In the US, this partially means cracking down and reforming the federal guaranteed mortgage purchase programs. Make federal purchases only for one owner-occupied, primary residence, linked to a 1040 filing. Carve out an exception for married couples filing jointly to be able to run two primary residences through federal programs. Enforce through link of federal loan guarantee programs into the IRS datasets holding the declared primary residence.
There are a lot of people who could never qualify for privately-held and privately-administered mortgage loans taking full advantage of the backstop provided by the taxpayers in the federally-guaranteed programs, and renting out the units. They're welcome to work as real estate investors, just not on the back of taxpayers' liability. Many of these people are in the NAR, and they will scream very loudly and donate very generously if this ox is in danger of goring.
But deflating the asset inflation of real estate is a necessary evil to counter the now-obvious impacts of inflating these with over-generous credit and credit terms. Real estate is not an ailing industry with national security interest that needs any form of propping up.
Do away with the expensive marketing subsidy to the mortgage loan industry, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. It only kicks in if you itemize (and even then, you have to qualify under the new personal+standard higher deduction rule, so only an estimated 5% of filers will take advantage of it), and it is only a big benefit in the first few years of the amortization schedule.
In theory, supply is infinite because you just build somewhere else. But people don't want to live somewhere else. They don't want to commute an hour and a half each way because that's where the cheap land was. The price I pay for my 1800sf 1/10 acre in south Minneapolis would buy me three times that in the burbs, but I don't wanna live in the burbs. I want to live in Minneapolis.
That's exactly what needs to change in "make it easier for houses to be built". Make it easier means don't let NIMBYs block housing.
I live in a city that is taking active steps to increase its density and affordability (https://minneapolis2040.com/). This directly affects my neighborhood. There are two kinds of construction going on around us. First is higher-density apartments/condos in the 3-5 story range, often with first level retail. These aren't replacing homes, though - they're replacing light industrial like warehouses.
Second, and this is an interesting rebuttal - some of the 100 year old houses are being torn down and replaced with new, larger (and much more expensive) houses on the same lots. So a worn-out 1200sf bungalow on 1/10 acre gets turned into a 3200sf quasi-mcmansion on the same lot. These new houses cost 50-100% more than the old houses in the neighborhood do (more like 100% for the run-down homes they replace). But they are contributing zero to the overall density - they're still single-family dwellings. Even the old two-flats in the neighborhood contribute more density.
So rather than increasing density, they're increasing cost of living. That is your #invisiblehand in play, without NIMBYism stopping anything.
I don't think it's just zoning here. There have been some small multi-family units built. But they don't sell all that well or seem economically attractive to builders.
And back to my point... I think there's a lot of sort of theoretical macroeconomic handwaving going on when it comes to housing density that flatly rejects engaging with real world conditions in any way. It sounds smart, but it's dumb.
Of course it's a scarce resource, but regulations don't make it any less scarce. The city where I grew up can't build any apartments past 5 stories because the local government feels like it's an eye sore. The result is housing/apartment prices that are 3X the price of other surrounding cities.
San Francisco is a good example of this. It can take a builder 10 years to actually get the permits to build a new house, because of regulations.
"The price I pay for my 1800sf 1/10 acre in south Minneapolis would buy me three times that in the burbs, but I don't wanna live in the burbs. I want to live in Minneapolis."
When you put it this way, I don't really feel bad for the high housing costs, because it seems like it's mostly about being inconvenienced.
The claim I'm disputing is that regulation is to blame for recent housing price increases.
For contrast, Seattle's median home price was already expensive at ~$400K in 2009, dropped to ~$350K in 2012, and has doubled to ~$700K since then. In the short term, it's more due to the crazy hiring growth by tech companies here. But even though Seattle is building much more than San Francisco, the majority of the land is zoned for single family homes, so there's no way for building to catch up.
The rural home in SC sounds much more healthy and like what people want - steady increases in price, a few points above inflation.
Since I was curious about the numbers, I went back and looked it up. Since June of 2009 (ie, the same time period) median housing price in Seattle has gone from $365,000 to $655,000. Numerically that's huge, but it's actually only about 7% faster growth than my parents' property-- a growth rate that most people here, including yourself, seem to view as unexceptional. This in a city that by all accounts is exploding in population and in the midst of a dire housing crunch which demands deregulation.
Don't get me wrong-- 7% is a lot of money. But it's an effect size that could easily be explained by simple profiteering, FOMO, construction cost increases, or any number of other local factors that have little to do with the regulatory environment. Paradoxically, it could even be caused by new construction, since new homes and condos typically cost more than the homes they're replacing.
None of this is to say that I'm 100% certain regulation doesn't play a role in Seattle's housing woes. But the difference in how these two situations are perceived should, I think, represent a warning about conventional wisdom in both places.
Seattle is actually doing fairly well, considering how fast people are moving here. Washington had more people move there than Texas (at 4x the population) and a higher % of the population than Florida. There's no way to build housing fast enough to accommodate that without tons of greenfield, but we'll see how the next 10 years go.
https://www.insider.com/us-states-people-are-moving-to-2019-...
To make it clearer what I'm saying, my parents bought their house in South Carolina in June of 2009 for about $130,000. Last month it went at just north of $195,000. If you had done exactly the same thing in Seattle and were subject to the median growth in housing prices that home would have sold last month for $205,000.
It's not chump change, but it isn't a night-and-day difference either. What I think it underscores is the difference between the actual problem we face (homes here are expensive) and the symptom we expect to see from theory (demand has skyrocketed -> home prices are skyrocketing). Because we don't see the symptom predicted by theory, I have to question whether the remedy the theory calls for is appropriate.
That's only slightly ahead of the general inflation rate and might simply match the price increase in construction.
1/ inflation over ten years is roughly 19%. So 50% is not "slightly ahead" by any means.
2/ Residential construction cost per square foot seems like a stronger candidate, with a roughly 35% jump nationwide over that time period (remembering that this does not account for inflation). Accounting for inflation that's essentially half the price increase.
3/ Neither of these factors, if they fully explained the value increase, would support the claim that regulation is to blame.
The point is that the 50% increase is the baseline appreciation or in other words the increase due to everything but regulation. Things like natural inflation, construction costs, etc. A rate above that is likely due to supply being constrained by regulation (or at least that's what the GP argues).