Real World Assets (RWA) is the hot stuff these days. While it is still early the mega-banks are starting to pile on.
One of the reasons is that any infrastructure built on blockchain is reusable for free by everybody (minus transaction free). Uniswap and Aave have been chugging along for years and are starting to acquire reputation beyond retail. Privacy is moving along as well where you can tokenize, say, bonds and hide the in/out flows with ZK proofs.
Free (minus transaction fee) could be used to describe traditional banking and a lot of other services as well. What will happen if/when this (or any) approach gets really popular is some group will figure out how to control the fee and start ratcheting it up in classic rent-seeking style. Capitalism always finds a way to monopoly.
> Real World Assets (RWA) is the hot stuff these days.
> Uniswap and Aave have been chugging along for years
How hot? I haven't heard of it or them, but that's hardly strong evidence. What do you see?
> One of the reasons is that any infrastructure built on blockchain is reusable for free by everybody
Does that have an impact?
I doubt consumers care about free. They certainly care about high levels of integrity (my money is safe) and availability (I can access my money), as well as profit (interest / gain). I've never heard a consumer say, 'I use Bank Z because their financial operations run on FOSS.'
Mega-banks would seem to dislike FOSS. They want barriers to entry; they will find it inefficient, frustrating, and very limiting - with a significant and direct impact on their bottom lines - to deal with a bunch of amateurs. That's why you're not allowed on the trading floors, electronic or physical, and Goldman Sachs directors won't take your calls (until you establish yourself).
I suspect free matters to undercapitalized startups, amateur financial services, and hackers interested in innovation in this area.
The "reusable for free" aspect is about building ecosystems. Abstractions that can be freely integrated with have low barriers to entry to existing complementary systems being updated to integrate with them, or with new systems evolving to wrap them or work in terms of them.
This (plus the fact that blockchain smart contracts are generally limited in size) has the effect of commoditizing much of any given design, instead of keeping it solely in the hands of whoever made it. Things don't remain proprietary; people build their own versions of each contract that are "compatible" per whatever ABI the ecosystem was relying on, and then the ecosystem generalizes its integrations to include those de-facto-ABI compatible systems as well.
And this makes the path from the development of a new experimental + proprietary + closed-world system that requires direct interaction through its own first-party frontend, through to what investment bankers would call "financialization" of the abstraction that system defines as a general-purpose category of financial instrument, very short on blockchains.
This means that in the modern day, there's often far more promise in how financialized a given system is likely to get, when that system starts off as a set of blockchain smart contracts, than when that system starts off as a proprietary brick-and-mortar financial vendor's firm-internal non-market-tradable security.
Meanwhile, the brick-and-mortar fi-tech firm to get their security financialized, they have to convince brick-and-mortar exchanges to carry it for trading; and then other vendors have to come along and copy that success (usually with all the same exchange-side friction + backroom dealings required); and then someone further has to come along and define an abstraction into existence for those live instruments to be reframed in terms of; and everyone has to faff about redoing how their systems work so that those instruments actually fit the abstraction, since the abstraction will be what financial regulations for the financialized security will be written in terms of, and so their own original versions of the security may end up legally non-compliant. And that whole process takes ages — especially if the fi-tech companies push back on the abstraction standard, insisting that their version should be permitted as a MAY option or grandfathered in somehow.
We mostly agree on your points. As I said, the FOSS aspects (which you describe well) are of interest to "undercapitalized startups, amateur financial services, and hackers interested in innovation in this area."
I think my additional points are essential, however: Consumers (and the public) are not interested in rapid development of financial instruments, they are interested in integrity and availability. To them, 'rapid' is a negative. And status quo powers in the financial industry, the banks, are not interested for other reasons too.
Maybe the best thing to develop is a way to make blockchain financial instruments have integrity and availability to match the existing financial system. The integrity and availability are awful, with a high frequency of scams, arguably enabled by the 'rapid' development aspects. If integrity and availability could be integrated into the abstractions, there might be a lot more interest.
