[at-w]

I have no interest in being forced to tie down millions of dollars or go into massive debt every time I want to move or work somewhere new because you don't approve of me agreeing to pay someone to rent their place. Without the ability to rent, not only would you have to do that every time you move in somewhere, but moving away for any period would require you to sell the place altogether or leave it entirely empty.

Even with the recent run up in real estate prices, housing is generally a terrible investment compared to stocks or actual productive investment vehicles. Even if there weren't massive transaction costs in buying and selling housing, which your proposal would force people to incur every time they move, it would force everyone to lock up their money in an objectively worse investment because you fetishize home ownership.

Taking your principle at face value, the same would be true of cars. Car rental agencies "add nothing of value to society" by simply renting out something they own that could otherwise be owned by the person using it. Should we force people to buy cars every time they travel somewhere and need one to get around?

Maybe a better analogy given this is HN is renting computing power. Why should companies like AWS be able to profit from "adding nothing of value to society," i.e. simply renting out server space/computing power?

Respectfully, this proposal shows a serious lack of economic understanding that seems important to have before making extreme policy proposals.

[notjulianjaynes]

I believe you are in the minority of renters if your idea of home ownership involves "millions" of dollars." Even at current real estate prices you can buy two houses for less than 1 million in most parts of the country.

I agree with your point that outlawing rental properties completely is silly, but not your analogy to cars or compute, which are not real property nor nessecary for one to, you know, stay alive.

Most services landlords provide are compulsory if you can not afford to purchase a home, something made more difficult when others drive up the prices of homes by purchasing them and then renting them out for a profit.

[kevviiinn]

Perhaps some people are just poor with math and that's why landlords can take advantage, not that it's the right thing to do of course

[boredpeter]

Did you read the last part of my comment? Go live in a hotel if you want to. You could argue my language was a bit extreme when I said add nothing of value, I will admit that. However, the situation with housing is different than cars or computing. Land is a finite resource. If landlords buy up all the houses in a town and convert them to airbnbs then residents have to compete for the small remaining land area that hasn’t been monopolized. It deprives many of home ownership which is something they want. Fetish is a dishonest term to use for something I would guess a majority of Americans want or have and really just sounds like a personal attack against me. Im guessing you must be a landlord.