By reducing instances of private equity firms buying all housing stock en masse and "maximizing profit" by squeezing every last cent their tenants could give.
Also Adam Smith has a lot of rants against rent seeking behavior and landlords if you want to go with that "communist" writing.
> The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give
Funnily enough, check how far back the 1/3 income for rent comes from and the context on which it is mentioned:
> The rent of an estate above ground commonly amounts to what is supposed to be a third of the gross produce; and it is generally a rent certain and independent of the occasional variations in the crop. [..] This rent “is seldom less than a fourth ... of the whole produce.”
Private equity firms are nothing compared to the power of average homeowners using land appreciation as their retirement plan.
A simple rule is that nothing people blame on corporations is ever caused by corporations. People and governments are legitimately more powerful than corporations! And they often use that for evil.
Reduce demand for housing, if appreciation is low enough, investors will invest their money other things than housing. With equal supply and reduced demand, this should normally lead to lower prices.
Example: https://www.propublica.org/article/when-private-equity-becom...
Also Adam Smith has a lot of rants against rent seeking behavior and landlords if you want to go with that "communist" writing.
> The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give
Funnily enough, check how far back the 1/3 income for rent comes from and the context on which it is mentioned:
> The rent of an estate above ground commonly amounts to what is supposed to be a third of the gross produce; and it is generally a rent certain and independent of the occasional variations in the crop. [..] This rent “is seldom less than a fourth ... of the whole produce.”