Well eventually consumers don't really know how the system they are using works. Prediction markets run on blockchain but few people know this. Robinhood is offering trading in perpetuals of companies that haven't IPOed yet and you would not know.
How can it be hot? Real means that it has a tangible value, a ceiling and so it cannot be charged up by the psychological hypetrain of the 'new paradigm' and also the financial hypetrain of number going up.
It is a pretty confined upside if anything
I looked into it years ago when I wanted to tokenize small firefighting planes and helicopters hoping that being the person in charge of the entity doing the tokenization I could be staying at the premises of the private companies that lease the planes and helicopters and hold the contracts to do the actual firefighting.
My hope was that being identified as the 'owner of the planes' eventually the crew would allow me to fly the missions as a +1 even though I don't have the licenses.
But never crossed my mind that this could be make me a millionaire
But how do investors collect on this collateral? Do they have any legal leverage? And how does blockchain help them?
Blockchain and tokenization would seem to help with transactions with investors who are far away who don't know the farmers personally. Again, how do they collect?
And if you're local and know the farmer, why do you need blockchain? A spreadsheet, a piece of paper, or just a handshake would do.
I would imagine local credit is more expensive to access and doesn't have the pre-existing structure to account for more reliable collateral. Another user here[0] says that using cows as collateral is an old scam there. So either this is an expansion of the scam in the worst case (possible) or it's to compensate for the fact that local lenders are trained by interaction to not lend to what looks like the latest scheme (i.e. this well has been long ago poisoned).
e.g. if you go to suburban Japan and you walk by someone on the street who asks you for help and needs to call someone, you may lend them your phone. If the same thing were to happen in SF, you shouldn't. And so, perhaps, if you were a good guy you go ask a Japanese tourist haha! Okay, well the analogy is a little stretched but hopefully you get something out of it.
huh? platform? lol. you go to bank with proof of collateral.. get secured loan. wtf does everything need a platform or some VC garbage scrambling to find rent.
Not familiar with the situation in Brazil, but it could be as simple as local credit being harder to get than global credit, or a desire to deal in a denomination that local credit doesn't typically offer without hitting a conversion fee.
A local farmer could perhaps figure out how to contact a swiss banker all on their own, but it would be a lot easier, and cheaper, if there were single place (or better yet, a few competing places) that offer a central place that anyone looking to use/supply credit could come together.
There’s a credit agreement that will spell out those details:
> To turn cattle into trusted financial guarantees or collateral without requiring inspectors to visit the property, Cowmed equips cows with an AI-powered Smarty Collar. These collars constantly monitor health, behavior, and location. The raw data is then converted into an encrypted digital identity tied directly to the B3 credit agreement. [Emphasis mine]
I wonder what opportunities exist for a malicious actor to intercept the data flow and substitute it with their own, either for the purposes of devaluing someone else's cow or to increase the value of their own--or even to generate fake cow biometrics, feed them directly to devices, and pretend you have a real, live herd.
Tokenizing physical things is kind of dumb for one reason: it's not trustless and it relies on there being a big mean cop somewhere in the transaction. Say i tokenize my couch and then sell you the the token. Suppose you show up to my house to claim your couch. I can tell you no. You can then sue me and try to get the state to send a big mean cop to get it, or it's equivalent in cash.
I've yet to see a scheme that makes this trustless somehow. If you don't have that you don't have anything.
This is how economy should work, based on physical tangible assets that owned/existed, not some imaginary value based on whatever speculation, that what ruined housing market, what inflated stocks and allowed cons to get wealthier, it’s also why a lot of companies make fake job posting or pr stunts, it’s all to inflate that imaginary market currency then use it to get a real cash, that should be illegal and is a form of Ponzi scheme fraud, if a house as-built cost is 70k, it shouldn’t be sold for 800k, and the owner shouldn’t be able to use that speculative value to get a 600k loan.
