[akudha]

Most financial gurus preach real estate as a way to get rich. They don't care about the next generation, fuck them. I have a colleague who earns in dollars, but he buys real estate in his home country (India). He'd buy a few apartments in a building right when a new project is announced. By the time the project is completed (2-3 years usually) the apartment value has already gone up by 10-15% minimum, sometimes more. He'd sell it and move on to the next project. The closest he has ever been to these apartments is the 15-30 mins he spends looking at the brochure. If you have the cash, this is the easiest and safest way to grow your wealth.

It was disgusting to see. I asked him if this doesn't bother him (he was already wealthy, he didn't need this extra money) and he looked at me as if I had two horns. Most of the projects he was buying and selling, was outside the range of almost the entire local population, except the rich. It was a fun game for him.

I know it is an unpopular opinion around here, but rentiers are a cancer. Housing should be a basic right. Rich people can buy and play in the art market (or super yachts or whatever) for bajillion dollars for all I care, but not basic necessities like land, water etc.

[pas]

Why do you think it's morally bad what this guy does? Developers make a profit, he basically provides loans to developers, takes on risks.

Prices are too high because there aren't enough units being built, not because folks speculate on new developments.

The rentiers are who do nothing yet they earn extra profit due to market failures. (Usually mandated monopolies or emergent oligopoly markets, see ISPs in the US.)

I agree that the end result of only luxury units being built is disgusting. And I think that's absolutely not an unpopular opinion. But it's this way because society, voters, representatives, local governments, etc.. are stuck in a very suboptimal configuration.

I agree that it should be a basic right.

[akudha]

Not enough units being built is only part of the problem. There are empty apartments in the buildings that he buys. You know why? Because they are owned by people who reside abroad (US, Australia, Canada etc). These people have plenty of cash, so they buy multiple properties and just let it sit there (if they can't sell it for a profit), visiting for a week every 2-3 years. They are simply pricing the locals out. The only reason they buy is to sell it at some point in future, for a profit.

You asked why it is morally bad. It is morally bad because the prices are artificially inflated. This guy I told you about, he can sit on these empty properties for 5, 10, 20 years if he chooses to, because he doesn't need the money.

So not only people like him inflate the prices, they also let properties sit empty.

None of this is illegal, of course. One can argue it is just business, that is also true. But that doesn't make it ethical or moral. Real estate prices in cities like Bangalore are absurd, thanks to people like him. It is happening in Canada, Australia etc too. Chinese people "parking" their money in NYC, Toronto etc housing markets (it is just one example, I am not picking on Chinese, just to be clear)

[pas]

Why can they sell for a future profit? Because there prices are going up faster than inflation? What does this mean? Demand grows faster than supply. What does this mean? Not enough units are being built.

... it's microeconomics. It's real estate. One of the most liquid of markets, one of the most well studied of economic fields. One of the most common example in microecon. Literally econ 101, no oversimplification, no simplification.

Sure, we can add other aspects, like vacancy. (Just as there's a natural rate of unemployment, there's a natural rate of vacancy. And if property taxes are too low, then this rate is too high.)

Also it's possible to tax vacant units. As some cities in Canada do.

> This guy I told you about, he can sit on these empty properties for 5, 10, 20 years if he chooses to, because he doesn't need the money.

What's the problem with that? He basically subsidized the construction. That's equivalent to a direct zero interest loan to the developers.

-----------

Yes, we all know that since the market has a tendency to remain irrational longer than one anticipates it's rarely a good idea to bet against very visible trends. Especially if those trends directly emerge from very visibly bad politics.

In this sense I think buying real estate and letting it sit empty is questionable. But, like I said, it's still funding development. High prices still incentivize development. We know how these things go. We know how irrational people are. (How we regularly fail to elect competent governments.) At some point it's impossible to paper over this. Like you said, basic housing should be provided, not something to fight tooth and nail for. But for some reason it's not happening. (And it's not like we don't know how. Soviet high-rise blocs are all over Europe and they are pretty okay, yet somehow the 'projects' in the US failed spectacularly. [And of course we know why they failed.]) And it's hard [but not impossible!] to hold people accountable for looking out for themselves in this crazy world (by using their existing capital to invest into housing).