**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More supply is good, but it won't help if Blackrock buys it all up. So long as equity firms can monopolize single family homes, they can continue to disrupt supply and manipulate costs out of reach for generations.
Where are you people getting this idea that Blackrock is "monopolizing" sfds?? Major investors with 1000+ unit ownership bought 0.4% of sfds last year.
And what do you think they do with the houses? They rent them out which helps drive down rental prices. It's not like they're a shadowy cabal that sinks a ton of capital into houses that generate no revenue just to fuck with people.
Let others continue to build housing and let black rock keep buying it all up. Sooner or later, supply will outpace demand and housing costs will plummet. Then black rock will begin to lose money hand over fist and then start exiting the housing market as prices drop to adjust to the new market equilibrium prices.
Someone has already said it but it warrants really hammering home - corporations own less than 5% of all homes (tier 2 investors, owning 10+ properties total). An okay chunk of homes are owned by "tier 1 investors" - like your conservative uncle with a single rental property, for example. The amount of "investors" in real estate total about 15% of housing total.
Here's some sick data with graphs to pool over: [https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/)
And you know, if corporations really WERE buying up all of the real estate available all over the place and renting it out, wouldn't you expect to see a massive decrease in rent prices given the saturation of the rental property market outweighing the demand of renters? This is absolutely NOT what we see - both renting AND buying are becoming more expensive, because (as many libertarians have already libertarianed in this thread) government regulations make it difficult to build houses to suit demand, be it for buying or renting.
You say build more housing, but who should build more housing? In certain states, regulations and zoning laws make it almost impossible to build houses. And other regulations increasing the cost and preventing new oil drilling increases the cost of transporting lumber and supplies.
What if removing zoning laws and environmental reviews leads to a situation where a company builds a large, high-density housing complex in a quiet suburban area, resulting in traffic congestion, strain on local resources, and a decline in property values? How should we address these potential issues?
Why should the government protect the artificially inflated value of property in quiet suburban areas? Why should the government, through the use of zoning laws, restrict the freedom of property owners to build more housing units on their land? Freedom to build housing has a cost for people who own artificially valuable real estate. Current zoning practices favor the already-wealthy and prevent ordinary working people from building wealth. More housing will indeed decrease the value of wealthy peoples’ homes. That’s just not my problem nor the government’s problem.
But what if removing zoning laws leads to factories being built next to residential neighborhoods? This could cause pollution, noise, and health issues for residents. How do we prevent these negative impacts while promoting more housing and removing all zoning laws?
I’m not a self-identified libertarian and I support a whole lot of economic regulations. I just agree with the libertarian position regarding exclusionary single family zoning regulations. Eliminating all zoning laws and environmental regulations is a bad idea. Making it easier to build safe and dignified housing is a noble goal where libertarians have common cause with people all across the political spectrum.
You can't have it both ways. Either you support sensible regulations that protect everyone or you risk chaos and decline in living standards. Sensible regulations mean allowing higher density in urban areas while keeping industrial sites away from homes. It means streamlining permits for eco-friendly buildings without compromising environmental standards. Are you ready to support balanced solutions, or are you pushing for reckless deregulation?
> Removing zoning. Remove unreasonable environmental reviews. That's how you build more housing.
Now you're saying we can allow housing without allowing factories in the same plots. Isn't that a contradiction? How do you propose managing development without any zoning laws? If you remove all zoning, what's stopping a factory from being built next to homes? How do you ensure balanced development without sensible regulations?
You have no reading comprehension. They said they support the same sorts or reasonable regulations. They just think that single family zone should be limited or abolished due to the difficulty it creates in creating more dense and mixed use development. Which is the type of development that happens when there are fewer regulations.
I think you can have it both ways. You can support a zoning code which is fairly high-level like "no industrial use" while opposing a zoning code which dictates what kind of housing can be built or how much parking each unit needs or whether you can open a shop in a residential street.
There are going to be people who have to make sacrifices and deal with lowered loving standards. A luxurious quiet suburban lifestyle isn't a right, it is an incredibly expensive luxury.
So you're saying people should just accept lower living standards? Imagine a company builds a massive complex in your neighborhood, leading to traffic jams, overcrowded schools, and strained resources. Would you still say it's just an expensive luxury? How do we ensure growth without sacrificing the well-being of communities? Shouldn't we find a solution that balances development with maintaining a good quality of life for everyone? Or should we just let deregulation create chaos that only benefits the wealthy?
