4 ms·

Demand is outstripping supply because policy makers have left it up to the market to supply the need and the market has failed. The reason supply used to meet d

Demand is outstripping supply because policy makers have left it up to the market to supply the need and the market has failed. The reason supply used to meet demand is that the government didn't just pray to the almighty free hand, it acted with policy to ensure there was housing for everyone. A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> The reason supply used to meet demand is that the government didn't just pray to the almighty free hand, it acted with policy to ensure there was housing for everyone. The free market used to work better before it got handcuffed by zoning laws everywhere. If you prohibit the free market from working, don't then mock the free market because it's not working. > A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices. True - if you mean landlords who hold but don't allow occupancy.
- breakyerself 3y ago
  Landlords restrict the supply of houses available for purchase.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Landlords restrict home ownership, yes. That's different than restricting housing. And we were mostly talking about housing.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Demand is outstripping supply because the government prohibits high density housing from being built in existing low density areas and imposes rules that make new construction more expensive. > A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Because they expect the value tomorrow will be higher than the value today, because they expect demand to increase over time while the government continues to inhibit new construction. Stop inhibiting new construction and they'll want to sell now before the price comes down. (Which will make the price come down sooner.) The incentive to not rent existing units is also a predictable consequence of things like rent control and laws that make it hard to evict non-paying tenants. Don't increase the risk of providing a thing and expect that to lower the price.
alchemist1e9 3y ago
> Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices. As a landlord I’d be interested to understand your proposed mechanism to “remove” me. Could you also elaborate what happens to my capital and what I should be doing instead with the excess capital my productivity generates over my chosen needs and wants?
- breakyerself 3y ago
  You'd have to sell your rental properties. Invest your money in something else. It's not my concern. Your desire for investment vehicles is less important than the public need for housing.
  - alchemist1e9 3y ago
    And have you thought about what else I would invest into? This attitude is so incredibly economical illiterate that it’s shocking we have HN commentators that don’t understand. Who I am selling to? at what price? Do you support state confiscation of private capital? Are factories that produce cereal next? It’s an embarrassment to western education that educated people have such poor understanding of basic economics.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

> The reason supply used to meet demand is that the government didn't just pray to the almighty free hand, it acted with policy to ensure there was housing for everyone. The free market used to work better before it got handcuffed by zoning laws everywhere. If you prohibit the free market from working, don't then mock the free market because it's not working. > A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices. True - if you mean landlords who hold but don't allow occupancy.

breakyerself 3y ago
Landlords restrict the supply of houses available for purchase.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Landlords restrict home ownership, yes. That's different than restricting housing. And we were mostly talking about housing.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Demand is outstripping supply because the government prohibits high density housing from being built in existing low density areas and imposes rules that make new construction more expensive. > A large portion of the supply is being held by investors like landlords which restricts the supply. Because they expect the value tomorrow will be higher than the value today, because they expect demand to increase over time while the government continues to inhibit new construction. Stop inhibiting new construction and they'll want to sell now before the price comes down. (Which will make the price come down sooner.) The incentive to not rent existing units is also a predictable consequence of things like rent control and laws that make it hard to evict non-paying tenants. Don't increase the risk of providing a thing and expect that to lower the price.

alchemist1e9 3y ago

> Removing them from the equation would increase supply and decrease prices. As a landlord I’d be interested to understand your proposed mechanism to “remove” me. Could you also elaborate what happens to my capital and what I should be doing instead with the excess capital my productivity generates over my chosen needs and wants?

breakyerself 3y ago
You'd have to sell your rental properties. Invest your money in something else. It's not my concern. Your desire for investment vehicles is less important than the public need for housing.
- alchemist1e9 3y ago
  And have you thought about what else I would invest into? This attitude is so incredibly economical illiterate that it’s shocking we have HN commentators that don’t understand. Who I am selling to? at what price? Do you support state confiscation of private capital? Are factories that produce cereal next? It’s an embarrassment to western education that educated people have such poor understanding of basic economics.