[andrewstuart]

And a follow up note:

You'll hear people saying "the solution to the housing crisis is supply - building more houses will fix it!"

Who says this? Property developers and real estate agents.

"increasing supply" just means more money to property developers and real estate agents at sky high prices to investors who will rent them out.

Remember when you hear politicians talking about solving it by saying they'll "solve supply" and "build more houses" - that's the property developer lobby talking about their own interests.

"Supply is a lie". It's a beautiful lie because it conveniently gives the rich investors/real estate agents and property developers something to tell the government to do, that appears to "solve the problem", but in fact just serves their own interests. Supply is indeed the perfect lie. Very much like how the packaging industry tell us to recycle so we don't notice the vast waste they produce.

[endisneigh]

If not more supply what’s the solution to a housing shortage?

[galfarragem]

To consider houses as a basic human need and not as a (good) investment.

In theory an huge increment in supply should balance the market. The problem is that in practice, you can't increase supply enough to "fix" it. Houses are a safe investment, so when they devalue, they are bought right away.

E.g: Portugal is one of the countries in Europe with more houses per inhabitant but the housing market for locals was completely wrecked by Airbnb and foreign buyers (good climate and cheap prices). And I say this as a centrist or even leaning right.

[endisneigh]

Ok, what’s your solution, exactly? When there’s a food shortage, you subsidize food, which is exactly what virtually all governments do.

When there’s a housing shortage, I guess not building is somehow the solution?

[galfarragem]

Empirically:

- Limit ownership to residents.

- Limit the amount of houses per person. Max. of 2?

- Limit airbnb outside touristic areas.

Stuff that doesn't work: subsidize houses or limit rents.

[endisneigh]

After you do all of that what happens if people still want to buy? Migrants come in, people are born? Homelessness I guess?

Why have a max of two? Seems arbitrary, why not one?

[orwin]

> After you do all of that what happens if people still want to buy? Migrants come in, people are born? Homelessness I guess?

Easy, local government pay for new developpements according to their needs, and rent them at 1/20th of their cost (per year, a bit more to account for losses maybe) for at least 10 year, after which the familly/homeowner can buy the rest of the house.

[galfarragem]

> Why have a max of two? Seems arbitrary, why not one?

Finding the sweet spot implies trial end error. It's certainly not 1 and I suspect 2 is too restrictive unnecessarily. The relevant is to restrain housing from being a financial instrument not to repress people. If a person can't buy a dozen houses the demand (and consequently the price) will fall.

[gjulianm]

Prioritizing demand from people who need the house to live instead of letting people buy housing as a financial instrument?

[shitlord]

Also, how will we ever deal with population growth?