The one law that would bring peace during an Economic Collapse

[EvolutionA2Z]

Gold rehypothecation is allowing extra capital to buy up our property. Also driving up our prices.

http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Global-agenda-Rehypothecation-360757

And they are buying property world wide with it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/07/10/these-are-the-foreigners-buying-up-american-real-estate/

[1714178861]

1714178861

[1714178861]

1714178861

[1714178861]

1714178861

[1714178861]

1714178861

[1714178861]

1714178861

[DannyElfman]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

Real estate agents here typically charge 7% of the sale. I don't see the percentage changing. But I do see real estate agents slowly being phased out with the development of websites that let you house hunt over the internet. You can do virtual tours now.

Most people I know sell their house and buy a new one when they take a job in a new city (or end up commuting). I don't see too many people just buying a place every time they work in a different city. So nothing would change. In the rare case that someone would take say a three month temp job and didn't want to sell and buy they would have to rent. There would still be some homes for rent.

You can use the blockchain to keep a public ledger of who owns which property. This would eliminate notary fees making the buying and selling of deeds to a place a lot easier and cheaper.

[pungopete468]

You aren't going to change your view on this matter until you accept for yourself that the government has no power to decide what you spend your money on...

Every law that restricts the use of legal money is unconstitutional, against the grain of morality which this country was founded on, and inconsistent with the natural rights born of freedom.

The government can continue to restrict the liberties of this society until it no longer can. Once the line of public acceptability has been crossed, the recoil will strike like a large rubber band snapping. Those minor impediments on freedom which were acceptable to a great number yesterday would no longer be acceptable tomorrow; even the little things will be seen as unacceptable. When the disdain is great enough that a powerful network effect is formed it always results in a "reset" so to speak...

Those properties which you claim, "belong to the government" will no longer be seen as such. The truth is that the federal government does not own anything. The federal government is a shadow of consenting states. The federal government is an alliance and not a kingdom... The existence of our federal government is an agreement between states and nothing more... All of the land is owned by the state which borders it until the state sells that land to an individual. Once sold, it no longer belongs to the state. The individual is bound to follow the laws of the state and the constitution, but the state has no lawful claim to that land any further. If the individual dies and doesn't leave the property to another individual, the state has the power to reclaim the land under adverse possession as if it were a squatter on the property.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Your suggestion is unlawful, immoral, and dangerous.

Nobody "needs" more than one house, but everybody "needs" the power to convert their labor into goods, services, investments however they feel is fit. After an economic collapse, people will see that the banks were stealing by printing fake money and buying real assets. Do you think the people will just let the thieves have everything without attempting to recover it? I think not... The distribution of property will be reset and those banks will own none of it...

If we had a level playing field where no party could just "will" money into existence without value then this wouldn't even be an issue...

[Harley997]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

Real estate agents here typically charge 7% of the sale. I don't see the percentage changing. But I do see real estate agents slowly being phased out with the development of websites that let you house hunt over the internet. You can do virtual tours now.

Most people I know sell their house and buy a new one when they take a job in a new city (or end up commuting). I don't see too many people just buying a place every time they work in a different city. So nothing would change. In the rare case that someone would take say a three month temp job and didn't want to sell and buy they would have to rent. There would still be some homes for rent.

You can use the blockchain to keep a public ledger of who owns which property. This would eliminate notary fees making the buying and selling of deeds to a place a lot easier and cheaper.

Most counties will charge a percentage of the value of a property when recording the transfer of a property to a purchaser, if this is not done then the buyer would not really own the property. This is usually around 1%

Real estate agents are necessary as most people are not good at negotiating and when dealing with this large of a transaction you will want to have someone on your side like this. The average price that real estate agents charge is ~6%

If you were to take out a mortgage when you buy your new house then you would need to pay for closing costs for the new loan. This usually works out to ~2-3% of the loan amount or around 1.6-2.4% if you borrow 80% of the value of the property.

