Options

The global housing market (and me)

OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
Is it a bubble waiting to burst horribly at some point, or can that kind of growth actually be maintained? It is particularly important for Norway since so many own their own homes, and it is government policy that it is best to own your own house. The growth in the norwegian market has been insane the last decade, right after we took a real nose-dive in the late eighties for a bit.

I got to thinking on this, since I've just bought an apartment with my girlfriend. Walking distance (20 minutes) from the centre of Bergen, about 70 square metres in size. The cost? About 310.000 US$

I am still reeling from the cost of it, myself. But maybe it's just the blues for the kickoff of my lifetime indebtedness to the banks, I dunno. But it's gonna be nice to have our own place, and no landlord to worry about.

Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    I often struggle with the land ownership issue, myself. It gives the illusion that land is a privilage not a basic right to life. So those with no means of ownership can not even take comfort in the ground beneath their own feet, for the world only belongs to those who can afford it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Access to land is a right. Why should ownership of land be a right?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    Access to land is a right. Why should ownership of land be a right?


    I guess, it shouldn't. No one should own the earth. Those who do not own any land lose the right to access owned land. One negates the other.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    I guess, it shouldn't. No one should own the earth. Those who do not own any land lose the right to access owned land. One negates the other.
    I'd be more than happy if we did away with land ownership and moved to a long-term, renewable lease model, with leasing being from gov't.

    Bet you never expected that from me.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    I'd be more than happy if we did away with land ownership and moved to a long-term, renewable lease model, with leasing being from gov't.

    Bet you never expected that from me.

    You are right, I wouldn't :) I'm not sure how I would feel about that because of distrust in the government. I believe it might possibly work in a true democracy void of corporate corruption.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    You are right, I wouldn't :) I'm not sure how I would feel about that because of distrust in the government. I believe it might possibly work in a true democracy void of corporate corruption.
    And there's the catch 22. You don't want private ownership and don't trust public ownership.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    And there's the catch 22. You don't want private ownership and don't trust public ownership.

    I would trust it if it's a true democracy ruled by the people. Education and participation have to be wide spread and encouraged from a young age for this vision to be realized. Definitely a worthwhile goal, I'd say
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    know1know1 Posts: 6,763
    surferdude wrote:
    I'd be more than happy if we did away with land ownership and moved to a long-term, renewable lease model, with leasing being from gov't.

    Bet you never expected that from me.

    I struggle with the concept of land ownership myself. Of course, in your example above it would be the government that owned that land, and where I struggle is trying to figure out how land could even be ownable.

    (and I just sold my house and am in the process of buying a new one)
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    know1 wrote:
    I struggle with the concept of land ownership myself. Of course, in your example above it would be the government that owned that land, and where I struggle is trying to figure out how land could even be ownable.

    (and I just sold my house and am in the process of buying a new one)
    There's a Aussie Aboriginal philosophy that people belong to the land. But due to living conditions they never had to deal with crowds.
    Many Native North Americans had this same philosopht but without a central government they wee nearly always at war over disputed land. Which really goes to show they believed in ownership, and only professed otherwise.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    There's a Aussie Aboriginal philosophy that people belong to the land. But due to living conditions they never had to deal with crowds.
    Many Native North Americans had this same philosopht but without a central government they wee nearly always at war over disputed land. Which really goes to show they believed in ownership, and only professed otherwise.

    Here's a quote that comes to mind when discussing nation building and land conflicts. It says to me that we take pride in owning the Earth and will kill to maintain our ownership of it.

    "Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others." Emma Goldman
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    I'd be more than happy if we did away with land ownership and moved to a long-term, renewable lease model, with leasing being from gov't.

    Bet you never expected that from me.

    :eek:

    How is giving one organization ownership of all land "doing away with land ownership"?
  • Options
    "Conceit, arrogance and egotism are the essentials of patriotism.... Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all others." Emma Goldman

    I'll toast to Emma Goldman....
  • Options
    surferdude wrote:
    There's a Aussie Aboriginal philosophy that people belong to the land. But due to living conditions they never had to deal with crowds.

    And because they were hunter-gatherers they never had the need for a philosophy of "owning land".

    No one has a divine right to dirt. The right to dirt extends from its use, not its Creator.
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    [quote="surferdude
    Many Native North Americans had this same philosopht but without a central government they wee nearly always at war over disputed land. Which really goes to show they believed in ownership, and only professed otherwise.[/quote"]
    True, but there were also many other First nations that lived at peace with each other and shared the land without going to war so they may not have been so adamant about land ownership. In fact, most nomadic FN groups likely shared land peacefully at some point annually without conflict. Secondly, although they may have claimed territory rights for their own groups, they didn't so much believe in private property in the family or individual level.
  • Options
    jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Public "ownership" of the buffalo population resulted in almost total decimation of the population (from both native and white overhunting), whereas private ownership of cattle resulted in branding, stewardship, protection, propagation and growth of the population.