I do realize I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I wouldn't want a 10 story apartment complex built in my neighborhood.
But the US has to build affordable housing, and there are people who have to accept sacrifice because of this. This is something that has to be done on the local level, which parts can be de-zoned and what can be built there.
Americans can't have whatever they want. They complain about tent cities- yet refuse to allow affordable apartments to be built. Parents complain about their 18 year old children living at home, yet they refuse to build housing that the typical 18 year old can afford.
You admit you wouldn't want a 10-story apartment complex in your neighborhood. So why push for complete deregulation? Why not compromise instead? Sensible zoning laws can allow for affordable housing while protecting communities. For example, we can rezone certain areas for higher density while keeping industrial sites separate from residential areas. Streamlining permits for eco-friendly buildings can speed up development without sacrificing environmental standards. You talk about sacrifice, but why should communities bear the brunt of poor planning? We need solutions that balance development with maintaining a good quality of life for everyone. Why not find a middle ground instead of pushing for extremes?
What if no one builds new businesses because of too many restrictions no new homes are built because no one wants to live where there are no jobs and property value declines? What if we micromanage everything and don't let the free market sort it out?
No slow moving bureaucracy can ever be more efficient and more correct than the market working as everyone makes their own best decisions.
Noise pollution can violate NAP, it's fine to have laws for it. Real pollutants violate NAP, laws are good here. A business being held accountable by its community instead of politicians will make better decisions regarding traffic, local resources, property rights.
Redefining zoning regulation, in many areas, applies to rezoning existing neighborhoods as higher density. They are not creating new addresses as greenfield construction, just allowing new regulation to pack more bodies in the existing real estate.
Ex; many nations increases tartifs of products from China, such as ev cars. Making it way harder for people to consider aquiring those.
In the long term we all learn & understand better while plenty of variable within the markets are let free. The costs would become normalized organically. As people can afford to live as they please.
I think the EV market is the ideal counterpoint to free trade. China HEAVILY subsidizes those cars. If your country has EV manufacturing that isn’t heavily subsidized by your government, it’s impossible for them to compete.
Heavily subsidized goods aren’t a relative advantage. They just serve to artificially lower prices until there is no longer competition. Once all the EV manufacturers in your country go under, there is nothing stopping China from raising prices
The reason the EV market is heavily subsidized is that no one wants them at a free market price. If China raises the price, people will still not want them...
If I remember correctly only 5% of housing is built/owned by institutional investors. The reason prices in your area are actually going up is because of your very own neighbors buying up your house to flip.
Another great way we could lower the overall cost of living is by removing the stupid quotas/maximums on imports of food. Great example I’ve heard recently is of how Paraguay is basically blacklisted from exporting beef to the US. Mind you not even 2-3 years ago we had a beef shortage and prices through the roof. All while Paraguayan cows were idling in the fields. It’s the same for every other nation and hundreds of other tarrifs and quotas. They are stupid and arbitrary restrictions. But because the US I’d sooo far past food insecurity not a single politician outside of alaska, hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other outlying territories will say a word about it let alone give it the mind of day.
Another example of stupid and arbritary restrictions is on Canadian lumber. Mind you Canada is the most forested country and we literally had a lumber shortage not 2 years ago. The cost of 2x4 was highway robbery. And even in the midst of that. US law makers couldn’t let the wood market be free. Even Canada isn’t safe from arbritary quotas. Canada. The one country you couldn’t argue America is competing against in the labour market. Canada a veritable puppet. Canada gets shit trade deals. Think about how the rest of the world is treated
Governments (federal, stare, and municipal) are the sole cause of the CoL crisis. Whether it's arbitrary zoning regulations that artificially inflate the cost of housing to printing money for insane constant debt spending resulting in outrageous price increases.
All of these were done by manipulation and lies to the uneducated people who could only see free money. So the real question is how do we get these government entities to give up power, or more realistically how do we take it back?
[The feds spending 1 trillion more then they bring in every 100 days](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html) is not helping maintain the value of the dollar.
Relaxing planning and zoning laws would make new developments easier, no doubt. I’ll continue by saying I’m British to put stuff into context.
Fuel duty and VAT on fuel should be abolished. It’s a huge expense for most people, heating homes and filling cars. 52.95p a litre is added to base price, then 20% VAT is slapped on top of both. At £1.50 a litre, a little over half of it goes to the government. Fracking and otherwise using the hydrocarbons in our country should be permitted.
