pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @unboiled 6h \ parent \ on: Rant: If you think 50 year mortgages is debt slavery, you don't understand money econ
For me, it rhymes a bit too much with Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy which was arguably a considerable contributing factor to the subprime mortgage crisis.
All to say the windfall may only be temporary. And as with all government windfalls, it will be paid for by other people, if not today, then at some point in future.
In that sense, being excited about a government-induced windfall is about as "boomer" as it comes.
I'm not excited about it. In fact I would vote against 50 year mortgages.
I just think people are getting mad for the wrong reasons, and those wrong reasons betray their lack of monetary understanding which is how they get taken advantage of by the rich
You can be sure that the already wealthy will be lining up to take these 50 year mortgages
reply
I'm not excited about it. In fact I would vote against 50 year mortgages.
I apologize, that wasn't aimed at you. Just a general statement.
I just think people are getting mad for the wrong reasons, and those wrong reasons betray their lack of monetary understanding which is how they get taken advantage of by the rich
I'm unable to connect the dots on how not being in debt is allowing the rich to take advantage of precisely those people.
You can be sure that the already wealthy will be lining up to take these 50 year mortgages
I'm not convinced lining up for those loans is an indicator of wealth yet. It sounds as if your struggling Joe would be at least as excited about them, maybe even more.
reply
I'm unable to connect the dots on how not being in debt is allowing the rich to take advantage of precisely those people.
Maybe "taken advantage" isn't quite the right word here. But it's one of the ways in which the rich get richer faster, because they take more advantage of nominal debt to acquire real assets.
I see too many people in my own social circles who are very anti-debt, which is fine if it was an informed point of view, but it's usually not--they're just taught to be afraid of debt, not because it's a decision made with an understanding of the tradeoffs.
IMO the way you think about this stuff matters, because it bleeds into policy. For example, I don't support the 50 year mortgage because the risk is borne by the taxpayers; not because it's a bad deal for the borrower. If you make it about being a bad deal for the borrower (which it's not), then you miss the more important objection.
I'm not convinced lining up for those loans is an indicator of wealth yet. It sounds as if your struggling Joe would be at least as excited about them, maybe even more.
They'll be lining up for different reasons. The struggling Joe lines up because the 50 year mortgage is the only way he'd be able to afford the monthly payments on the house. The rich guy lines up because he knows that it's a great deal to extend nominal fixed rate debt out for 50 years.
reply