It sounds like you're suggesting a barter economy. It works like this:
1. Bob grows oranges, and wants shoes
2. Ted hunts for meat, and wants oranges
3. Sam makes shoes, and wants meat
The only way this can work is to have a 3-way transaction. But with a money system, the money is traded without needing a 3-way transaction. It's much more efficient.
Not really, I am not saying to remove moneys entirely and use assets trading only, but the money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets, actual cost, not some made up speculation. As I mentioned above, a house that cost 100k to build and handover should never exceed that value plus profit markup, the older it gets, the cheaper it should be, just like any other assets and like how japan did it to solve the greedy banks/landlords. But obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner as in normal democracy it will never be voted for, since most voters are owners. Other examples apply too on why things are waay over inflated for what they worth, including stocks.
This is because our glorious government makes it illegal to build housing. Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Your policy doesn’t even work in CA, new housing is absurdly expensive to build and the profits aren't even high.
> Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
> “A lot of younger people these days don’t have many possessions, unlike older generations – they have a few items of clothing and not that much money, so these apartments are ideal for them,” said Nakama, whose 1,500 micro-apartments have an occupancy rate of 98%.
Yeah fuck that shit. That's just exploitation, and no wonder the few young people that Japan has end up with all sort of mental health issues, no partners and a birthrate near zero. Nothing to own because there's nowhere to store something you own, not enough space to even invite another person over, much less have sex.
Cram me into such an "apartment", I'd go and search for a gun to off myself.
Why use suicidal hyperbole. It’s low class along with the language.
I don’t know if what you stated is enough evidence to prove much of anything either. Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
> Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
The thing is, cheap housing comes at a cost. Housing barely qualifying as more than "a roof over the head" is the most efficient use under capitalism... but as usual with capitalism, the second-order effects / externalities (most importantly, the collapsed birth rartes) aren't priced in. Unfortunately, for Japan's society it may already be too late to turn around.
And even more unfortunately, here in the Western countries we are headed to repeating the mistakes Japan has already shown.
>Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
If it meant I could cut my rental or mortgage bill in half, absolutely. People have different preferences, not everyone needs or wants the same amount of space.
To the contrary, IMHO. When you have to stay at the office until the boss leaves... you don't need a large apartment, you won't have much free time to enjoy it anyway.
The excessive amount of both fake and real work makes such horribly insane housing practices possible in the first place - if people had more free time, they'd go nuts from being cooped up.
There are no moneys, only money. I don’t understand your reasoning. Why should a house never become more expensive? I built a house in s remote area, 20 years later the region is much more appealing, public transport, shopping, why should I charge less than the market is willing to pay?
Because a house is a shelter, not an investment, go start a business if you want that. Japan did the right thing and made it a depreciated asset to end this ponzi scheme
>than the market willing to pay
That’s the crux, a market speculation. Well, the market is also willing to pay more for death match gambling, that doesn’t mean it should be there.
A cave is also a shelter. You gotta distinguish between some investment money buying properties in thousands, and an individual buying a house to maybe sell it for care at a later stage. If I buy a house and renovate everything, bring the standard up, why should I not be allowed to recoup the money.
Never been to Japan, they seem like smart people but they do have some issues, especially with elderly care. Maybe if they could sell their property they wouldn’t suffer loneliness so much.
> money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets
The US had such a system before 1914. Money was exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate. That system was destroyed in 1914 with the Federal Reserve Act, and the inevitable result was endless inflation and debasing of the currency.
The once common compliment "sound as a dollar" has vanished from the lexicon.
