> It's complicated because we've made it complicated.
And thus, it is complicated. Also worth taking into consideration: we may not be able to do otherwise. Currently, for sure (hence the commonality of conversations on this topic), and perhaps never if we don't/can't change the way we think.
Some of us can change how we think, but big corporations and investment firms (and banks with investment divisions) are not going to adopt our way of thinking.
They are thinking of what to do with their piles of cash, and how to make their piles grow. They are absolutely not concerned about the wellbeing of individuals outside their own organizations/families.
This is basically the housing ownership version of the monopoly concept (and I don't specifically mean the game). There are, or were, laws to prevent companies from becoming monopolies. People (and governments) realized that once a company grows and consumes or blocks out all its competition, things eventually get very bad for the consumers/public.
There seem to be quite a few people on HN in the "regulation is bad" camp, but there are a lot of regulations such as the ones related to prevention of monopolies which are critically important. And now we see that there need to be similar regulations to prevent the equivalent in housing.
For this to naturally correct itself (and laws to become demanded by the people and written by the government) will take decades and likely some level of revolt. Maybe it will happen sooner than I think. It will be ironic if the camp that has been promoting gun ownership while simultaneously screwing its supporters becomes subject to forceful demands of its angry former followers. (Actually we see this right now in US politics when someone from "the good team" finally speaks out loud negatively about their great leader. The "good team" followers become immediately vicious and threatening. Perhaps once enough of those armed good old boys finally put their puzzles together and realize they've been fooled on a grand scale, we'll start to see some change.)
> Some of us can change how we think, but big corporations and investment firms (and banks with investment divisions) are not going to adopt our way of thinking.
I wonder: can you overcome this way of thinking?
> People (and governments) realized that once a company grows and consumes or blocks out all its competition, things eventually get very bad for the consumers/public.
Realized to some degree.
> And now we see that there need to be similar regulations to prevent the equivalent in housing.
Some see this, some see other things (sometimes the opposite). Whose visions are correct?
> It will be ironic if the camp that has been promoting gun ownership while simultaneously screwing its supporters becomes subject to forceful demands of its angry former followers.
It would be even more ironic if all followers began to question the stories their leaders tell them, and the stories they tell themselves.
> Perhaps once enough of those armed good old boys finally put their puzzles together and realize they've been fooled on a grand scale, we'll start to see some change.
Surely, to some degree. But even more powerful would be if all people could do this simultaneously...or even a critical mass of people, especially if they managed to do it according to a non-partisan methodology. Perhaps someone will create something like that some day. Or, perhaps not, and we will remain at this local optimum indefinitely, content in the knowledge that it is all someone else's fault.
And thus, it is complicated. Also worth taking into consideration: we may not be able to do otherwise. Currently, for sure (hence the commonality of conversations on this topic), and perhaps never if we don't/can't change the way we think.