8 ms·

The answer is to control the housing market and stop it being used an investment against inflation. Force people to invest in industry against inflation - not r

The answer is to control the housing market and stop it being used an investment against inflation. Force people to invest in industry against inflation - not rent-seeking in housing, or cryptocurrency pyramid schemes. Only allow resident citizens to own the one property they live in, and have the government handle rentals like the old council housing / Folkhemmet homes.

boldslogan 5y ago
I think the political will here is kind of weak...the voters who own housing dont want their asset to decrease in value and wont vote for politicians who want to force investment into industry, versus the renters who do. I am not sure what to suggest...
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Medium term I think this political will will change as fewer an fewer people Can afford housing
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Probably not in the UK, as the house-owning population are much older and tend to vote Conservative (the current governing party). Young people are already screwed, and unless they all show up to vote in marginal constituences (unlikely) then they'll continue to get screwed, unfortunately.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      Right, but the age cohorts that are screwed are only going to get older over time (unless policy changes).
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        That time is well beyond the average politicians event horizon, I suspect.
- The-Bus 5y ago
  If some combination of pensions/social security allowed people to live a comfortable, safe retirement with some guarantee of food, shelter, and medical care, then they'd be less worried about the one asset they own worth more than five figures.
kavalg 5y ago
Reminds me of my childhood in Eeastern Europe, where people were getting divorced (only on papers) in order to buy another aprtment :)
- giancarlostoro 5y ago
  I met a Cuban a few years back that said the same. His parents worked their butts off and owned two homes. They got divorced to keep them both, but they were never separated only legally.
FredPret 5y ago
Actually encouraging landlordism will decrease rents. - Buy-and-hold rental property investors buy properties using Excel, and are vastly less susceptible to hyped and emotional pricing than the public. - More landlords = more capital available for home-builders = more houses built - Supply and demand - more houses and more landlords, with the same number of tenants, shifts pricing power to the tenants
- nivenkos 5y ago
  Step 2 just isn't happening, at nowhere near the levels necessary. Instead people are investing in housing as a "store of value" against inflation, maybe not even renting it out and just hoping it appreciates. This is driving prices sky-high. Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments, leading to a massive shortage in housing. Landlords love this as it increases the value of their properties, and developers don't care as they can sell the fewer houses they build for greater profit. Whilst at the same time national leaders support mass immigration leading to a huge increase in demand. Overall this rewards property owners and hurts working people and the economy (when people can't easily move to economically active areas, and have less disposable income). Ultimately harming social mobility and destroying faith in capitalism and private property as a whole (it becomes to resemble feudalism, destroying the idea that you can work hard and have a good life).
  - FredPret 5y ago
    > Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments This is the problem - artificially constrained supply. Fix this and the lower prices will follow. Fix other things and you’ll just create further distortions and frustrations later on
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      Making more houses won't solve the problem - there will just be more houses to rent out at vastly inflated prices. Renting houses simply shouldn't be such a profitable endeavor. There have been stories posted where hotels snap up apartment units for AirBNB because those make more money than hotel rooms. That should never be the case.
mrfusion 5y ago
Nah the answer is to simply build more.
bko 5y ago
> Only allow resident citizens to own the one property they live in, and have the government handle rentals like the old council housing / Folkhemmet homes. How can you say you "own" something if you're not allowed to sell or rent it to anyone you want?
- nivenkos 5y ago
  It's like that when I buy a bottle of whisky right now! And because you can live in it, and don't pay anyone to do so.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
908B64B197 5y ago
> The answer is to control the housing market and stop it being used an investment against inflation. Force people to invest in industry against inflation - not rent-seeking in housing This. Every boomer thinks he's a genius investor for simply blocking all residential development and looking at the price of his house go up. The government knows it and wants to keep the votes coming in so they prop up real estate as much as they can. Notice the same parties will simultaneously try to push some sort of virtue signaling (pro-diversity or whatever) to the younger demographics at the same time. They can't afford to pander to them via housing policy so they have to find something else... This isn't creating any kind of value, nor innovation. Apple, Google and Facebook, like it or not, created a tremendous amount of wealth for the country. Housing didn't.

