>>214286591
>and we would see the exact same amount of construction
lmao so price controls wouldn't destroy the incentive to build new units?
lol lmao even
> not an investment
"Investments" are what build places to live for people in the first place.
>to shylock people out of their earnings.
If you got rid of landlords and everyone had to buy, there would be a lot more homelessness and housing would be more expensive. There would be far less units build.
People would be forced to buy to live somewhere instead of just temporarily renting.
Also even now, it's cheaper to rent than to buy.
>>214286624
>effortless money making scheme for boomers
ONLY due to government intervention creating a housing bubble, but you people support those things(zoning, regulations and money printing)
>>214286640
>Citation needed.
This is hilarious. Look at government trying to build any building ever. They spent millions building a public bathroom in san fransicso.
Governments don't have an incentive to keep costs down and to be more efficient because they just get free money from taxpayers and it's not even their money.