It's mostly not greed. If you had a billion dollars, and are willing to lose money on a housing project in support of the poor by operating it against market f

It's mostly not greed. If you had a billion dollars, and are willing to lose money on a housing project in support of the poor by operating it against market forces, I think that would be a noble thing to do if you would actually follow through. It's easier to say than do though, and I don't think it would work out the way you think it would. If you think about the evolutionary forces driving such a system, that type of philanthropy would be unsustainable and would have a tendency to die out. And eventually that housing would get taken over and become subject to normal market forces again. It's pretty hard to fight against the market consensus on value, no matter how good your intentions are, unless you could establish some sort of monopoly. In the absence of that, if you sell something for less than its value, you'll end up creating some weird dynamics. You'd invite scalpers, corruption as people compete for access to the resource, and people would probably create secondary markets anyway where they hold the lease and sublet for more than its cost. (Whether legal or illegal.) There's a reason why home prices in the form of a 30-year mortgage on a home historically have a monthly price close to, but slightly less than, the price of rents. Being a landlord involves financial risk, maintenance costs, liability, and work. That work, the willingness to take on the risk, etc. has a value. That value is approximately the monthly price of rent minus the monthly mortgage cost. ...And actually, historically, it's not even a great value. Renting, and investing spare cash that would otherwise be tied up on a down payment has in many cases been a better investment.