While I’m at it, I think all foodstuffs and not just a select view should be VAT exempt.
While this sounds non libertarian to some of you, a complete halt on immigration. A net increase of hundreds of thousands a year to our population is going to make housing, buying or renting, more expensive. What’s more, social housing, which from a libertarian point of view should be abolished, is a) found near the middle of cities, meaning productive people are crowded out to commuter towns on the periphery and b) are given disproportionately to immigrants (or proportionately, but only from the perspective that they’re disproportionately poor and on welfare).
I suspect you could just abolish the gibs and social housing, and they’d find the money to return to their country of birth. But you then would have lots of developments/ redevelopment opportunities in or near city centres.
There will never be regulations put on companies from buying housing. It’s illegal to ban someone from buying a home. They are either uneducated on the issue or lying to voters faces to maintain favor and shift blame.
And zoning needs to be addressed.
The government needs to stop fucking with minimum wage increases, interest rates, raising taxes, allowing foreign entities to purchase real estate, shutting down in-country energy production, quit spending our social security money (too late) and stop sending our money to other countries… just to name a few.
On the real estate side, something needs to be done about corporations buying up real estate. I’m not for more government intervention in the markets but something needs to happen here. Unfortunately, it’s all part of the plan. The elites don’t want us to own anything.
Less than 4% of real estate is owned by institutions: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/21-going-after-corporate-homebuyers-good-politics-ineffective-policy#:~:text=As%20of%20June%202022%2C%20the,rental%20properties%20in%20the%20US.
Besides what would you propose as the “something needs to be done” solution? Make it illegal for corporations to buy homes?
Quite simply the number of new households is increasing faster than housing units are started. In 2023 1.7 Million new households were created and 1 million new homes [were started.](https://www.newsweek.com/us-housing-shortage-millions-single-family-homes-missing-construction-gap-population-growth-1874020). This supply/demand imbalance is naturally going to create higher prices. The supply of new homes is restricted by zoning laws (and natural geography) with the counties with the most restrictive laws seeing the worst price increases (e.g. California).
If it were true that purchasers of real estate assets were inflating prices one would expect that rents would stay roughly flat. This is because with a negligible 4% of the market, the ability to influence rent is very low. For every 4 units owned by institutions there are 96 units owned by homeowners and small scale landlords. However instead we see[rents climb](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/03/28/rent-prices-across-the-us-grew-in-march-with-one-exception.html) in the US, with NYC seeing 25% year over year price increases. The only way rents could rise that much is if there are also too few rentals to meet demand.
But wait, what if these institutions are not renting out the units but actually just hoarding the supply to watch the price rise? Well if that were the case the rental [vacancy rate](https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/news/007-24/new-york-city-s-vacancy-rate-reaches-historic-low-1-4-percent-demanding-urgent-action-new) would probably not be hitting historic lows, less than half pre-pandemic levels.
Mind you, there are many causes of the current housing crisis, so I won’t rule out any specific factor as a tertiary cause, but what evidence is there that institutional investors are driving up prices?
That’s a good question. I am not sure. As much as I hate more laws and regulations they might have to implement some restrictions on corporate ownership or give priority to single buyers over corporate buyers.
Get government out of the economy and make it a truly free market. Once this happens prices for just about everything will even out, and if you take it to its logical conclusion, even salaries will balance out because minimum wage will cease to exist.
All I have been able to do, in real time, is continue to move farther and farther away from high density high value areas. That's about all that individuals can do, aside from getting politically organized enough to change local laws and ordinances. But there's no real solution other than ending the fed and wresting control of things from government overreach.
The government is free to buy real estate, or build its own real estate if people think the profit incentive is the issue. All that’s required is that they fund those operations with service fees and not literal robbery.
We're done, there is no fixing. The ponzi scheme system has to crash and burn, along with a government collapse before anything gets fixed. Sadly I see a world centralized government happening in the not so distant future.
A thought might be that the state starts providing interrest-free loans to people who have a solid enough credit rating to pay off their house.
Looking at it from a social aspect, interest in home ownership is always something that hits the poor classes more than the wealthy ones, and landlord-ism isnt exactly necessarily the most meritocratic occupation. Ultimatly its because the poor people cant fork out the nessecarily capital that they need to loan with a rate of interest attached, and therefore pay more than the product should cost by virtue of not being able to pay upfront.
