at prices that are already too high!

You obviously failed to get at root cause with illegal immigration, Kamala. You & Jobie have a mere 4 months left to identify and address it for costs of groceries and housing. Then it will be Trump's turn.

Talk about unqualified . . . Kamala Harris just doesn't understand econ 101, let alone macroeconomic theory which should be a prerequisite for a POTUS.

And I thought Joe Biden was Stupid . . .

 

Gosh, Kamala . . . 26 days of silence to prepare for that?

I have doubts about your ability to think on your feet . . . Understatement of the year!

 

I not only have doubts about her ability to think on her FEET, I have doubts about her ability to think AT ALL! Whether it be on her feet, standing on her head, on her knees, or laying on her back (which is one of her most productive positions, btw).

 

We don’t go to the dentist when we get sick. We don’t call an auto mechanic when our toilet doesn’t flush….. Why then do we expect career politicians to have a clue about what makes an economy work? We are the stupid part of this equation if she does get voted in.

 

I see it quite differently, still negatively though. We already have a massive surplus of homes, this is just a gift to large construction and real estate investment groups

 

Riiiight . . . Kamala is besties with construction workers and their employers.

That’ll be the day.

 

What? Of course she is. They all are. That's the main gripe with how government is run by corporate democrats like her, Biden, and Obama.

Do you know who her economic advisors are that worked with her on this proposal? Brian Deese and Mike Pyle

Their backgrounds are investment managers and executives at BlackRock. You know, asset investment company with specialization in real estate management and development...

That the execs at BlackRock would be writing economic policy about real estate is disgusting, but par for the course with our system.

 

Figures . . . Hand-picked by TMBTC, I’m sure.

 

If you believe that, you're no better off voting for Trump. Look who was shaping his economic policy in office.

It's all just execs from the same groups that advise the Dems.

 

Unfortunately, avoiding business executives altogether is a recipe for failure. Choosing those who can be trusted to put their nation’s interests ahead of their own is the key . . . same as with presidential candidates.

While you obviously don’t know that now, you’ll figure it out someday.

 

No… just no, there is not a massive surplus of homes presently. Frank/Dodd was a gift to construction companies until it wasn’t. So would Kamala’s proposed legislation.
! Edited to correct autocorrect. Changed “theirs to what I actually typed…. there is.”

 

They may not be in the right place so to speak, but we have around 15 million vacant homes currently.

 

What you claimed is false. Nationally there is no shortage. Source on the 15 million vacant homes? Data?
https://www.businessinsider.com/per...tly between,to push prices down significantly.

 

It's not quite what you make it out to be . . .

 

Here's a bunch of info based on census data. What's your source? As far as I could tell, business insider got their info from realtor.com who didn't share their data/methodology (I could be mistaken if I just couldn't find it)

 

I linked the article to post 14.

 

Thanks. While I don't think it's as dire as @Profiler article made it out to be (I'd still like to see that data), I believe you are largely correct there is at least some shortage. You've convinced me to support Harris' proposal for easing construction of new homes.

 

Still, if the above chart accurately represents homes available for occupancy, roughly 45% of the 15MM homes, or nearly 7MM homes are available. I definitely do not see the need to build more inventory . . . especially with the current costs of construction being so wildly high. There will be no takers.

 

Which categories are you combining? I looked at what to combine myself before deciding it was most fair just to count "for sale"

Other, for instance, included homes that were declared uninhabitable. I'm not sure if a building is truly condemned the logistics and costs of getting it livable vs tearing it down and starting fresh

 

Whoops, I lost track of what I was doing and totaled the following . . . Rented not occupied, sold not occupied, and other. Definitely not in my right mind at the moment. Busy trying to negotiate a sale, edit photos, carry on a texted conversation with my Mom, and reply to P/L . . . I guess that shows the effectiveness of multi-tasking huh?

I should have written 59% (For sale, for rent and other), or almost 9MM homes available.