It's not like the price of sleeping somewhere is going to go down if we assign home ownership to people whose goal is to raise the cost of housing for personal gain.

California found out how little this is tolerated when they tried to turn everyone's house into the government's piggy bank by continually raising property taxes. Their voters, ina rare show of almost total unity, capped property taxes to 1%.

It can only be, then, that not only will we not own housing, but its cost, supply, distribution and asignment to individuals will tightly controlled by the government.

At this point in this exercise either you understand that this is an attempt to get you to accept the implementation of totalitarianism or you're under the age of 15.

For some reason you extrapolated that I support government ownership of everyones houses. My comment was very clear, with the economy being what it is people are better of owning their houses than renting. When you own the house your only cost is maintenance and you don't fear of living in the street one day. And the question is also clear, by transfering the ownership to any agregator, can they guarantee you will not live on the street one day? They answer is no. Let's move on then.

> At this point in this exercise either you understand that this is an attempt to get you to accept the implementation of totalitarianism or you're under the age of 15.

I honestly don't even understand what your point is