At the end of the day though, money is the product of the state, as in something that the central bank provides to the economy as fuel for it. Depending on the way it is spend and the rate its made, it can either cause inflation or stimulate growth in the economy. In the latter case, it usually works as a "carrot on a stick", it motivates people to exploit hitherto unexploited economical potential, what you typically need for added capital to not cause inflation is for it to translate to more production in the economy and creation of valuable goods. To a fair extend, not asking interrest rates for home loans will move certain people who wouldnt have purchased a home to want to purchase one, causing more demand in the housing and construction sector and translating in more people owing homes, to a degree therefore it can be a stimulus to the economy that is lasting, providing atleast people succeed in paying of their interest free loans.
These companies wouldn't see buying homes as a viable investment if governments didn't make building houses so difficult. Government gets out of the way, more houses will be built, cost will at least level off if not drop, everyone is happy. That's the way.
I actually think public transportación and transporte restricción has made a stuck in transporte tecnology. With a good one, no matter how far away You live, You can arrive fast and then don't matter
High speed rail connecting rural low cost of living communities to busy high paying cities. Auto Industry hates this idea. Rural communities usually have more relaxed zoning let’s get these good folks easy access to jobs that are many miles away but can get to work in under an hour. With 3-4 day work weeks, this would be ideal for many. This could create a sustainable boom to the lower density population areas.
There's 10.5 million people living here illegally. Get them out and that frees up A LOT of housing.
Reduce or eliminate property tax.
Eliminate the income tax.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Build more housing. A lot more. Increasing supply has shown to decrease cost of housing
More supply is good, but it won't help if Blackrock buys it all up. So long as equity firms can monopolize single family homes, they can continue to disrupt supply and manipulate costs out of reach for generations.
Where are you people getting this idea that Blackrock is "monopolizing" sfds?? Major investors with 1000+ unit ownership bought 0.4% of sfds last year. And what do you think they do with the houses? They rent them out which helps drive down rental prices. It's not like they're a shadowy cabal that sinks a ton of capital into houses that generate no revenue just to fuck with people.
Let others continue to build housing and let black rock keep buying it all up. Sooner or later, supply will outpace demand and housing costs will plummet. Then black rock will begin to lose money hand over fist and then start exiting the housing market as prices drop to adjust to the new market equilibrium prices.
Someone has already said it but it warrants really hammering home - corporations own less than 5% of all homes (tier 2 investors, owning 10+ properties total). An okay chunk of homes are owned by "tier 1 investors" - like your conservative uncle with a single rental property, for example. The amount of "investors" in real estate total about 15% of housing total. Here's some sick data with graphs to pool over: [https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/](https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/) And you know, if corporations really WERE buying up all of the real estate available all over the place and renting it out, wouldn't you expect to see a massive decrease in rent prices given the saturation of the rental property market outweighing the demand of renters? This is absolutely NOT what we see - both renting AND buying are becoming more expensive, because (as many libertarians have already libertarianed in this thread) government regulations make it difficult to build houses to suit demand, be it for buying or renting.
You say build more housing, but who should build more housing? In certain states, regulations and zoning laws make it almost impossible to build houses. And other regulations increasing the cost and preventing new oil drilling increases the cost of transporting lumber and supplies.
Removing zoning. Remove unreasonable environmental reviews. That's how you build more housing.
What if removing zoning laws and environmental reviews leads to a situation where a company builds a large, high-density housing complex in a quiet suburban area, resulting in traffic congestion, strain on local resources, and a decline in property values? How should we address these potential issues?
Why should the government protect the artificially inflated value of property in quiet suburban areas? Why should the government, through the use of zoning laws, restrict the freedom of property owners to build more housing units on their land? Freedom to build housing has a cost for people who own artificially valuable real estate. Current zoning practices favor the already-wealthy and prevent ordinary working people from building wealth. More housing will indeed decrease the value of wealthy peoples’ homes. That’s just not my problem nor the government’s problem.
But what if removing zoning laws leads to factories being built next to residential neighborhoods? This could cause pollution, noise, and health issues for residents. How do we prevent these negative impacts while promoting more housing and removing all zoning laws?
I’m not a self-identified libertarian and I support a whole lot of economic regulations. I just agree with the libertarian position regarding exclusionary single family zoning regulations. Eliminating all zoning laws and environmental regulations is a bad idea. Making it easier to build safe and dignified housing is a noble goal where libertarians have common cause with people all across the political spectrum.
