3 ms·
There's been plenty of papers published on this topic in far greater detail than I'd ever go into in a short HN comment, but the short answer is: property is a
by lucideer 8y ago
There's been plenty of papers published on this topic in far greater detail than I'd ever go into in a short HN comment, but the short answer is: property is a financial asset for owners, rather than a source of rent. This is largely about scale: these are large international owners, with significant property investments worldwide.
If you search for "financialisation of property" or "financialisation of housing", you'll find quite a lot of research in this area (mostly paywalled :( ) but also quite a few elucidating articles.
- vinceguidry 8y agoThe owners are so huge they can't be bothered to care about hundred dollar bills lying on the sidewalk.
- agent008t 8y agoI suppose it does make some sense if we are talking about 'dirty' money trying to safeguard their wealth from some form of confiscation. So they don't care about the price tag, they just want to safeguard as much of their wealth in a jurisdiction with strong property rights. They are happy if they don't lose more than 90%. Still, it seems very irrational and thus unsustainable.
- vinceguidry 8y agoMarkets can stay irrational for a long time.
- barrkel 8y agoSeems like an exponential tax for domestic property not in use as domiciles could be a way out. Something tolerable the first year, but doubling every 6 months of vacancy without at least 6 months of occupation between.