<quote name="Andy Bradford" date="Fri, 20 Jun 2008 at 22:45 -0600"> > Thus said Dave Smith on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:08:20 MDT: > > > Repeat after me: Developers build houses to make money. > > And people buy them because they value the home (even if it isn't as > nicely made as they once were) more than the money they have, or might > make in the future (where debt is involved). Did anyone ever say that > developers build houses to lose money? And your point about developers > building houses to make money is? > > > They will cut cost in every possible way. > > If the people buying the homes don't like this cost cutting, they don't > have to buy the home. If they don't like the final product that the > developer has product, they dont' have to buy.
Indeed developers will make money, or else they will stop developing. Indeed consumers will part with their money only if they value the return. That is the game of economics, no one party is at fault (or to be praised) for whatever comes about. One might argue that the buyer *must* value the substandard home the developer offers because it's the only home and they need some home. The demand argument... However, if you value your money more than the McMansion, you may wait. It may be difficult, but if it's worth it for you, then you will persist. Where there's demand, where there's a market, someone will provide. If you look hard enough you will find someone offering the house you are willing to part with you money for. Why? Because you don't give up and spend it away. It's money to be had no other way, and someone will have it. Kinda like votes I think. If you cherish your vote, if you hold it dear and covet it, only trading it for real value you insist on having, someone will have that vote and give you value for it. Well, these votes alone won't necessarily get your desires into office, but they will send a message. They will also bring out of the woodworks those who you would vote for, allowing you ever more choices in voting! Besides that you know who you can campaign for, and who to support. You are awakened to a vast world of reason and intellect. You have hope in America once again. At least this was my experience, YMMV. Wow, whoda thought these two subthreads were still so very connected! > > Houses haven't gotten cheaper over the decades. > > According to which standard of measure? The standard that ignores inflation. The cost the same and more, so they must not be cheaper. Or were we talking about quality? > > House prices have out-paced inflation at least 5 to 1. Why isn't the > > quality going *up* if houses are getting more expensive? > > I assume you have the answer. Care to share the wealth? They haven't gotten cheaper, and they haven't gotten better. They must be the very same houses of last century. > > Houses are not Transformer toys. Toys have gotten cheaper. Houses have > > gotten more expensive, and yet both toys and houses have gone *down* > > in quality. Yes, comparing houses to toys is logical fallacy (proof by > > false analogy, actually). > > Will you offer a proof by true analogy? I hope the above analogy whets your appetite. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
