Slightly less convincing since the article doesn't spell out what the actual reason is. Anybody have any answer for that?
> I’m not sure I see the political logic there, but I guess I’m not much of an expert on politics.
...
> [Proceeds to do nothing but knock down political strawmen]
I guess actual quotes from online are strawmen?
I mean yes if you are intending to say they represent some consensus.
The fact that not all detractors share the exact same beliefs doesn't mean it isn't an ideological phenomenon apparent among populists on both the left and right. This hardly needs to be said. There's a pretty common thread among critics of e.g. Abundance.
I thought you were perhaps leading up to your having a different take that isn't captured here. Do you?
edit: looks like that's a no.
But it makes reductive takedowns valuable conversation? On the heels of a comment about not sullying oneself with politics?
I ask again: do you have anything to say?
That the author does himself disservice by lacing his post with vague political criticisms after sarcastically saying he isn't an expert in politics?
I thought that would be obvious by now.
Remarkable that investor-owned multi-family housing is left out of these analyses. Surely that contributes to housing supply and should factor into any such analysis of pricing power among investors. For example, about 44% of California households rent.
Additionally looking at national averages is misleading. Investor pricing power can exist in individual markets without being ubiquitous across the nation. The allegations made against RealPage are a notable example, if true.
A more insidious issue besides just pricing power among investors is the direction of cash flow. When you rent, cash is paid to the owner. When you take out a mortgage, interest is paid to the bank. These are both mechanisms for rentier capitalists to extract cash from those with less - by paying for a basic need - essentially wealth redistribution in the wrong direction.
If investors aren't corporations, they're mom and pop. Since vacancy rates are very low in cities, this means they're renting out. If they didn't, you'd have even more shortage and rising rents. Californian cities like San Fransisco also have rent control which further constrains supply.
It seems like your gripe about cash flow is that people pay anything at all. Nevermind that wealth does get redistributed for those who have less income (in various ways), and they also pay less.
Fanciful ideas aside there's plenty of evidence that increasing supply of housing lowers prices