The USD is considered the most sound currency in the world and has been for generations; maybe it's the most sound in the history of humanity (possibly a consequence of modern international relations and communications). The great majority of international transactions are in USD. At small shops in a lot out of the way places, they accept USD; many prefer it to their local currency.
yes, your plan would require extreme levels of oppression. it's a non-starter in anything remotely resembling a democracy. and if implemented, the outcome would still not be what you expect.
houses get more expensive due to changes in scarcity, i.e. the number of people who want to buy houses (and can afford to) in an area increasing faster than the number of people who want to sell houses there.
the main lever a government has, is to make new construction easier and cheaper -- that increases the supply. commies don't seem to like that, often because they're NIMBYs, but also because new construction tends to be in the high end segment. commies don't seem to understand that people who move into newly built high end housing do so by moving out of existing, on average slightly less high end housing, which then becomes free, and so on... all the way down to the lowest end housing. increasing supply at the highest end increases housing supply in all segments, though with increasing delay.
an option that doesn't help much with existing scarcity, but with future changes in scarcity, would be a recurring land tax (proportional to the local value of owned land). in order to be democratically feasible this would have to be introduced very gradually (over the course of 30+ years) and combined with tax decreases elsewhere.
Real World Assets (RWA) is the hot stuff these days. While it is still early the mega-banks are starting to pile on.
One of the reasons is that any infrastructure built on blockchain is reusable for free by everybody (minus transaction free). Uniswap and Aave have been chugging along for years and are starting to acquire reputation beyond retail. Privacy is moving along as well where you can tokenize, say, bonds and hide the in/out flows with ZK proofs.
You can track RWA issuance here https://app.rwa.xyz/
Free (minus transaction fee) could be used to describe traditional banking and a lot of other services as well. What will happen if/when this (or any) approach gets really popular is some group will figure out how to control the fee and start ratcheting it up in classic rent-seeking style. Capitalism always finds a way to monopoly.
Or there will be wholesale fraud similar to how index funds have been hijacked by companies with crazy valuations.
> Real World Assets (RWA) is the hot stuff these days.
> Uniswap and Aave have been chugging along for years
How hot? I haven't heard of it or them, but that's hardly strong evidence. What do you see?
> One of the reasons is that any infrastructure built on blockchain is reusable for free by everybody
Does that have an impact?
I doubt consumers care about free. They certainly care about high levels of integrity (my money is safe) and availability (I can access my money), as well as profit (interest / gain). I've never heard a consumer say, 'I use Bank Z because their financial operations run on FOSS.'
Mega-banks would seem to dislike FOSS. They want barriers to entry; they will find it inefficient, frustrating, and very limiting - with a significant and direct impact on their bottom lines - to deal with a bunch of amateurs. That's why you're not allowed on the trading floors, electronic or physical, and Goldman Sachs directors won't take your calls (until you establish yourself).
I suspect free matters to undercapitalized startups, amateur financial services, and hackers interested in innovation in this area.
But again, there's a lot I don't know ...
The "reusable for free" aspect is about building ecosystems. Abstractions that can be freely integrated with have low barriers to entry to existing complementary systems being updated to integrate with them, or with new systems evolving to wrap them or work in terms of them.
This (plus the fact that blockchain smart contracts are generally limited in size) has the effect of commoditizing much of any given design, instead of keeping it solely in the hands of whoever made it. Things don't remain proprietary; people build their own versions of each contract that are "compatible" per whatever ABI the ecosystem was relying on, and then the ecosystem generalizes its integrations to include those de-facto-ABI compatible systems as well.
And this makes the path from the development of a new experimental + proprietary + closed-world system that requires direct interaction through its own first-party frontend, through to what investment bankers would call "financialization" of the abstraction that system defines as a general-purpose category of financial instrument, very short on blockchains.
This means that in the modern day, there's often far more promise in how financialized a given system is likely to get, when that system starts off as a set of blockchain smart contracts, than when that system starts off as a proprietary brick-and-mortar financial vendor's firm-internal non-market-tradable security.
Meanwhile, the brick-and-mortar fi-tech firm to get their security financialized, they have to convince brick-and-mortar exchanges to carry it for trading; and then other vendors have to come along and copy that success (usually with all the same exchange-side friction + backroom dealings required); and then someone further has to come along and define an abstraction into existence for those live instruments to be reframed in terms of; and everyone has to faff about redoing how their systems work so that those instruments actually fit the abstraction, since the abstraction will be what financial regulations for the financialized security will be written in terms of, and so their own original versions of the security may end up legally non-compliant. And that whole process takes ages — especially if the fi-tech companies push back on the abstraction standard, insisting that their version should be permitted as a MAY option or grandfathered in somehow.
