I think the actual implicit argument people are often making when they criticize Wall Street involvement in the housing market is that they prefer owner-occupied to rental housing (believe that owner occupied housing has more positive social externalities than renting, offers fewer opportunities for exploiting the buyer of housing services, whatever) and hypothesize that Wall Street involvement drives up the price of purchasing a home in an absolute sense.
As usual, your economic assessment is impeccable. Huge forest for the trees problem in housing discussions. The most insidious manifestation is the expression "we don't just need more housing, we need the right kind of housing" by which people usually mean affordable housing, rental housing, medium density housing etc. This is catnip for planners who can then justify solving a problem caused by too much planning with more planning.
My usual response is that you aren't trying to create houses, but vacancies. You can't control what buildings are vacated by micromanaging the composition of new building types, because it is a property of the home that is vacated not the home that is built.
I think, using the total-demand model, I'd like to model the inflow of new landlords as an increase in total demand for real estate and an increase in stock and total demand for rentals. This would be expected to have opposite effects on those two prices.
I think the actual implicit argument people are often making when they criticize Wall Street involvement in the housing market is that they prefer owner-occupied to rental housing (believe that owner occupied housing has more positive social externalities than renting, offers fewer opportunities for exploiting the buyer of housing services, whatever) and hypothesize that Wall Street involvement drives up the price of purchasing a home in an absolute sense.
As usual, your economic assessment is impeccable. Huge forest for the trees problem in housing discussions. The most insidious manifestation is the expression "we don't just need more housing, we need the right kind of housing" by which people usually mean affordable housing, rental housing, medium density housing etc. This is catnip for planners who can then justify solving a problem caused by too much planning with more planning.
My usual response is that you aren't trying to create houses, but vacancies. You can't control what buildings are vacated by micromanaging the composition of new building types, because it is a property of the home that is vacated not the home that is built.
Wouldn’t in this model, a rapidly increasing population drive up house prices.
You might like this podcast exposing the housing shortage deception:
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/s2-ep-45-the-housing-shortage-deception?r=31s3eo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I think, using the total-demand model, I'd like to model the inflow of new landlords as an increase in total demand for real estate and an increase in stock and total demand for rentals. This would be expected to have opposite effects on those two prices.