> The idea that property sits empty, while prices and rents continue to increase, definitely indicates that something is wrong. Does it? People still have to p

> The idea that property sits empty, while prices and rents continue to increase, definitely indicates that something is wrong. Does it? People still have to pay taxes on that property, there will still be a mortgage that has to be paid, that means there will be fewer people living there, which in some ways makes it better for everyone else who lives there. Of course, it is in some ways an "artificial" restriction of supply. However I question how many of these places actually sit "empty". I can't imagine owning property, not living there, and not renting it out. Of course rentals offer their own hurdles, but there are plenty of property management companies out there that would do it for a fee. Seems like a totally missed opportunity cost to me that would be economically foolish. It wouldn't be the first time a wealthy person has done something economically foolish, but it could be the last for that person. >It’s not unreasonable to think that the free market has failed in this case, and that perhaps preventing speculation through regulation might be an effective approach. Ultimately with speculation, people are taking a risk by buying the property, while it may be a hip and cool place today, will it be that way in 10 years? Will there be more housing built that will undercut any kind of appreciation you might be accumulating. Real estate has historically been a pretty good investment, however it isn't like it has never seen a downturn.