We mostly agree on your points. As I said, the FOSS aspects (which you describe well) are of interest to "undercapitalized startups, amateur financial services, and hackers interested in innovation in this area."
I think my additional points are essential, however: Consumers (and the public) are not interested in rapid development of financial instruments, they are interested in integrity and availability. To them, 'rapid' is a negative. And status quo powers in the financial industry, the banks, are not interested for other reasons too.
Maybe the best thing to develop is a way to make blockchain financial instruments have integrity and availability to match the existing financial system. The integrity and availability are awful, with a high frequency of scams, arguably enabled by the 'rapid' development aspects. If integrity and availability could be integrated into the abstractions, there might be a lot more interest.
Well eventually consumers don't really know how the system they are using works. Prediction markets run on blockchain but few people know this. Robinhood is offering trading in perpetuals of companies that haven't IPOed yet and you would not know.
How can it be hot? Real means that it has a tangible value, a ceiling and so it cannot be charged up by the psychological hypetrain of the 'new paradigm' and also the financial hypetrain of number going up.
It is a pretty confined upside if anything
I looked into it years ago when I wanted to tokenize small firefighting planes and helicopters hoping that being the person in charge of the entity doing the tokenization I could be staying at the premises of the private companies that lease the planes and helicopters and hold the contracts to do the actual firefighting.
My hope was that being identified as the 'owner of the planes' eventually the crew would allow me to fly the missions as a +1 even though I don't have the licenses.
But never crossed my mind that this could be make me a millionaire
Using livestock as collateral is one of the oldest ways to obtain a loan.
It's also one of the most famous recurrent scams in Brazil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banditti_of_the_Plains
But how do investors collect on this collateral? Do they have any legal leverage? And how does blockchain help them?
Blockchain and tokenization would seem to help with transactions with investors who are far away who don't know the farmers personally. Again, how do they collect?
And if you're local and know the farmer, why do you need blockchain? A spreadsheet, a piece of paper, or just a handshake would do.
Brilliant idea, but why the crypto? Couldn't you simply do the collar + web connection... without crypto?
I would imagine local credit is more expensive to access and doesn't have the pre-existing structure to account for more reliable collateral. Another user here[0] says that using cows as collateral is an old scam there. So either this is an expansion of the scam in the worst case (possible) or it's to compensate for the fact that local lenders are trained by interaction to not lend to what looks like the latest scheme (i.e. this well has been long ago poisoned).
e.g. if you go to suburban Japan and you walk by someone on the street who asks you for help and needs to call someone, you may lend them your phone. If the same thing were to happen in SF, you shouldn't. And so, perhaps, if you were a good guy you go ask a Japanese tourist haha! Okay, well the analogy is a little stretched but hopefully you get something out of it.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49049723
With what platform? Stripe, Visa and Banks that arbitrarily ban users?
huh? platform? lol. you go to bank with proof of collateral.. get secured loan. wtf does everything need a platform or some VC garbage scrambling to find rent.
Not familiar with the situation in Brazil, but it could be as simple as local credit being harder to get than global credit, or a desire to deal in a denomination that local credit doesn't typically offer without hitting a conversion fee.
A local farmer could perhaps figure out how to contact a swiss banker all on their own, but it would be a lot easier, and cheaper, if there were single place (or better yet, a few competing places) that offer a central place that anyone looking to use/supply credit could come together.
even the title says the bank does not give you the loan
because blockchain blockchains!
I must confess I'm enamored with the concept of blockchains, but find their value questionable for the most part.
I even worked for a blockchain startup (non-crypto) but left on less than good terms and a fair amount of PTSD. They were nuts!
