[Keegs]

Suppose the rules changed so that some authority guarantees your right to sell your house at the price you bought it, but only at that price: when you find your next home, you get back the cost of your old one, which is then auctioned off to its next owner. Individuals are protected from falling house prices and no longer treat their homes as investments. The authority takes on that risk, now distributed across many homes, some of which appreciate. How do you think this would play out?

[ta1243]

Sounds great to me. After 2008 my flat in the UK was in negative equity -- dropped 40% in 6 months from when I bought in mid 2007.

I eventually sold it in 2016 for just 2% under what I paid for.

[psunavy03]

As shittily as every other "experiment" in human history where someone thought they were smart enough to set all the rules for other people and treat them as if they were too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

[rightbyte]

I guess you could have it "opt in". But unless the guarantied resale price is adjusted for inflation the deal sounds quite bad.

It would probably inflate prices also.