Housing Regulation Critique

That's a problem of regulation/NIMBYsm right? Because if someone has 'captured' entire market, it means no one is living in those houses, they are just purchased and locked up. Meaning, they don't consume any resources, don't result in water, electricity networks etc. being strained, and don't result in extra congestion. Meaning, there's no problem to just build more. Unless regulations/zoning prevent it. So fight zoning, not "inequality".

It's really insane. Just remove everything that distorts the market. Restrictive zoning limits competition for a piece of land. Rent control distorts prices. Affordable units make building unprofitable. Get rid of that and housing will be so abundant.

It's not really "winning" so much as finding an economic equilibrium (unless that's what you mean by "capitalism"). I think the problem here is the regulation that prevents the construction of new homes. If you remove that artificial barrier, housing costs could decline. Alternatively, the municipalities could tax the real estate developers who are profiting from the regulation, but if you can get that resolution to pass muster then there probably wouldn't be a

It’s not capitalism; it’s excessive government regulation preventing new housing from being built. (Also the ocean too)

The reason for the high cost of housing is because of Artificial scarcity of land made by regressive zoning density restrictions which creates market inefficiencies or market failures. The economic term is called rent-seeking and the market failures are bad for the economy. Instead of creating more wealth for everyone the instead allow the wealthy landlords to steal wealth from others.Fir example, these laws benefit President Trump to the detriment of the working class and middle-income class

Buy it up, and then?If there's no government-enforced zoning restriction on new buildings (which are really monopolies on land use granted to existing landlords), new buildings will flood the market once you jack up prices.A true monopoly can only survive by using government regulation to enforce its position - if not for senseless zoning regulation (government-granted land use monopolies granted to the middle-class in return for votes), housing wouldn't be an issue in the US.

That's correct -- there is no contradiction here. A totally unregulated housing market would be an unmitigated disaster. And some regulations are certainly counter-productive (e.g. exclusionary zoning). The problem isn't "more regulation" or "less regulation" -- it's making affordable housing a priority and crafting policy that is consistent with that goal. The problem isn't that the people in charge are stupid and bad at economics, it's that landlord

Capitalism isn't the reason your housing costs so much; that's because of crappy government regulations (i.e. Euclidean zoning) and NIMBYs. Remove the regulations and let landowners do what they want with land and it'll be fixed; that's how it works here in Japan.Conversely, the reason American healthcare is such a disaster is because of really bad regulation. Developed nations have shown that good healthcare systems require strong regulation, but not shitty regulation l

The government already heavily skews the market by telling land/house owners they may not build on the land they own. Often it's landlords behind this as this keeps supply low, but there are plenty of landlords who would love to invest into new constructions but can't because of the captured government's monopoly on violence. The result can hardly be called a free market. Personally I don't think that restricting rents is a good solution to the problem though. Just allow

It’s only “limited” because housing has been made artificially scarce by local governments operating in the interests of property owners by restricting new builds in order to keep housing prices high. In regions and countries that have allowed enough housing to be built to actually meet demand there is much less hand-wringing about short-term rentals.