3 ms·

> A "country" doesn't "decide" to make an asset class appreciate or depreciate. Look up negative gearing in Australia

• noduerme 5y ago
  Interesting. But it's just a form of writing off a loss. It seems like a stupid move, and at the end of the day I'm not sure how it hurts renters since the whole idea is to offer the rental at a loss to get the tax credits (?) Also historically, Australia has had a lot of bizarre policies of paying people just to go occupy some empty piece of dirt or live in the bush, so I'm wondering if that's got something to do with advantaging this type of a write-off. In any case, you have to realize money will go somewhere. It will go into a bank vault or it will go into a house, or it will go into the stock market; people want a return on investment. If you outright make it onerous and expensive for the middle class to invest in real estate, the only real estate investors will then be trusts and speculators. This is a simple fact any time a government goes after small land holders.
  • sumedh 5y ago
    Your original point was that a country doesn't "decide" to make an asset class appreciate or depreciate. I just gave you an example that the country can decide it can make an asset appreciate. In Australia's example it can make investors take more risks. Did you also forget that the US govt created Fannie_Mae so that banks could issue more home loans, guess what happens when you issue more loans to more people, house prices go up.