"It also includes built-in safeguards that allow the farmer to swap one dead cow for a live one."
Is that backwards? If you own the token for a cow, and it dies, what happens?
There’s a credit agreement that will spell out those details:
> To turn cattle into trusted financial guarantees or collateral without requiring inspectors to visit the property, Cowmed equips cows with an AI-powered Smarty Collar. These collars constantly monitor health, behavior, and location. The raw data is then converted into an encrypted digital identity tied directly to the B3 credit agreement. [Emphasis mine]
I wonder what opportunities exist for a malicious actor to intercept the data flow and substitute it with their own, either for the purposes of devaluing someone else's cow or to increase the value of their own--or even to generate fake cow biometrics, feed them directly to devices, and pretend you have a real, live herd.
It's crypto. Someone will do that.
>local college student sells 11 brazillian cattle to pay off student debt
Cowmed equips cows with an AI-powered Smarty Collar. These collars constantly monitor health, behavior, and location.
They've had these for cows in America for years, and even for people in the hospital. Long before "A.I."
What makes these "smart," as compared to something like a bio button?
https://www.medtronic.com/en-us/healthcare-professionals/pro...
Wait - is this finally crypto’s mass adoption event we’ve all been waiting for?
finally, economics explained by cows, so i can finally understand it
Tokenizing physical things is kind of dumb for one reason: it's not trustless and it relies on there being a big mean cop somewhere in the transaction. Say i tokenize my couch and then sell you the the token. Suppose you show up to my house to claim your couch. I can tell you no. You can then sue me and try to get the state to send a big mean cop to get it, or it's equivalent in cash.
I've yet to see a scheme that makes this trustless somehow. If you don't have that you don't have anything.
> We take the cow, which is a real and tangible asset, and transform it into a digital asset
Fine... if you don't need the cow too.
This is how economy should work, based on physical tangible assets that owned/existed, not some imaginary value based on whatever speculation, that what ruined housing market, what inflated stocks and allowed cons to get wealthier, it’s also why a lot of companies make fake job posting or pr stunts, it’s all to inflate that imaginary market currency then use it to get a real cash, that should be illegal and is a form of Ponzi scheme fraud, if a house as-built cost is 70k, it shouldn’t be sold for 800k, and the owner shouldn’t be able to use that speculative value to get a 600k loan.
It sounds like you're suggesting a barter economy. It works like this:
1. Bob grows oranges, and wants shoes
2. Ted hunts for meat, and wants oranges
3. Sam makes shoes, and wants meat
The only way this can work is to have a 3-way transaction. But with a money system, the money is traded without needing a 3-way transaction. It's much more efficient.
Not really, I am not saying to remove moneys entirely and use assets trading only, but the money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets, actual cost, not some made up speculation. As I mentioned above, a house that cost 100k to build and handover should never exceed that value plus profit markup, the older it gets, the cheaper it should be, just like any other assets and like how japan did it to solve the greedy banks/landlords. But obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner as in normal democracy it will never be voted for, since most voters are owners. Other examples apply too on why things are waay over inflated for what they worth, including stocks.
This is because our glorious government makes it illegal to build housing. Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Your policy doesn’t even work in CA, new housing is absurdly expensive to build and the profits aren't even high.
> Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
> “A lot of younger people these days don’t have many possessions, unlike older generations – they have a few items of clothing and not that much money, so these apartments are ideal for them,” said Nakama, whose 1,500 micro-apartments have an occupancy rate of 98%.
Yeah fuck that shit. That's just exploitation, and no wonder the few young people that Japan has end up with all sort of mental health issues, no partners and a birthrate near zero. Nothing to own because there's nowhere to store something you own, not enough space to even invite another person over, much less have sex.
Cram me into such an "apartment", I'd go and search for a gun to off myself.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/20/you-could-cook...
Why use suicidal hyperbole. It’s low class along with the language.
