2 ms·

Again, we can make up a bunch of made up scenario's, but you seem to want to ignore your own questions, which suggests you're not arguing in good faith. Let's r

by Rury 2y ago

Again, we can make up a bunch of made up scenario's, but you seem to want to ignore your own questions, which suggests you're not arguing in good faith. Let's revisit this question of yours: >Suppose you built twice as many housing units as you had residents. Rents wouldn't decrease? Why not? I gave you an example of how that would not happen: in an uncompetitive market such as a monopoly, additional supply doesn't impact price if it is simply hoarded. Now we could argue whether that's realistically to happen or not, but I see not why that is relevant to your question.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> in an uncompetitive market such as a monopoly, additional supply doesn't impact price if it is simply hoarded. Let's consider whether this can even possibly happen. In order for a monopolist to own all the housing, there would have to be somebody with that much money. The largest wealth fund in the world is China's, with a total value of around $2.75 trillion US dollars. This is the entire fund across all asset classes. Jeff Bezos with his paltry $200 billion can't even hold a candle to it. By contrast, the total value of US housing is north of $47 trillion dollars. So if you were to double the amount of housing in the US, no one in the entire world exists who could afford to buy all of it. Even the entire government of China isn't within an order of magnitude of it.