[toss1]

The short answer is this an exemplar of the distinction between generating income by producing vs generating income by rent-seeking.

Producing something, goods, services, useful information, etc. is a net plus for society, adding value for both the producer and the consumer, making the society overall richer.

Rent-seeking is purely extractive - it extracts value from the consumer, and in the cases where the extractor is outside of the society, e.g., a foreigner or oligarch-type, it extracts value from the society, leaving the society poorer.

[bouncycastle]

Many positives. For example, the buildings get to be maintained and left in a better condition, rather than deteriorate. Streets look better too, and landrods have an interest that their assets are located in areas with low crime and adequate public services, as that improves the value of their properties. Often airbnb properties are well maintained, and I've seen a few examples where derelict properties were turned into nice looking houses in my town.

Landlords such as Airbnb hosts usually invest a lot in furniture and equipment, helping to keep the producers in business. Not to mention provide employment thanks to renovations, cleaning and maintenance. I'd say it leaves the economy more vibrant and benefits all. A classic example where landlords were banned was the Soviet Union, and all the housing problems that followed. Although the USSR finally collapsed, people there still live in the old Khrushchevkas...

[toss1]

>>Many positives....buildings get to be maintained

Sure, let's talk about second-order effects as if they somehow contradict the main issue of extracting all profit.

Yes, to the extent there is investment that returns to the local economy, both as good/services purchased locally, and assets that remain local. that is a positive. But remember, these are ALL ostensibly profit-making ventures. To the extent the profit leaves the local/national economy, it is an absolute negative. If the landlord is a local, and their profits are spent locally, it is all positive. When the landlord is foreign or doesn't participate in the local economy, it is a hard negative. And a foreign or corporate-/oligarch-ish landlord has no incentive to put anything back into the local economy, or maintain the buildings beyond the minimum, so any positive effects are minimized contrasted with a local landlord who might take pride in his buildings & reputation and participate in community building because it is his community too. (Obviously exceptions exist, but exfiltrating the profits is a pure net negative.)

AS for your AirBnB argument, it is fabricated fantasy. There may be isolated instances where it is a positive, but I've recently read reports from four continents how both movements and laws are underway to attempt to undo the damage AifBnBs do to communities; you conveniently ignore this while tacitly arguing against it. The fact is, even as an AirBnB guest, remote owners suck, while on-site owners are typically great (I just enjoyed one of the best examples last week). The remote owners superficially spiff up the place so it takes good pics, but do the absolute bare minimum of short-term maintenance, while the on-site owners renting out parts of their own building actually invest in the property.

And overall, the influence of turning a substantial number of buildings into short-term rentals is pernicious. The people staying in those buildings by definition have no investment in the local economy, culture, or society, so they do nothing to help the commons issues. The reduced housing stock droves up rental rates for actual locals, allowing often remote landlords to extract more money from a declining community. It is effectively two methods of stripping assets and wealth from a community, effectively making it poorer — please explain how involuntary impoverishment makes improvements in the life of a community or it's individual people.

[junon]

Seems nobody has read the comment I'm responding to. I understand this part. They're saying it is detrimental to the home country. Why?

[nradov]

Efficient capital allocation is a net positive for society.

[toss1]

"Efficient" for whom, over what time-frame, and by what definition?

"Efficient capital allocation" is another hand-wavey concept with no clear definition which is far too often used to justify fundamentally evil results, up to and including arguably the most massive and fundamentally stupid strategic blunder in history.

The USA was the worlds remaining superpower and was democratic.

But based on "efficient capital allocation", the USA decided it was more "efficient" to offshore its "fungible" labor to cheaper Chinese workers. This gutted entire regions and sectors of the economy, literally destroyed the middle class which formed the basis of stability in the country, and handed to an adversarial authoritarian regime both numerous choke-points on it's economy and defense capabilities and technological advantages sufficient to turn it into a serious peer-threat. On top of that, the gutting of the economy brought about conditions for a full-on assault in democracy in the USA.

You seriously need to rethink your "philosophy" based on glib quips.

[junon]

I understand why it's not great for the target country. I'm asking why GP said it was bad for the home country.

[margalabargala]

It's bad for wherever the person happens to be operating.

[junon]

Which is the target country. Not what I'm asking about.

[margalabargala]

The implication is that the person in question is also extracting rents from their home country in addition. They're already bad for their home country, they additionally become bad for the target country as well.