Sure, but you likely don’t have the cash to put down on a house you like. This is a pretty normal scenario if we look at human history. As soon as we invented cities, land in and around cities was expensive. It could take a lifetime to save up enough to buy a house. Hence a mortgage - the bank (which is mostly just the savings of other people around you) gives you the money right now to buy a house. Then you get to live in the house while you “save up” for it.
If this worked, why didn’t more banks just burn down?
Because for most people, most of the time, mortgages are a good deal
This was true once, but not for a long time now. And that’s generally true across the board, at least in US, Canada, and most of Europe.
Idk, I got mine at 2.85%. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Less than the rate of inflation, so the bank is essentially paying me to own a house
doubt
Proof: people keep getting mortgages
Counterpoint: The alternative is rent trap or homelessness
Jerking off a homeless dude for free is a good deal when he has a gun in your neck.
An even better deal is having a house and no mortgage
Sure, but you likely don’t have the cash to put down on a house you like. This is a pretty normal scenario if we look at human history. As soon as we invented cities, land in and around cities was expensive. It could take a lifetime to save up enough to buy a house. Hence a mortgage - the bank (which is mostly just the savings of other people around you) gives you the money right now to buy a house. Then you get to live in the house while you “save up” for it.
I think you misunderstand.
We need the bank to get the mortgage.
Then we burn down the bank and don’t have to pay the mortgage
Profit.