    "Public" ownership = no stewardship. When people own something they genrally care for its continuation and increase in value.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Options
    jeffbr wrote:
    Public "ownership" of the buffalo population resulted in almost total decimation of the population (from both native and white overhunting), whereas private ownership of cattle resulted in branding, stewardship, protection, propagation and growth of the population.

    "Public" ownership = no stewardship. When people own something they genrally care for its continuation and increase in value.

    There can be regulation to discourage misuse.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    There are many wilderness areas that are not "owned" by anyone. they may be regulated and be within someone's borders but these are the places with the healthiest environments inthe world.
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    sourdough wrote:
    True, but there were also many other First nations that lived at peace with each other and shared the land without going to war so they may not have been so adamant about land ownership. In fact, most nomadic FN groups likely shared land peacefully at some point annually without conflict. Secondly, although they may have claimed territory rights for their own groups, they didn't so much believe in private property in the family or individual level.
    I believe FN land claims are for 275% of the land in BC. Obviously there is some idea of ownership and land disputes between tribes. Canada is more peaceful than any FN group I am aware of. If you count Afghanistan, which is a UN mission, we've been in 4 wars in 100 years. Two of those wars were to help friends that were attacked and none of the wars of land disputes.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    surferdude wrote:
    I believe FN land claims are for 275% of the land in BC. Obviously there is some idea of ownership and land disputes between tribes. Canada is more peaceful than any FN group I am aware of. If you count Afghanistan, which is a UN mission, we've been in 4 wars in 100 years. Two of those wars were to help friends that were attacked and none of the wars of land disputes.
    Yes, now there are land disputes because we have a system where they cannot share any longer. Different environment completely. The thing about BC particularly, is that many FN groups rarely encountered any other groups. We have I think 80% of all of the FN language groups (in NA and not including Central America) because of our terrain they were able to be quite segregated and weren't quite as nomadic, so there really was very little conflict in BC in general. Furthermore, we don't have good historical records to support either of us.
  • Options
    OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    I'm never gonna figure out this place. Usually when I try to spark a debate, it falls dead on the ground before it even started. But now that I made a thread basically to whine about how much money I spent on a house and some questions about the global housing bubble, and presto, we have a fullblown thread on ownership of land. :p

    I'm not complaining, so go about your business by all means. Looking good so far. :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Options
    OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    As for the landownership debate, I share ffg's scepticism towards a centralized outrenting system. Mind you, I feel the current market situation is out of control, and people have to spend way too much of their money just to have a place to live these days. I dont know if there are other options available. Perhaps some partial regulation of certain pressure-areas perhaps? I dont know.

    But for the entire ownership debate, I feel it somewhat beside the point. One thing is whether someone has ultimate right to a piece of land. the question is how are we gonna separate "mine" from "yours" otherwise? Only so many can live on said piece of land, and they all want the best spot for themselves. How else to resolve that other than through some kind of ownership or related right? I can agree that ownership should perhaps have limits, but when we get right down to personal space, your home, your belongings, your family. How to decide who can be where? The current system works by size of wallet. That is one way. Is other solutions preferable or wanted? I dunno. But I do think steps can be taken to cool down the housing market, and perhaps stabilize prices, or at least reduce their growth. When you have to pay more than 300.000 US$ for a small 2-room apartment a bit outside the city, well...

    But I'm gonna do just fine probably, so no worries there. If the course is kept, I can resell it in 5-10 years, and make a handsome profit. But I do see signs of an out of control system here.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Options
    even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


    And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • Options
    OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    even flow? wrote:
    I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


    And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.
    Neighbours are inevitable while living in or near a city.

    And although I can somewhat sympathize with a conflict perspective you seem to lay out here, I find that such a perspective isn't very fruitful always. When it comes to housing, at least in Norway, the majority of people are home-owners, hence the tyrants are to an extent ourselves then. Of course there are shady actors in the market, and dont get me started on real estate agents and their role.

    But it's not necessarily a conspiracy by "the man" to wrench out one's dollars that things cost money. In this case, I am questioning the high cost, not a cost in itself. And if you wanna go the conflict line all the way, then as long as you live in a society you are screwed anyways.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    even flow? wrote:
    I understand wanting to own your own house on your own land. But to purchase an apartment with some other people. What real estate have you really purchased? You share a piece of land with other people who may cook bad smelling things, tell you to turn your stereo down, or down right not get along with you. Sorry, I just don't understand the demand for expensive condos. That you couldn't swing a dog in.