I don’t know if what you stated is enough evidence to prove much of anything either. Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
> Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
The thing is, cheap housing comes at a cost. Housing barely qualifying as more than "a roof over the head" is the most efficient use under capitalism... but as usual with capitalism, the second-order effects / externalities (most importantly, the collapsed birth rartes) aren't priced in. Unfortunately, for Japan's society it may already be too late to turn around.
And even more unfortunately, here in the Western countries we are headed to repeating the mistakes Japan has already shown.
>Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
If it meant I could cut my rental or mortgage bill in half, absolutely. People have different preferences, not everyone needs or wants the same amount of space.
Japan’s work life balance, and their housing regulations are only slightly related and I’d say almost completely unrelated
> and I’d say almost completely unrelated
To the contrary, IMHO. When you have to stay at the office until the boss leaves... you don't need a large apartment, you won't have much free time to enjoy it anyway.
The excessive amount of both fake and real work makes such horribly insane housing practices possible in the first place - if people had more free time, they'd go nuts from being cooped up.
There are no moneys, only money. I don’t understand your reasoning. Why should a house never become more expensive? I built a house in s remote area, 20 years later the region is much more appealing, public transport, shopping, why should I charge less than the market is willing to pay?
Because a house is a shelter, not an investment, go start a business if you want that. Japan did the right thing and made it a depreciated asset to end this ponzi scheme
>than the market willing to pay
That’s the crux, a market speculation. Well, the market is also willing to pay more for death match gambling, that doesn’t mean it should be there.
A cave is also a shelter. You gotta distinguish between some investment money buying properties in thousands, and an individual buying a house to maybe sell it for care at a later stage. If I buy a house and renovate everything, bring the standard up, why should I not be allowed to recoup the money.
Never been to Japan, they seem like smart people but they do have some issues, especially with elderly care. Maybe if they could sell their property they wouldn’t suffer loneliness so much.
> obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner
The value of a house is determined by the Law of Supply and Demand. Endless attempts to legislate that away have all resulted in failure.
If there are 50 houses, and 100 buyers, the buyers willing to pay more will get the houses. No amount of authoritarianism is going to change that.
Did it cost 100k to build? How much was the cement worth? Etc. now to create a house from scratch, you must first invent the universe
> money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets
The US had such a system before 1914. Money was exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate. That system was destroyed in 1914 with the Federal Reserve Act, and the inevitable result was endless inflation and debasing of the currency.
The once common compliment "sound as a dollar" has vanished from the lexicon.
The USD is considered the most sound currency in the world and has been for generations; maybe it's the most sound in the history of humanity (possibly a consequence of modern international relations and communications). The great majority of international transactions are in USD. At small shops in a lot out of the way places, they accept USD; many prefer it to their local currency.
It would be a lot sounder if it wasn't inflated away by deficit spending.
"Most sound" is relative. The other countries are simply worse at inflating the money supply.
end the fed?
yes, your plan would require extreme levels of oppression. it's a non-starter in anything remotely resembling a democracy. and if implemented, the outcome would still not be what you expect.
houses get more expensive due to changes in scarcity, i.e. the number of people who want to buy houses (and can afford to) in an area increasing faster than the number of people who want to sell houses there.
the main lever a government has, is to make new construction easier and cheaper -- that increases the supply. commies don't seem to like that, often because they're NIMBYs, but also because new construction tends to be in the high end segment. commies don't seem to understand that people who move into newly built high end housing do so by moving out of existing, on average slightly less high end housing, which then becomes free, and so on... all the way down to the lowest end housing. increasing supply at the highest end increases housing supply in all segments, though with increasing delay.
an option that doesn't help much with existing scarcity, but with future changes in scarcity, would be a recurring land tax (proportional to the local value of owned land). in order to be democratically feasible this would have to be introduced very gradually (over the course of 30+ years) and combined with tax decreases elsewhere.
You should probably read up on why humans initially switched to the currencies or the gold standard later.
Personally I found this one quite interesting. https://www.lynalden.com/broken-money/
coindesk only promotes ztrash