I don’t think you’re wrong that there’s a solution that the free market would provide (maybe not yours but I’m a believer in the invisible hand). However, that’s no good for preventing another situation like this in the long-run and there’s no benefit to allowing renting other than destroying the environment and shifting some bank account numbers. This is all separate from high-efficiency renting (i.e. apartments) because that uses the land well.

What are you talking about? You just described a situation that has never happened. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened in a free market country. And now we need to prevent "another" situation like this in the long run? I'm so confused.

That’s exactly what’s happening now: housing prices have exploded and corporations are choosing to rent inventory out instead, especially via AirBNB because that makes them more money. Chinese foreigners are snapping up properties at high rates. Zillow buys out entire areas now to raise prices.

Meanwhile the American citizenry with humble dreams of one day owning a house feels their dreams drift farther and farther out because some people won’t acknowledge that there’s even a problem. Others want to reward these corporations by building more inventory.

That's quite different from the hypothetical earlier, because you're now describing multiple owners rather than a single monopoly.

If a single corporation owns all homes, they can artificially limit supply by buying up any new properties and leaving them empty.

If multiple companies own all homes, then they can try to artificially limit supply by buying up any new properties and leaving them empty, but there's huge incentive for each one not to: if it rents out every property it buys, it makes even more money than if it left any of them empty. It's the prisoner's dilemma - if all companies collude and limit supply they maximize total profit, but if any individual company "cheats" it stands to gain even more for itself.

It is possible for cartels to collude and pull this off (OPEC etc), but it's not possible when there are thousands and thousands of companies and many of them are too small to "take one for the team" and leave a property empty, or too disinterested in any collusion.

Increasing supply reduces prices, hurts speculators, and makes things more affordable. This is Econ 101. There is no reason to think housing is an exception. But it sure does serve the interests of NIMBYs to pretend as if it is an exception. Are you a NIMBY?

I can see why you might think that but no, I’m not. I don’t think unnecessary housing should be built because it damages the environment and wastes usable space for no gain. Likewise, I don’t like cryptocurrency mining much for the same reason. I find it silly to build more housing simply for rent-seekers to line their pockets at the cost of the environment.

Mine’s an environmental concern. NIMBYs are just trying to protect their housing investments.

Maybe more housing seems like an "unnecessary" environmental problem to you because you have what you need? Many lower-income people would benefit from affordable housing.

Your concern is actually pretty common among the affluent homeowners who prevent development. Probably the second most common concern behind "neighborhood character", which is really just another type of environmental concern (city environment). Very few NIMBYs are purely after money.

"Housing defies economic laws and is terrible for the natural and/or city environment" is the prevailing opinion of NIMBYs today, based on the discussions I've been in.

You know what else lower-income people would benefit from? Increased housing supply by banning house renting. You know what lower-income people wouldn’t benefit from? Preserving the status quo solely so that rent-seeking landlords can keep their investments.

It seems like you’re on the side of the upper-class trying to trade the environment to prop up their investments. This is just like BTC scammers trying to trade the environment for their investments.

That would make sense if BTC investors made money by increasing supply. But they don't. The entire value proposition of BTC is its absolutely fixed, limited maximum supply. Again, Econ 101.

So no, if one side of this is more like BTC scammers, it isn't mine. It is the guarantee of scarcity that underwrites the entire BTC enterprise, even for the miners who are today wasting electricity on generating more of them.

Renting has absolutely nothing with our housing problems. There are majority-renter housing markets that have nowhere near the affordability problems we have. Supply is far more important than who has the deed.

If you want rich developers to make less money, unleashing supply is the way to do that. Automakers and grocery stores have relatively low profit margins because there are no government-imposed supply constraints on them.

Frankly, though, I think it's more admirable to help the poor than merely make a doomed attempt to punish the rich.

Alright, let’s agree to disagree on whether or not supply should be increased.

Would you at least agree in a hypothetical US in which it is not possible to build further supply that banning renters would be the next logical step? Again, this is not to say or not say that supply should not be further built.

I don't see the argument? Some people like renting. Landlord profit margins mostly depend on supply and demand, just like home prices do. Enough supply will bring their margins down to grocery store levels, and renters won't be at much of a disadvantage compared to owners.

Owning means saving a lot of money and accepting a lot of price risk and transaction costs. I own a house and like it, but I know for a fact that it's not for everyone.

If there was one monopolist landlord who charged through the nose, that could be a problem, but I don't know of any housing markets like that. Landlords keep raising their prices because demand outpaces supply and they can get away with it.

Monopolies have never happened in the US? Tell that to Standard Oil.

So because there was an oil monopoly around 1900, we need to prevent a "similar" housing monopoly in 2021? No, I stand by my post. Nothing remotely like the situation you describe has ever happened.

It is not the case that, because an oil monopoly happened in 1900, we need to be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in other industries where nothing remotely like that has ever happened.

Before the rise of the Chicago school approach to antitrust, government regularly took action to prevent monopolization. Oddly enough, the size of the world's largest corporations has been skyrocketing in that same period. So yes - we should be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in every industry - especially when we have governments decidedly uninterested in preventing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ri...

Okay, you want to talk about monopoly. You don't want to talk about housing. Fine, whatever. But don't pretend your ideas have anything to do with actually helping the cause of affordable housing.