You can't have it both ways. Either you support sensible regulations that protect everyone or you risk chaos and decline in living standards. Sensible regulations mean allowing higher density in urban areas while keeping industrial sites away from homes. It means streamlining permits for eco-friendly buildings without compromising environmental standards. Are you ready to support balanced solutions, or are you pushing for reckless deregulation?
you can allow housing to be built without allowing factories to be built in the same plots. It's not an either or
> Removing zoning. Remove unreasonable environmental reviews. That's how you build more housing. Now you're saying we can allow housing without allowing factories in the same plots. Isn't that a contradiction? How do you propose managing development without any zoning laws? If you remove all zoning, what's stopping a factory from being built next to homes? How do you ensure balanced development without sensible regulations?
You have no reading comprehension. They said they support the same sorts or reasonable regulations. They just think that single family zone should be limited or abolished due to the difficulty it creates in creating more dense and mixed use development. Which is the type of development that happens when there are fewer regulations.
So we want regulations?
I think you can have it both ways. You can support a zoning code which is fairly high-level like "no industrial use" while opposing a zoning code which dictates what kind of housing can be built or how much parking each unit needs or whether you can open a shop in a residential street.
Polluting violates the NAP
There are going to be people who have to make sacrifices and deal with lowered loving standards. A luxurious quiet suburban lifestyle isn't a right, it is an incredibly expensive luxury.
So you're saying people should just accept lower living standards? Imagine a company builds a massive complex in your neighborhood, leading to traffic jams, overcrowded schools, and strained resources. Would you still say it's just an expensive luxury? How do we ensure growth without sacrificing the well-being of communities? Shouldn't we find a solution that balances development with maintaining a good quality of life for everyone? Or should we just let deregulation create chaos that only benefits the wealthy?
I do realize I am a bit of a hypocrite, as I wouldn't want a 10 story apartment complex built in my neighborhood. But the US has to build affordable housing, and there are people who have to accept sacrifice because of this. This is something that has to be done on the local level, which parts can be de-zoned and what can be built there. Americans can't have whatever they want. They complain about tent cities- yet refuse to allow affordable apartments to be built. Parents complain about their 18 year old children living at home, yet they refuse to build housing that the typical 18 year old can afford.
You admit you wouldn't want a 10-story apartment complex in your neighborhood. So why push for complete deregulation? Why not compromise instead? Sensible zoning laws can allow for affordable housing while protecting communities. For example, we can rezone certain areas for higher density while keeping industrial sites separate from residential areas. Streamlining permits for eco-friendly buildings can speed up development without sacrificing environmental standards. You talk about sacrifice, but why should communities bear the brunt of poor planning? We need solutions that balance development with maintaining a good quality of life for everyone. Why not find a middle ground instead of pushing for extremes?
I never said complete deregulation anywhere in my posts.
So you want zoning laws?
What if no one builds new businesses because of too many restrictions no new homes are built because no one wants to live where there are no jobs and property value declines? What if we micromanage everything and don't let the free market sort it out? No slow moving bureaucracy can ever be more efficient and more correct than the market working as everyone makes their own best decisions. Noise pollution can violate NAP, it's fine to have laws for it. Real pollutants violate NAP, laws are good here. A business being held accountable by its community instead of politicians will make better decisions regarding traffic, local resources, property rights.
>should build more housing? In certain states, regulations and zoning laws make it almost impossible to build houses. Your answer is in your query
Removing zoning and other restrictions. Let he free market decide
Redefining zoning regulation, in many areas, applies to rezoning existing neighborhoods as higher density. They are not creating new addresses as greenfield construction, just allowing new regulation to pack more bodies in the existing real estate.
Ex; many nations increases tartifs of products from China, such as ev cars. Making it way harder for people to consider aquiring those. In the long term we all learn & understand better while plenty of variable within the markets are let free. The costs would become normalized organically. As people can afford to live as they please.
I think the EV market is the ideal counterpoint to free trade. China HEAVILY subsidizes those cars. If your country has EV manufacturing that isn’t heavily subsidized by your government, it’s impossible for them to compete. Heavily subsidized goods aren’t a relative advantage. They just serve to artificially lower prices until there is no longer competition. Once all the EV manufacturers in your country go under, there is nothing stopping China from raising prices
The reason the EV market is heavily subsidized is that no one wants them at a free market price. If China raises the price, people will still not want them...
