4 ms·

> But if you draw your boundaries to include that additional supply that's hoarded and not for sale, the theory no longer holds. Do you see what I mean now In

> But if you draw your boundaries to include that additional supply that's hoarded and not for sale, the theory no longer holds. Do you see what I mean now In the same vein, if we consider the earth to be flat then the law of universal gravitation no longer works. I see what you mean, but I have no idea why anyone would ever want to convey such meaning. Of course you can "invalidate" every law in existence if you completely redefine the conditions under which the law is made, but that's rather nonsensical. > So when it comes to building more housing supply, it will never help housing prices no matter how much we build, if that supply which gets built is never for sale. While I am unsure of how this relates to our discussion, I expect you will find that virtually every house is for sale. Sure, there is always a "stubborn old mule", but I'm certain the vast majority of homeowners would not say no to you dropping a billion dollars in front of them. The biggest trouble is that new construction costs even more than used houses. Nobody is going to purposefully go out of their way to build a home in order to lose money on it. So while building endless new homes would theoretically reduce prices, it would never happen in the real world because who is going to do it? Houses most certainly don't just magically spring out of the ground.

Rury 2y ago
I mean, the reason I convey such a meaning is kind of exactly why we're having this discussion, which is people often have different (hidden/underlying) assumptions (which they take for granted), and conversations don't go anywhere because of it. No one does this intentionally, everyone makes and holds assumptions, but it's important we all hold the same ones if we want to come to an agreement. That's all. Anyways, as what I meant about building more houses... You can see elsewhere in this thread that people disagree on whether or not the core issue is that we have a shortage of houses. Some people are holding the assumption that, building more houses will increase the inventory for sale, and therefore help prices. Good old supply/demand. That's a perfectly rational assumption, and I don't necessarily disagree, but like you note, new construction is costly... Additionally, as data given above (and elsewhere) indicates, housing per capita in 2022 is similar or better than in 2011 for many markets, but as we know, prices (even adjusting for inflation) are higher than 2011. From the theory of supply/demand, this suggests some degree of hoarding is happening, but as to how that is happening is not certain, as people could simply be living with fewer people than the past, or people could be living more or less the same amount people and investors are more of the ones who are buying up new construction. If the latter, then that new built construction might not really be for sale if you get what mean, as investors may simply rent it out or use it as a seasonal. Hence why I said "building more supply won't help if it is never for sale". Now of course everything is for sale, just a matter of price, but who does cheap credit / inflation help more, people with assets or people without assets? That's right investors. And, given vacancies are higher than inventory for sale, I just have a hard time finding support for the idea that the core issue is that there is insufficient houses and we need to build more. The only reasoning for it seems to be the idea that more supply = lower prices (an idea which falls apart if it is simply hoarded). But of course, that's not to say, that many markets likely do need more supply, just that it doesn't seem to be the fundamental issue.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Hence why I said "building more supply won't help if it is never for sale". It doesn't need to be for sale to help with the situation, of course. It still relieves pressure on the demand side. An individual can never afford an infinite number of houses. Even if someone is, as you say, hoarding houses, at some point the last house they build will be the last house they can own and then they drop out of the demand side of the equation. > who does cheap credit / inflation help more, people with assets or people without assets? Whomever finds opportunity in it, I suppose. Same as always. Someone sitting on cash assets will be worse off (after all, that's what inflation is: a devaluing of a currency), while someone with no assets can leverage the situation to build real wealth. Even the job market tends to improve in a cheap credit / low inflation environment as businesses use that to chase more labour-requiring opportunities, which is a boon for those who have nothing. There is no one answer here.
  - Rury 2y ago
    >It still relieves pressure on the demand side It doesn't if it's sitting there, with no one really occupying it, and priced out of the free market's reach. You're assuming a competitive free market is always determining the price here. That's another thing people don't understand, the theory that supply/demand fully determines prices again assumes a perfectly competitive market, which is almost never the case in reality, especially in places of low liquidity. (keep reading if you don't know what I mean). >An individual can never afford an infinite number of houses But there is still someone who practically can afford an infinite number of houses - those closely tied to the infinite money printer. Banks are deemed "Too big to fail". Take the SIVB failure for example, yes they failed, but the assets did not and got absorbed by other big banks. Just because those assets changed hands, doesn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things. I mean hell... there's a $25 million dollar estate with a private horse track and an observatory tower near where I live, whom locals are very familiar with, which has been vacant for 25 years ever since it was built. No one has ever lived in it. I happened to meet a greenskeeper at a golf course who happens to maintain it a while back. Who is paying his salary for maintenance? The banks. How can they afford to perpetually maintain those costs? Well, when they struggled like in 2008, they got bailouts, and the assets were never sold at whatever the market would bear. So the banks just sit on it, maintenance costs just get tacked onto the price or onto the banks customers over time, and if shit hits the fan, they'll get absorbed by another bank, and they'll just sit on it until hopefully someday someone will pay the price. It's technically for sale, but if the price is set by the bank and outside what demand for it actually is, its price is not really being determined by a competitive free market. And that seems the case in a lot of places. I mean Miami has some of the highest vacancy rates in the US, but median price is like $660k, which is also amongst the higher end in the nation. China has 65 million vacancies, and literally multiple ghost cities where there is like a few dozen people living in skyscrapers, but prices are still sky high. There's a Toronto man who owns 30,000 houses. The US has just under ~15 million vacant properties, but housing inventory for sale is ~1.2 million. I mean... I don't disagree that more supply is badly needed in some places, or fixes to zoning, but how does this not look like what the top post mentioned as the core underlying issue: underutilization of housing, and cheap credit creating an asset bubble virtually around the world? It just seems to me we do in fact have supply in many places, it's just no one is really being forced to adhere to the principles of supply/demand, due to cheap credit.

