Private property in the U.S.

[Medicine Calf]

Should foreign nationals or corporations be allowed to own property in the U.S.? Is this a necessary component of our economic philosophy, or is it a reality that is too complex to reverse?

[Business_Casual]

Are you serious? Of course they should, have, do and will. Same way we own property abroad. There is an entire US agency devoted to this practice as well.

What possible reason would a free, western Democracy prevent ownership by anyone?

M_P

[ToddG]

Are you serious? Of course they should, have, do and will.

^^^^^^ What he said.

[richard1]

Not all nations allow people who are not residents to buy or own property. I belive that is what the first post was referring to.

[Left Sig]

It's a necessary component. Why? Because we depend on foreign investment.

Americans save virtually nothing in banks. That means banks don't have enough capital to lend to business for investment. The investment dollars have to come from somewhere, so they come from overseas, and one thing they buy is investment property within the US. The return of dollars by way of foreign investment is how many foreign countries spend the dollars they get from us when we import their goods.

Basically, we give them money for imported goods, and they turn around and spend that money buying investments from us, thus balancing the trade equation. You could argue either way which is the cause and which is the effect. Do they invest because we buy from them, or do we buy because they invest?

[mmike87]

Yes, allowing our country to be colonized by foreigners who want to change our country is a great idea.

[Medicine Calf]

It's a necessary component. Why? Because we depend on foreign investment.

Americans save virtually nothing in banks. That means banks don't have enough capital to lend to business for investment. The investment dollars have to come from somewhere, so they come from overseas, and one thing they buy is investment property within the US. The return of dollars by way of foreign investment is how many foreign countries spend the dollars they get from us when we import their goods.

Basically, we give them money for imported goods, and they turn around and spend that money buying investments from us, thus balancing the trade equation. You could argue either way which is the cause and which is the effect. Do they invest because we buy from them, or do we buy because they invest?


Good response, and of course this is virtually an irreversible fact of our economy.

[Mjolnir]

No, it's not necessary. They should be allowed a limited lease but never own. Likewise, I'd maintain that all nations adopt similar laws.

[kmrtnsn]

"Yes, allowing our country to be colonized by foreigners who want to change our country is a great idea."

Isn't that how we became a country?

[Saginaw79]

Are you serious? Of course they should, have, do and will. Same way we own property abroad. There is an entire US agency devoted to this practice as well.

What possible reason would a free, western Democracy prevent ownership by anyone?

M_P

Republic! Not a Democracy ;)

[Business_Casual]

Republic! Not a Democracy ;)

If I were merely referring to the USA, yes. However, I meant it in the classic liberal sense of a Western Democracy; any one of them.

M_P

[senorlinc]

From an economic standpoint i think yes. if local folks cant afford it then sell it to is willing to keep values stable and pay the taxes on it

remember back in Feudal times when only nobles owned land? people have always fought battles over turf?

I will add that i own property abroad (nothing glamorous BTW). some deals were more complicated than others. i needed local partners to purchase in Australia and Jamaica. the federales are my partners in Mexico, they own the land, i lease it from them. i own the building. costa rica and panama are sketchy as well. i was told i own but title isnt super clear or insured