How can it be considered wiser to rent from an individual owner as opposed to 'renting' from the bank - you'd be obliged to either one and both could theoretically kick you out for non-payment.
How about, um,
owning your own home? As in:
Free and clear.What a
nice society you have: The “American dream” of home
ownership is truly dead, out of reach and unthinkable to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It has been replaced by an illusion based on a false dichotomy between renting from the bank via an intermediary “landlord” who rents from a bank, and renting directly from the bank.
The bank owns everything! You are so immersed in debt culture based on debt-“backed” money and
total submission to the banks, you cannot even see what is wrong with your proposition.
Bitcoin, and home ownership: Be your own bank. Be the king of your castle.
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼
Bitcoin Core (
onion)
Don’t get me started on the rents known as “property taxes”. Are you even aware of how recent a development that is in the United States?
See also:Historically, besides heritable class status, the single most effective guarantor of voter quality was a real property ownership requirement. [...]
Naturally, I think that such a requirement must logically exclude mortgaged properties, which (especially in today’s society) are effectively rented from the bank.