Rury 2y ago

I mean, the reason I convey such a meaning is kind of exactly why we're having this discussion, which is people often have different (hidden/underlying) assumptions (which they take for granted), and conversations don't go anywhere because of it. No one does this intentionally, everyone makes and holds assumptions, but it's important we all hold the same ones if we want to come to an agreement. That's all. Anyways, as what I meant about building more houses... You can see elsewhere in this thread that people disagree on whether or not the core issue is that we have a shortage of houses. Some people are holding the assumption that, building more houses will increase the inventory for sale, and therefore help prices. Good old supply/demand. That's a perfectly rational assumption, and I don't necessarily disagree, but like you note, new construction is costly... Additionally, as data given above (and elsewhere) indicates, housing per capita in 2022 is similar or better than in 2011 for many markets, but as we know, prices (even adjusting for inflation) are higher than 2011. From the theory of supply/demand, this suggests some degree of hoarding is happening, but as to how that is happening is not certain, as people could simply be living with fewer people than the past, or people could be living more or less the same amount people and investors are more of the ones who are buying up new construction. If the latter, then that new built construction might not really be for sale if you get what mean, as investors may simply rent it out or use it as a seasonal. Hence why I said "building more supply won't help if it is never for sale". Now of course everything is for sale, just a matter of price, but who does cheap credit / inflation help more, people with assets or people without assets? That's right investors. And, given vacancies are higher than inventory for sale, I just have a hard time finding support for the idea that the core issue is that there is insufficient houses and we need to build more. The only reasoning for it seems to be the idea that more supply = lower prices (an idea which falls apart if it is simply hoarded). But of course, that's not to say, that many markets likely do need more supply, just that it doesn't seem to be the fundamental issue.

randomdata 2y ago
> Hence why I said "building more supply won't help if it is never for sale". It doesn't need to be for sale to help with the situation, of course. It still relieves pressure on the demand side. An individual can never afford an infinite number of houses. Even if someone is, as you say, hoarding houses, at some point the last house they build will be the last house they can own and then they drop out of the demand side of the equation. > who does cheap credit / inflation help more, people with assets or people without assets? Whomever finds opportunity in it, I suppose. Same as always. Someone sitting on cash assets will be worse off (after all, that's what inflation is: a devaluing of a currency), while someone with no assets can leverage the situation to build real wealth. Even the job market tends to improve in a cheap credit / low inflation environment as businesses use that to chase more labour-requiring opportunities, which is a boon for those who have nothing. There is no one answer here.
- Rury 2y ago
  >It still relieves pressure on the demand side It doesn't if it's sitting there, with no one really occupying it, and priced out of the free market's reach. You're assuming a competitive free market is always determining the price here. That's another thing people don't understand, the theory that supply/demand fully determines prices again assumes a perfectly competitive market, which is almost never the case in reality, especially in places of low liquidity. (keep reading if you don't know what I mean). >An individual can never afford an infinite number of houses But there is still someone who practically can afford an infinite number of houses - those closely tied to the infinite money printer. Banks are deemed "Too big to fail". Take the SIVB failure for example, yes they failed, but the assets did not and got absorbed by other big banks. Just because those assets changed hands, doesn't really change anything in the grand scheme of things. I mean hell... there's a $25 million dollar estate with a private horse track and an observatory tower near where I live, whom locals are very familiar with, which has been vacant for 25 years ever since it was built. No one has ever lived in it. I happened to meet a greenskeeper at a golf course who happens to maintain it a while back. Who is paying his salary for maintenance? The banks. How can they afford to perpetually maintain those costs? Well, when they struggled like in 2008, they got bailouts, and the assets were never sold at whatever the market would bear. So the banks just sit on it, maintenance costs just get tacked onto the price or onto the banks customers over time, and if shit hits the fan, they'll get absorbed by another bank, and they'll just sit on it until hopefully someday someone will pay the price. It's technically for sale, but if the price is set by the bank and outside what demand for it actually is, its price is not really being determined by a competitive free market. And that seems the case in a lot of places. I mean Miami has some of the highest vacancy rates in the US, but median price is like $660k, which is also amongst the higher end in the nation. China has 65 million vacancies, and literally multiple ghost cities where there is like a few dozen people living in skyscrapers, but prices are still sky high. There's a Toronto man who owns 30,000 houses. The US has just under ~15 million vacant properties, but housing inventory for sale is ~1.2 million. I mean... I don't disagree that more supply is badly needed in some places, or fixes to zoning, but how does this not look like what the top post mentioned as the core underlying issue: underutilization of housing, and cheap credit creating an asset bubble virtually around the world? It just seems to me we do in fact have supply in many places, it's just no one is really being forced to adhere to the principles of supply/demand, due to cheap credit.