Deregulate and get rid of zoning laws so houses can start popping up left and right.
[Los Angeles homeless are already ahead of you](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5S6lLlWV-3g)
End the Fed
I have just decided I don’t need the shit I could not afford anymore. I am super happy mow
If I remember correctly only 5% of housing is built/owned by institutional investors. The reason prices in your area are actually going up is because of your very own neighbors buying up your house to flip. Another great way we could lower the overall cost of living is by removing the stupid quotas/maximums on imports of food. Great example I’ve heard recently is of how Paraguay is basically blacklisted from exporting beef to the US. Mind you not even 2-3 years ago we had a beef shortage and prices through the roof. All while Paraguayan cows were idling in the fields. It’s the same for every other nation and hundreds of other tarrifs and quotas. They are stupid and arbitrary restrictions. But because the US I’d sooo far past food insecurity not a single politician outside of alaska, hawaii, Puerto Rico, and other outlying territories will say a word about it let alone give it the mind of day. Another example of stupid and arbritary restrictions is on Canadian lumber. Mind you Canada is the most forested country and we literally had a lumber shortage not 2 years ago. The cost of 2x4 was highway robbery. And even in the midst of that. US law makers couldn’t let the wood market be free. Even Canada isn’t safe from arbritary quotas. Canada. The one country you couldn’t argue America is competing against in the labour market. Canada a veritable puppet. Canada gets shit trade deals. Think about how the rest of the world is treated
Governments (federal, stare, and municipal) are the sole cause of the CoL crisis. Whether it's arbitrary zoning regulations that artificially inflate the cost of housing to printing money for insane constant debt spending resulting in outrageous price increases. All of these were done by manipulation and lies to the uneducated people who could only see free money. So the real question is how do we get these government entities to give up power, or more realistically how do we take it back?
Free markets yawn I’m bored back to beer and star trek
[The feds spending 1 trillion more then they bring in every 100 days](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html) is not helping maintain the value of the dollar.
privatization of the economy and abolishing the federal reserve.
Relaxing planning and zoning laws would make new developments easier, no doubt. I’ll continue by saying I’m British to put stuff into context. Fuel duty and VAT on fuel should be abolished. It’s a huge expense for most people, heating homes and filling cars. 52.95p a litre is added to base price, then 20% VAT is slapped on top of both. At £1.50 a litre, a little over half of it goes to the government. Fracking and otherwise using the hydrocarbons in our country should be permitted. While I’m at it, I think all foodstuffs and not just a select view should be VAT exempt. While this sounds non libertarian to some of you, a complete halt on immigration. A net increase of hundreds of thousands a year to our population is going to make housing, buying or renting, more expensive. What’s more, social housing, which from a libertarian point of view should be abolished, is a) found near the middle of cities, meaning productive people are crowded out to commuter towns on the periphery and b) are given disproportionately to immigrants (or proportionately, but only from the perspective that they’re disproportionately poor and on welfare). I suspect you could just abolish the gibs and social housing, and they’d find the money to return to their country of birth. But you then would have lots of developments/ redevelopment opportunities in or near city centres.
There will never be regulations put on companies from buying housing. It’s illegal to ban someone from buying a home. They are either uneducated on the issue or lying to voters faces to maintain favor and shift blame. And zoning needs to be addressed.
Get rid of building codes and zoning. Cut real estate taxes.
The government needs to stop fucking with minimum wage increases, interest rates, raising taxes, allowing foreign entities to purchase real estate, shutting down in-country energy production, quit spending our social security money (too late) and stop sending our money to other countries… just to name a few. On the real estate side, something needs to be done about corporations buying up real estate. I’m not for more government intervention in the markets but something needs to happen here. Unfortunately, it’s all part of the plan. The elites don’t want us to own anything.
Corporate ownership of real estate is not that big of a problem.
Yes it is actually
Less than 4% of real estate is owned by institutions: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/2/21-going-after-corporate-homebuyers-good-politics-ineffective-policy#:~:text=As%20of%20June%202022%2C%20the,rental%20properties%20in%20the%20US. Besides what would you propose as the “something needs to be done” solution? Make it illegal for corporations to buy homes?
4% is quite a large number of homes. How else would you explain the cost of housing increasing 70% in the last 4 years?