[EvolutionA2Z]

You aren't going to change your view on this matter until you accept for yourself that the government has no power to decide what you spend your money on...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As of right now, government has more power now than in any other time in history. They spend my money by charging taxes on everything from pay parking, to sales taxes, to income taxes, to inflation which is just another form of tax.

If your trying to say that you shouldn't have to pay any taxes I already somewhat agree with you. But, someone has to pay the Military. There are some other departments that are essential. This is why we need to get back to small government.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

So the question is, would spilling the blood of patriots and bringing back small government, prevent government from ever getting too big again?

Insanity : Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

And the answer to that question is, no.

For anyone that says that we have to pay taxes for roads is completely wrong. They should charge that fee when you get car insurance. Someone who walks should not have to pay a road tax.

[hollowframe]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

[hollowframe]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

These codes, taxes and regulations protect the value of a person's property by preventing others from doing things that could impede the value of others' property.

Limiting the amount of assets that a person can own is limiting their rights.

[EvolutionA2Z]

haha Peace ? as every new law, there is always pro and against people but in this one everybody would rise a war.

It is natural of after Adam and Eve humans to satisfy eh feeling of belonging things.

Just to clarify, when I say bring peace, war has already risen.

[Benjig]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

These codes, taxes and regulations protect the value of a person's property by preventing others from doing things that could impede the value of others' property.

Limiting the amount of assets that a person can own is limiting their rights.

I think with a lot of the responses people don't get what the start of an economic collapse will look like. It would be hyperinflation of the currency. A run on the banks and the bonds and stock bubbles popping. Then there would be a giant wealth transfer from those that hold fiat over to those that hold hard assets. Countries like China, Russia, India and Iran that are stocking up gold and silver become extremely wealthy. When Germany repatriates its gold and the Federal Reserve can't even deliver more than 5 tons of gold http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-23/germany-gives-trying-repatriate-its-gold-will-leave-it-feds-safe-hands that tells me that America will become a third world country.  

I get what you are saying about protecting the value of a persons' property. If I don't mow the lawn then all property values on my block will go down. During an economic collapse citizens can't afford the fines and you wont be able enforce these laws thus reflecting in a true market price of what our countries houses should be listed at. What I am trying to tell you is that you have to drop these laws before you can rebuild. What do you think about the law against growing a garden in the front yard?

Yes that is it. You would be removing a persons' right to speculate in the housing market and prevent them from hoarding property. This way you would make housing affordable for our future generations. Those hoarders can go spend their cash on commodities, stocks, bonds, or even better start companies to create jobs.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

[Yakamoto]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

Communism is having the state own everything and distribute it "evenly" (Depending on your place in the social ladder) and make sure most of the populace remains poor.

And in an economic collapse, it really comes down to what you have and what you don't have. Being a serf won't necessarily be bad, but it comes down to who owns the property. You can have an a-hole for an owner, and not have a chance to do anything other than constantly work the land or pay rent. Or you can have a decent owner and be able to start a small business with other benefits to living on his land, with maybe marginally smaller rent.

It really just depends.

Not passing it wouldn't be an issue, cause if the people can't afford a house with 3% interest after many have lost their jobs because of the collapse, how do you expect for them to pay for it? They can at least for to pay off their rent otherwise, depending, and it will be smaller to pay for rent than a house for at least a few years.

[hollowframe]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

[Bit_Happy]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

To keep everything fair, perhaps the OP should be limited to one post per week? 

[Swordsoffreedom]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Facepalm not going to work
As the others have mentioned way to many problems with this type of policy and too many cats in one house (Imagines the cat ladies of the world)

[EvolutionA2Z]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

To keep everything fair, perhaps the OP should be limited to one post per week? 

I didn't say one house per week. But that how many the Chinese are going to be buying when this all goes down. Its funny how this article talks about kids living in the basement. http://www.silverdoctors.com/chinese-purchases-of-u-s-real-estate-jump-72-as-the-bank-of-china-facilitates-money-laundering/

I guess we can put the grandkids in the attics.

Orrrrr.... in addition to one house per person. Add in there that you have to be a citizen of the country to purchase that one house.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

[TheTribesman]

Eat the rich