    And I sure don't agree with people owning the land. As you can't bury your family on your plot of land anymore. You can't really do too much with your house or land without a permit. But since they want us humans to play so many of their games. This is one I don't mind playing. Considering they rape you for rent, if you got the down, go for it.
    For one thing, its by far the most environmentally sustainable way to live. Density is something that is going to become a necessity for city planners as our population grows we have no choice as we are running out of land to build upon and it is so poor on a number of levels to support sprawling communities where people sit in their cars for 2+ hours per day commuting to and from work. This is bad for the environment and for communities in general. Not to mention the financial inefficiency that the gov't must pay to support these. The idea is dense communities where people live, work and play.
  • Options
    Sourdough,

    There is enough land on this planet to give every man, woman, and child roughly 20 acres for themselves. Now, obviously not all this land is great for habitation but the fact remains that there is no land crisis in this world.
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    Sourdough,

    There is enough land on this planet to give every man, woman, and child roughly 20 acres for themselves. Now, obviously not all this land is great for habitation but the fact remains that there is no land crisis in this world.
    Really? enough to give all 6 billion (and quickly rising) a lot of land, still have enough to plant trees and forests, grow crops and pastureland, preserve lakes and watersheds, and I guess it would be nice to have some natural spaces... It is not possible. Lets not forget that massive amounts of our landscape are uninhabitable. Deserts, mountainous regions, glaicated areas etc... Also what about rainforests, ecological reserves, parks? Do we WANT to destroy those? Aren't they essential to the health of our planet. Google "ecological footprint" and see how many planets it would take to sustain a planet at your standard of living. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support your assertion.
  • Options
    sourdough wrote:
    Really? enough to give all 6 billion (and quickly rising) a lot of land, still have enough to plant trees and forests, grow crops and pastureland, preserve lakes and watersheds, and I guess it would be nice to have some natural spaces... It is not possible. Lets not forget that massive amounts of our landscape are uninhabitable. Deserts, mountainous regions, glaicated areas etc... Also what about rainforests, ecological reserves, parks? Do we WANT to destroy those? Aren't they essential to the health of our planet. Google "ecological footprint" and see how many planets it would take to sustain a planet at your standard of living. Unfortunately, the math doesn't support your assertion.

    The math doesn't support my assertion? Then how are 6,000,000,000 currently surviving off of less than half of the arable land on earth? Magic?
  • Options
    sourdoughsourdough Posts: 579
    The math doesn't support my assertion? Then how are 6,000,000,000 currently surviving off of less than half of the arable land on earth? Magic?
    For starters, although we in north America Eruope etc are living at a high standard of living with not only in our physical dwelling space but with the amount of consumption that we participate in, the vast majority of the earth's population lives within a fraction of that space (see Africa, India etc) and do not enjoy such luxuries. yes, we are at present producing enough food to feed everyone, however, if we expect everyone to live at a standard of living where everyone be living at the same standard of the average north American, things aren't quite as rosy.

    Furthermore, as far as city density goes, it is impossible to efficiently continue to build out and away from where jobs are in sprawling neighbourhoods. See Seattle...
  • Options
    sourdough wrote:
    For starters, although we in north America Eruope etc are living at a high standard of living with not only in our physical dwelling space but with the amount of consumption that we participate in, the vast majority of the earth's population lives within a fraction of that space (see Africa, India etc) and do not enjoy such luxuries.

    The "vast majority" of the earth's population lives in the "vast majority" of the world's land space. Non-North American and European territory account for over 60% of the world's land space.

    Certainly most people in these territories don't enjoy "such luxuries". Should they? Will they? Perhaps. But that is not the problem the environmentalists want to turn it into. Your "ecological footprint" site, for example, tells me that my lifestyle takes 15 acres and therefore "requires" roughly 4 Earths by multiplying 15 * 6,000,000,000. What it doesn't consider is that I don't need 15 acres for myself alone. Who's math doesn't add up here?
    yes, we are at present producing enough food to feed everyone, however, if we expect everyone to live at a standard of living where everyone be living at the same standard of the average north American, things aren't quite as rosy.

    Who in god's name expects that?
  • Options
    even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    sourdough wrote:
    For one thing, its by far the most environmentally sustainable way to live. Density is something that is going to become a necessity for city planners as our population grows we have no choice as we are running out of land to build upon and it is so poor on a number of levels to support sprawling communities where people sit in their cars for 2+ hours per day commuting to and from work. This is bad for the environment and for communities in general. Not to mention the financial inefficiency that the gov't must pay to support these. The idea is dense communities where people live, work and play.


    Trust me I understand why, I just don't understand it being called real estate. Aside from being an eye sore. They are meant for city dwelling. Most people move away from the city to enjoy some space for themselves. That is why I did it. I can't stand people, better yet, them being right on top of me.
    You've changed your place in this world!
Sign In or Register to comment.