4 ms·

I don't follow, why do you consider providing short term stays to tourists a valuable service, but not providing long term housing to residents?

• machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  They created economic value. The tourists couldn't buy the house themselves just for few days visit, and there was economic value in the cleaning, the service, the flexibility of making the reservation in quick timing. There's no economic value in "providing long term housing to residents". You hodl the asset which someone else required and added no economic value. They could've bought the asset themselves because they wanted to be there for a long term. But they can't because everyone is hodling. When economic incentives are good, you should sell an asset or an investment when you do not expect to gain economic value from it anymore. Why do people "provide long term housing" instead of just selling their assets ? I see houses as an asset similar to cars. They decay, they break, old houses are horse trade, they require high maintenance. Their economic value only goes down, and their prices would too if there wasn't a housing cartel opposing new construction and high population growth combined with bad government housing policy, but most importantly, if the regulation around mortgages was similar to any other asset.