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.