[hacktehplanet]

The laws of supply and demand only says that an increase in supply will decrease price if everything else remains the same. Since that isn't the reality in housing markets there is nothing in the laws of supply and demand saying prices can't increase more by building more than they otherwise would have.

[mediascreen]

So, you are saying that increasing the supply of housing in this case actually would cause an increase in prices? How would that work?

I agree that there is no guarantee that building housing lowers prices, other causes (like increases in demand) may cause prices to go up (and the increased supply would lower the upward pressure). But I have a hard time to understand how increased supply would not have a downward effect on prices.

[hacktehplanet]

> But I have a hard time to understand how increased supply would not have a downward effect on prices.

It does, if that is the only thing that happens. If land owners or existing home owners willingness to sell, prospective renters or buyers willingness to buy, or any number of different things also change then those effects can overshadow an increase in supply. As they frequently do.

Starbucks keeps opening new locations but that doesn't say much to the effect that the price of a cup of coffee will decrease.

[pastacacioepepe]

> But I have a hard time to understand how increased supply would not have a downward effect on prices.

We can build housing much more efficiently and cheaply than we could 60 years ago, yet it's never been harder to buy a house.

The law of supply and demand only works as expected when used in an extremely simplified model.

If you account for all the other real factors (corporate greed, governmental intervention, NIMBYsm) that are skimmed over by economists, it becomes clear that the law of supply and demand should never be used alone to forecast future economic conditions.

[joking]

I don't think that you can build much cheaper than before, is like the cars, they have more or less the same price but have improved in many ways (efficiency for example). Anyway, the building cost is many times not the most important thing in the price of a house.

[pastacacioepepe]

> they have more or less the same price but have improved in many ways (efficiency for example).

If that was true, buying a house today would be as easy as it was in the 60s. In fact it isn't.

[erik_seaberg]

Supply and demand still works, but only when we account for the artificially limited supply of buildable land and permits.

[prox]

Would it be possible to crowdfund housing projects? I have seen some examples in europe where you buy into a housing with your savings. Development is complete done through collective desires of the fund.

[nirvdrum]

Not to be glib, but isn't that the role of government? Society crowd-funds projects with taxes. I appreciate that a smaller group could have finer control over decisions, but that might be a hard sell.

[cscurmudgeon]

Nah, that is too much more work than blaming Capitalism lmao.

[cscurmudgeon]

That basically says more supply can't CAUSE price increases.