The "supply argument", and I start by admitting I cannot do this debate justice in the space of a HN comment, reminds me of the futurama joke: "you are technica

The "supply argument", and I start by admitting I cannot do this debate justice in the space of a HN comment, reminds me of the futurama joke: "you are technically correct, the best kind of correct". If budgets/demand increases, and supply does not adjust, then prices rise. It's Econ 101, and it's technically true. But like most technically true answers, there something unsatisfyingly unhelpful about it. Tokyo is likely strange due to the particular timing and history of housing and economic bubbles in Japan, vis a vis the millenium bubble and post gfc story that's been playing out for most English speaking nations. From a later year Economics point of view though, we can start asking some bigger questions: -what factors contribute to increased demand -should supply increase to match demand? -could any market have increased supply sufficiently to avoid price increases in any meaningful way given the relative liquidity and elasticity of funds and demand increasing policies vs the structural inelastic nature of housing supply - are lagged over/under supply problems possible? - from a public policy and prudential perspective, what should we be doing to manage these issues? should policy be set by locals or by money flows (and I don't think there's an easy or universal answer to that last one)