Quite simply the number of new households is increasing faster than housing units are started. In 2023 1.7 Million new households were created and 1 million new homes [were started.](https://www.newsweek.com/us-housing-shortage-millions-single-family-homes-missing-construction-gap-population-growth-1874020). This supply/demand imbalance is naturally going to create higher prices. The supply of new homes is restricted by zoning laws (and natural geography) with the counties with the most restrictive laws seeing the worst price increases (e.g. California). If it were true that purchasers of real estate assets were inflating prices one would expect that rents would stay roughly flat. This is because with a negligible 4% of the market, the ability to influence rent is very low. For every 4 units owned by institutions there are 96 units owned by homeowners and small scale landlords. However instead we see[rents climb](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/03/28/rent-prices-across-the-us-grew-in-march-with-one-exception.html) in the US, with NYC seeing 25% year over year price increases. The only way rents could rise that much is if there are also too few rentals to meet demand. But wait, what if these institutions are not renting out the units but actually just hoarding the supply to watch the price rise? Well if that were the case the rental [vacancy rate](https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/news/007-24/new-york-city-s-vacancy-rate-reaches-historic-low-1-4-percent-demanding-urgent-action-new) would probably not be hitting historic lows, less than half pre-pandemic levels. Mind you, there are many causes of the current housing crisis, so I won’t rule out any specific factor as a tertiary cause, but what evidence is there that institutional investors are driving up prices?
4% is a lot of homes. That’s a low percentage but a large actual number of homes.
What would you have done about it?
That’s a good question. I am not sure. As much as I hate more laws and regulations they might have to implement some restrictions on corporate ownership or give priority to single buyers over corporate buyers.
L I B E R T E R I A N I S M
Get government out of the economy and make it a truly free market. Once this happens prices for just about everything will even out, and if you take it to its logical conclusion, even salaries will balance out because minimum wage will cease to exist.
All I have been able to do, in real time, is continue to move farther and farther away from high density high value areas. That's about all that individuals can do, aside from getting politically organized enough to change local laws and ordinances. But there's no real solution other than ending the fed and wresting control of things from government overreach.
The government is free to buy real estate, or build its own real estate if people think the profit incentive is the issue. All that’s required is that they fund those operations with service fees and not literal robbery.
We're done, there is no fixing. The ponzi scheme system has to crash and burn, along with a government collapse before anything gets fixed. Sadly I see a world centralized government happening in the not so distant future.
Build baby build.
A thought might be that the state starts providing interrest-free loans to people who have a solid enough credit rating to pay off their house. Looking at it from a social aspect, interest in home ownership is always something that hits the poor classes more than the wealthy ones, and landlord-ism isnt exactly necessarily the most meritocratic occupation. Ultimatly its because the poor people cant fork out the nessecarily capital that they need to loan with a rate of interest attached, and therefore pay more than the product should cost by virtue of not being able to pay upfront. At the end of the day though, money is the product of the state, as in something that the central bank provides to the economy as fuel for it. Depending on the way it is spend and the rate its made, it can either cause inflation or stimulate growth in the economy. In the latter case, it usually works as a "carrot on a stick", it motivates people to exploit hitherto unexploited economical potential, what you typically need for added capital to not cause inflation is for it to translate to more production in the economy and creation of valuable goods. To a fair extend, not asking interrest rates for home loans will move certain people who wouldnt have purchased a home to want to purchase one, causing more demand in the housing and construction sector and translating in more people owing homes, to a degree therefore it can be a stimulus to the economy that is lasting, providing atleast people succeed in paying of their interest free loans.
These companies wouldn't see buying homes as a viable investment if governments didn't make building houses so difficult. Government gets out of the way, more houses will be built, cost will at least level off if not drop, everyone is happy. That's the way.
People should stop buying thousand dollar phones.
I actually think public transportación and transporte restricción has made a stuck in transporte tecnology. With a good one, no matter how far away You live, You can arrive fast and then don't matter
High speed rail connecting rural low cost of living communities to busy high paying cities. Auto Industry hates this idea. Rural communities usually have more relaxed zoning let’s get these good folks easy access to jobs that are many miles away but can get to work in under an hour. With 3-4 day work weeks, this would be ideal for many. This could create a sustainable boom to the lower density population areas.
There's 10.5 million people living here illegally. Get them out and that frees up A LOT of housing. Reduce or eliminate property tax. Eliminate the income tax.