2 ms·

What about investors not wanting to invest a single cent into building new estate because it is not economically viable anymore? Is that gaming the system?

• qayxc 6y ago
  "Economically viable" must not be confused with "extremely profitable". Housing is economically viable as soon as revenue is positive in the mid- to long term. Extremely profitable on the other hand is much more attractive to investors than economically viable. It promises short term ROI with great revenue and very low risk in overheated markets. There's a balance to be struck here and thinking in extremes just isn't helpful. And yes, I do consider buying up land and just letting it sit there until housing crisis becomes severe enough that developing luxury housing becomes profitable to be gaming the system. It's funny how quick investors are to complain about something not being economically viable and praising the free market and its power to innovate, while at the same the cost of developing houses goes up and up and up. Where's the innovation there? How come a portable supercomputer can be bought brand new for the equivalent of a day's worth of work today, while at the same time fewer and fewer people can afford to own a home? Why hasn't the increasing demand for affordable housing spurred innovation in that sector and why is nobody even asking that question?