boldslogan 5y ago

I think the political will here is kind of weak...the voters who own housing dont want their asset to decrease in value and wont vote for politicians who want to force investment into industry, versus the renters who do. I am not sure what to suggest...

nicoburns 5y ago
Medium term I think this political will will change as fewer an fewer people Can afford housing
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Probably not in the UK, as the house-owning population are much older and tend to vote Conservative (the current governing party). Young people are already screwed, and unless they all show up to vote in marginal constituences (unlikely) then they'll continue to get screwed, unfortunately.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Right, but the age cohorts that are screwed are only going to get older over time (unless policy changes).
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      That time is well beyond the average politicians event horizon, I suspect.
The-Bus 5y ago
If some combination of pensions/social security allowed people to live a comfortable, safe retirement with some guarantee of food, shelter, and medical care, then they'd be less worried about the one asset they own worth more than five figures.

kavalg 5y ago

Reminds me of my childhood in Eeastern Europe, where people were getting divorced (only on papers) in order to buy another aprtment :)

giancarlostoro 5y ago
I met a Cuban a few years back that said the same. His parents worked their butts off and owned two homes. They got divorced to keep them both, but they were never separated only legally.

FredPret 5y ago

Actually encouraging landlordism will decrease rents. - Buy-and-hold rental property investors buy properties using Excel, and are vastly less susceptible to hyped and emotional pricing than the public. - More landlords = more capital available for home-builders = more houses built - Supply and demand - more houses and more landlords, with the same number of tenants, shifts pricing power to the tenants

nivenkos 5y ago
Step 2 just isn't happening, at nowhere near the levels necessary. Instead people are investing in housing as a "store of value" against inflation, maybe not even renting it out and just hoping it appreciates. This is driving prices sky-high. Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments, leading to a massive shortage in housing. Landlords love this as it increases the value of their properties, and developers don't care as they can sell the fewer houses they build for greater profit. Whilst at the same time national leaders support mass immigration leading to a huge increase in demand. Overall this rewards property owners and hurts working people and the economy (when people can't easily move to economically active areas, and have less disposable income). Ultimately harming social mobility and destroying faith in capitalism and private property as a whole (it becomes to resemble feudalism, destroying the idea that you can work hard and have a good life).
- FredPret 5y ago
  > Meanwhile local politicians and boomers support NIMBYism and oppose all housing developments This is the problem - artificially constrained supply. Fix this and the lower prices will follow. Fix other things and you’ll just create further distortions and frustrations later on
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    Making more houses won't solve the problem - there will just be more houses to rent out at vastly inflated prices. Renting houses simply shouldn't be such a profitable endeavor. There have been stories posted where hotels snap up apartment units for AirBNB because those make more money than hotel rooms. That should never be the case.

mrfusion 5y ago

Nah the answer is to simply build more.

bko 5y ago

> Only allow resident citizens to own the one property they live in, and have the government handle rentals like the old council housing / Folkhemmet homes. How can you say you "own" something if you're not allowed to sell or rent it to anyone you want?

nivenkos 5y ago
It's like that when I buy a bottle of whisky right now! And because you can live in it, and don't pay anyone to do so.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

908B64B197 5y ago

> The answer is to control the housing market and stop it being used an investment against inflation. Force people to invest in industry against inflation - not rent-seeking in housing This. Every boomer thinks he's a genius investor for simply blocking all residential development and looking at the price of his house go up. The government knows it and wants to keep the votes coming in so they prop up real estate as much as they can. Notice the same parties will simultaneously try to push some sort of virtue signaling (pro-diversity or whatever) to the younger demographics at the same time. They can't afford to pander to them via housing policy so they have to find something else... This isn't creating any kind of value, nor innovation. Apple, Google and Facebook, like it or not, created a tremendous amount of wealth for the country. Housing didn't.