Why build more homes at enormous expense (both financial and environmental), when most countries have way more than enough homes in total?
The problem is two-faced: vacant properties sitting around empty because of money laundering and speculative usage on one side, and on the other side the usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure - particularly high speed Internet, mobile phone coverage, public transport and services of everyday living (healthcare, basic shopping).
I don't have the numbers but I find difficult to believe that there's enough properties used for money laundering to move the prices.
> usage disparity because rural areas have been left behind by modern infrastructure
That's the problem. There are empty houses but too old or in places where people don't want to live. So to low the prices more houses need to be built there where people want to stay.
Another solution would be improve the communication channels between cities and rural areas.
In London, up to a third of all properties (depending on the area) are left empty. At that point I don't care if it's money laundering or speculative usage, but London's nickname "Londongrad" more than hints that an awful lot of Russian oligarchs used London real estate to launder stolen money [2].
Personally, I'd be fine to ban all foreign investment into real estate in hot housing markets no matter the country, with the sole exception of primary or secondary residence.
[1] https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/how-many-empty-homes-a...
[2] https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/england-london-oligarch...
For comparison, England apparently has 24.7 million "dwelling units" so that's about 1% sitting empty for more than six months.
> The government will also impose higher taxes on people who sell their home within a year.
Nice!