Mexico's plan for nation-wide housing boom goes bust

Apparently they forecasted "demand" for lots of new housing. What they forgot to realize is that the people in Mexico don't have the money.

Sort of like how they forecasted lots of demand for new housing in the U.S. because of all those Millennials.

I also see a lot of parallels with loans for higher education here.

 

You do come out of a lot of threads with no value. Is there a purpose?

 

another goofy thread from hugely disorganized thinker. Why not tell us if you are capitalist or socialist and why? You will never learn about economics if you don't try.

 

You don't find valuable lessons to be learned from what happened here?

 

It's just a little obvious on your choice. Why not refer to the previous Northern Irish housing stock problems? These issues are nothing new. Why not actually give housing economic comment?

 

why not cut the BS and tell us the most valuable lesson????

 

The lesson is obvious: housing is not the problem; land is the problem. Mexico has one of the most unequal distributions of land ownership in the world. People who have no right to use land to support themselves have no right to life.

 

If you are familiar with the subprime housing crisis in the U.S., the parallels should be obvious to all but the most brain-dead.

It was a project ostensibly conceived to help poorer lower income people, and to much praise and accord, with government-secured loans (a form of taxpayer subsidy), but ultimately the poor weren't given much thought and a large corporation went away making a bundle. The poor were left to pick up the pieces, in a worse position than they were before.

One lesson to be learned is that government partnership with the private sector to do public good can have downsides, or be a total waste of money. Of course this is especially true in countries with higher levels of corruption.

 

Sounds like another call for land nationalisation. Richard Acland stuff perhaps?

 

Nationalization would assume land can rightly be owned. It can't. But a wise and responsible government would administer its possession and use in trust for, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of, all the people. That would require allocation by the free market, not government bureaucrats.

 

The free market doesn't exist; though the market fundamentalist myths are of course reliant on private property. You're playing make believe then?

 

It doesn't now.

Private property in land is incompatible with a free market because it forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies can't be part of a free market by definition. That's why "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron.

It's a recommendation, not an observation.

 

Landowners are not subsidized, to the contrary, landowners reimburse the community in taxes with far more value than the land in its natural state could produce.

You have already established in other threads that an individual's labor is their own and can not be taken by others. Therefore, improvements to the land should not be taxed.

 

So free markets don't exist but you think they can. And those supporting free markets refer to importance of property rights that you dont like.

Did the tooth fairy present you with this idea?

 

False. They are extravagantly, exorbitantly, disgracefully subsidized, as proved by the land's astronomical unimproved value, which is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of the future subsidy to the landowner.

No, that is just a bald falsehood from you, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the land's market value in its natural (unimproved) state. That value is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of how much more money the landowner will take from the community in subsidies by owning the land than he will ever pay in taxes on it.

Legally, it can certainly be taken by landowners, banksters, and other greedy, privileged parasites.

They shouldn't be, but they are, to subsidize landowners.

 

I'm hopeful that we can get close enough as makes no difference.

No, they obviously do not support free markets, because there can be no such thing as a valid property right in others' rights to liberty. They support privilege markets wherein rich, greedy, privileged parasites are legally entitled to steal from everyone else.

No; unlike you, I just don't misuse the word, "free."

 

So they don't exist, nor have they in capitalism. However, you're hopeful. Yep, that's convincing.

Refer me to one free market celebrating economist that believes property rights aren't important? I assume you'll try your standard dodge, blaming some economic conspiracy which refuses to accept your pie in the sky?

The trouble with your approach is that, once you actually offer any of the economics behind it, it quicly descents into obvious cobblers.

 

Free markets can certainly never exist in capitalism, not even close, because private ownership of land forces everyone to (massively) subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies can't be part of a free market.

Pessimists are more likely to be right, but optimists lead more successful lives. A basic conundrum of human existence.

Property rights in the products of labor are crucial. Just not property rights in other people's liberty rights.

Unlike your opinion on that question, mine is a reasoned and informed one.

 

I've seen no reasoning. You've made pie in the sky comment over free markets. You've then gone into your usual whinge over capitalism, despite capitalism demonstrating how free markets are neither possible or desirable.

 

Of course you have. You are just allergic to it, so you evade it.

No, I've identified the facts as I see them, and you are permanently unable to refute any of them.

Wrong again. Capitalism only demonstrates -- CAN only demonstrate -- that free markets are impossible under capitalism, as I already proved very quickly and easily. Duh. Your claims are just false and disingenuous, as usual.

 

How am I evading? You've referred to how you believe free markets can 'nearly' exist, but that they never have and that everything we know about free market economics is evil.

Can you try coherency?

 

Expertly and industriously.

I admit this is not demonstrable under current conditions.

Which is certainly true.

I of course said no such thing.

Can you try honesty?

 

So a free market has never existed but you, independent of any known thought, has come out with the means? Wow!

 

Any thought known to YOU, because you refuse to know thoughts.

 

This is rant. Why can't you refer, for example, to an economic analysis that highlights how a hypothetical 'free market' is not just pie in the sky?