World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
For everyone… not just poor people who need a loan, but people who can pay cash too… which is what I said.
That is how supply and demand works, though. If the prices drop, and suddenly cash buyers start pouring out of the woodwork, that will drive prices back up.
When you see prices fall, it necessarily means the cash buyers are not just swooping in and grabbing everything.
Yes which would mean that the cash buyers would have all the houses and the people who needed loans wouldn’t. Which was my point.
That is not what that means.
I promise I understand what you're saying. I'm saying the fault in your logic is misunderstanding the upward pressure of cash buyers.
When prices fall, it isn't chum in the water for corporate cash buyers. What it means is that those same buyers were ALWAYS there, and are now leaving. The absence of thier buy pressure is the cause of the prices falling.
The fault in your logic is thinking there won’t be more cash buyers if prices dropped.
But then the prices go up again.
The price of anything is the balance of buyers and sellers.
The price TELLS you where the equilibrium is. It is the OUTPUT of the function.
Houses aren't Hienz Ketchup. Head office doesn't just decree a house price. You're imagining the housing market works like Taylor swift tickets from ticket master.
You don't even have to hypothesize on this because housing markets have been swinging around for decades. People on the sidelines were able to buy houses after 2008 that they'd never have been able to afford otherwise. It worked out GREAT for people who has been sidelined.
I entered the market at the brief but violent housing downturn in late 2019. I never would have been able to otherwise.
They suck for people who own a home and are depending on thier equity. It sucks for people who own a home and the banks get nervous.
Whenever I hear people saying to people without homes "be careful what you wish for" when they are wishing houses were cheaper... I just hear my old boss telling me how I shouldn't want a raise because it'll "bump me into a higher tax bracket".
It's bullshit half-truths which sound just plausible enough to convince you to not act in your own best interests.
If you own a property, its in your own financial best interests to have the value increase. If you do not own property, but want to, you want the price to go down.
You’re oversimplifying. Obviously if I want to buy a house I want the price to go down. What we are talking about here is that cheaper housing isn’t the only consequence of lower housing prices. And I’m not sure that comparing it to saying a higher tax bracket is in any way an adequate comparison given the tax brackets just don’t work that way at all. Like I wouldn’t even call that a half truth.
I’m also not saying that nobody would benefit, what I’m trying to point out is that the net gain wouldn’t be the same as say legislation that actually increased the housing supply. If your end goal is to be able to own a house wishing for a housing market crash isn’t the best wish you can make. Private equity firms bought more houses after the 2008 crash than the people sitting on the sidelines.
At the end of the day what you’re actually wishing for is one last housing crash otherwise you’re just hoping that it crashes again for other people after you buy your house and you’re stuck there.
Ok, I can accept what I think I just read:
"Although a drop in housing prices would provide a reprieve to those who do not own, the fundamental structure of housing as a commodity is the greater beast that must be defeated"
Now, that's true, I'm 100% on board.
I do feel like people sometimes let perfect become the enemy of good. "The homeless guy doesn't need a handout, he needs a job", they mutter as they walk on by.
If you wanna think that long term, I actually don't think you've gone far enough. Government supply initiatives? A start, but still a bandaid. Massive increasing tax rates on multiple ownership. Cap on residential property that can be owned by Corporations. Rent controls. Pull no punches to establish that housing is not a viable speculative investment. You build to sell to people who will live there.
What about the equity you're about to decimate? Government needs to get back big time into the pension game. Big time. How will I live? Eat? Get medical care as I age? Needs a fix.
Until those broad changes occur, I'll still be cheering every dip.
I had a feeling we were only disagreeing on the means not the ends.
I'm glad we both stayed curious. We fucking rock