3 ms·
"Over regulation" is an absurd concept: laws are not simply "not enough" or "too much". What really matters is *what* is allowed and prohibited and who benefit
by goodpoint 5y ago
"Over regulation" is an absurd concept: laws are not simply "not enough" or "too much".
What really matters is *what* is allowed and prohibited and who benefits from it.
In many countries regulatory capture led to building and zoning laws that serve to the interest of large investors groups as well as small speculators.
People who have a home as necessity rather than an investment are put at a disadvantage.
- pmorici 5y agoWether you like it or not owning a home is always an investment. Perhaps not a good one but an investment non the less. To act like there are two types of people and that one disadvantaging the other because of their preference is silly.
- goodpoint 5y agoNo. You are confusing the primary purpose being an investment and being a dwelling. The intentions and behavior of the buyer can be profoundly different. Unsurprisingly, most countries have different regulations for first home buyer VS local investors VS foreign investors. If anything it's silly not wanting to acknowledge the difference. Or perhaps a bit cheeky.
- pmorici 5y agoUnless the owner is letting the property sit empty it isn’t going to have an effect on the supply/ demand balance of housing. Where you live is always going to have financial consequences that can’t be ignored.
- goodpoint 5y ago> Unless the owner is letting the property sit empty ...which happens all the time, especially with large speculative investors. > it isn’t going to have an effect Besides, it's also plain wrong, obviously. Owners have an effect on the occupancy rate. The same house can be occupied by 2, 3 or 4 for example.