Hosing prices cannot be lowered under the current system, everything from the financing of construction to the financing of the purchase to the financing of the infrastructure that supports that house is reliant on growth. Can a finite area grow forever?
Those shitty stick builds that Ben is building will not hold value in the long term; the low density and car dependence will eat at their value via property taxes to support low density and paying for driving. Not to mention modern stick builds do not have the lifespan of even a Sears and Roebuck kit build from 100 years ago.
David, I feel like every about 1/10 episodes needs to be devoted to blue sky ideas that challenge political norms. You know in your lefty heart of hearts that we are not getting out of this with techo-solutionisum. A pod on how we might move away from houses being stores of value and move to co ownership models.
I'm glad you brought up the constant tension between lowering the price of housing and lowering the value of that delicious equity current homeowners love so much. Our Fearless Leader seems to be the only politician brave (or dumb?) enough to give voice to the desire of current homeowners to see the value of their investments increase at the expense of those people unfortunate enough to be trying to buy. Hopefully more politicians will step forward and address this tension head first, but from the opposite direction of the Fearless Leader. This is of course only possible at the state and national level since local representatives do not represent people who aspire to live in their communities, only the current residents. The economically ignorant claim that ownership is somehow superior to rental also should be addressed; increased cost for people to relocate to an area with more jobs primarily but also the fallacy that a home is a superior investment to equities as well.
This is a really tough one and Trump is probably smart politically to talk up this.
As per Gemini:
Voting Rates by Housing Status
Homeowners: 58.1% turnout among eligible voters in recent midterms.
Renters: 37.0% turnout among eligible voters in recent midterms.
General U.S. Homeownership Rate: Approximately 65.0% (as of mid-2026 reports)
Add to this the clear and present risk of LOSING value in the house vs the potential gains (lower price of housing) for potential future owners and you can see why is always the homeowners the ones yelling and screaming. We are in a whole here, as David said, it aint good when so much of the net worth of people is in housing.
Hosing prices cannot be lowered under the current system, everything from the financing of construction to the financing of the purchase to the financing of the infrastructure that supports that house is reliant on growth. Can a finite area grow forever?
Those shitty stick builds that Ben is building will not hold value in the long term; the low density and car dependence will eat at their value via property taxes to support low density and paying for driving. Not to mention modern stick builds do not have the lifespan of even a Sears and Roebuck kit build from 100 years ago.
David, I feel like every about 1/10 episodes needs to be devoted to blue sky ideas that challenge political norms. You know in your lefty heart of hearts that we are not getting out of this with techo-solutionisum. A pod on how we might move away from houses being stores of value and move to co ownership models.
Limitarianism - Ingrid Robeyns
What's Left - Malcolm Harris
More Everything Forever - Adam Becker
Following up on the “blue sky” episode recs- would love to hear David interview Kim Stanley Robinson
I'm glad you brought up the constant tension between lowering the price of housing and lowering the value of that delicious equity current homeowners love so much. Our Fearless Leader seems to be the only politician brave (or dumb?) enough to give voice to the desire of current homeowners to see the value of their investments increase at the expense of those people unfortunate enough to be trying to buy. Hopefully more politicians will step forward and address this tension head first, but from the opposite direction of the Fearless Leader. This is of course only possible at the state and national level since local representatives do not represent people who aspire to live in their communities, only the current residents. The economically ignorant claim that ownership is somehow superior to rental also should be addressed; increased cost for people to relocate to an area with more jobs primarily but also the fallacy that a home is a superior investment to equities as well.
This is a really tough one and Trump is probably smart politically to talk up this.
As per Gemini:
Voting Rates by Housing Status
Homeowners: 58.1% turnout among eligible voters in recent midterms.
Renters: 37.0% turnout among eligible voters in recent midterms.
General U.S. Homeownership Rate: Approximately 65.0% (as of mid-2026 reports)
Add to this the clear and present risk of LOSING value in the house vs the potential gains (lower price of housing) for potential future owners and you can see why is always the homeowners the ones yelling and screaming. We are in a whole here, as David said, it aint good when so much of the net worth of people is in housing.