[k__]

Japan seems to get at least the real estate stuff right.

No nationalization needed when houses aren't worth investing in.

Also, give people something else worth investing into. Make laws that move all the incentive out of the housing market and into something that helps in the long run. Energy, research, etc.

[kiba]

Land value tax would be a good addition to the Japanese model. Raise the tax high enough, land prices are zero, leaving behind only the value of the home. Homes, like cars, will naturally depreciate in value. No weird artificial depreciation of houses needed.

You can still have investment in real estate, but it will be a competitive market. You can't sit on land and let it appreciate without putting in the work, because appreciation of land means higher taxes.

[andsoitis]

Land is a scarce resource. I don’t know that crating a system to wash that reality away is desirable.

[rcxdude]

Land value tax doesn't remove that, it mostly changes who benefits from that scarcity and more strongly incentivises using that scarce resource productively.

[corimaith]

Japan has relatively cheaper real estate because of their lax zoning laws and frequent earthquakes drive the long term value of construction down. Everywhere else in Asia with similar laws people do pour their savings into real estate.

It dosen't really have anything to do with what you are saying because the Nikkei underperformed relative to FTSE or S&P 500.

[k__]

Better laws/incentives could still pull people out of the housing market.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Everywhere else in Asia with similar laws people do pour their savings into real estate.

Isn't this because most of Asia has just copied the western capitalist housing asset monetisation scheme with Japan being the only exception?

[kiba]

What do you mean by monenization scheme?

Land are worth something because it's undertaxed. If you tax land high enough, the price of land is zero. This means you don't have to take out a loan to buy the land, but maybe you need to do so for the building. Lands in cities are often high enough that they exceed the value of buildings. So, land price being zero save you money up-front, but you have to pay higher taxes on the land.

The improvements are naturally depreciating assets. Your house, much like your car, fall apart over time without maintenance. Ideally, you aren't taxed on improvements.

So, in a properly functioning market, you can buy property, but it's depreciating in price all the time, while you are left with a tax bill on the land. Each time, land value roses, you are left with a higher tax bill every year.

[ericmay]

Japan also has less social mobility - it’s a great country but it’s no paradise.

Homes get torn down all the time because they aren’t worth anything - not exactly environmentally friendly.

Even in America today you have plenty of things worth investing in that don’t have to be homes if you can’t stomach the initial investment. Idk what you envision about replacing investment in homes with “research” though certainly curious to learn more about what you envision.

[rangestransform]

It would be vastly more advantageous to our actual standard of living if housing depreciates, people invested in business that provide something to scoring instead of land, and we could periodically tear down housing and rebuild it for cheap so that people can live in nicer residences

[ericmay]

I think it's very difficult to compare policies in a meaningful way, and be curious to understand why you believe it would be vastly more advantageous to our actual standard of living if housing depreciated, and you could be right, but I don't think your claim that periodically tearing down housing and rebuilding it for cheap means nicer residences. On its face it seems that the opposite is true: cheaper materials means cheaper housing, but not necessarily nicer housing. One way that this claim is suspicious to me is that older houses in the United States are much nicer, if maintained, than newer builds, dollar for dollar and the quality of craftsmanship and materials isn't easy to replicate today. I have actual hardwood planks for flooring. Today if you want "hardwood flooring" it's typically a series of interlocking planks for easy/cheap install (and substantial markup) but not necessarily nice.

And the homes I've seen in Japan personally didn't seem to stand out to me as particularly nice but maybe you have some examples that you are thinking of or a different experience?

[pezezin]

Japan is a really rigid country that values stability, hierarchy and following rules above all else. There is a reason why their economy has been stagnant since 1990.

And yeah, the houses might be cheap, but they are also tiny and most Japanese cities are ugly as sin. Not a great example IMHO.

[maest]

> There is a reason why their economy has been stagnant since 1990.

There are many many reasons that go into explaining an economic outcome.

Reducing everything to a perceived cultural difference is wrong and intellectually uncurious.