The global housing market (and me)

OutOfBreath
OutOfBreath 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
«13

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • surferdude
    surferdude 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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    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.
  • surferdude
    surferdude 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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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"?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    "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....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    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.
  • sourdough
    sourdough 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.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr 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
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    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
  • sourdough
    sourdough 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.
  • surferdude
    surferdude 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
  • sourdough
    sourdough 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.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath 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

Categories