Sounds a bit like "problem A is unsolvable because - look at here! - no one is solving problem C!"
Today you have to work 25 hours to buy the same share
In 40 years time you’ll have to work 4 months to buy what in 1985 would cost 1 hour.
There's reportedly enough housing stock to house the population twice over, yet prices still only increased.
Where there's sufficient inequality, the country will run out of eligible land before the wealthy run out of money.
It's exactly the situation you'd expect with record high prices and low sales volume, which is where we're at.
”The rich” aren’t that stupid, why would they take the losses to support someone else making a profit?
So despite it making no financial sense on an individual, house-by-house level, what happened in practice is that the market itself got strangled by this collusion and despite the existence of many empty houses available for either purchase or rent, you ended up with a non-negligible amount of these places not ending up in the market organically and as such driving up the costs for everyone. The property owners win big with this scheme of course, and the way things were setup you'd be a fool to go against the grain and try outcompete on cheaper housing, since you can't beat an entire market getting strangled.
So yes, "the rich" aren't that stupid, they just so happen to have systems that make these sort of moves profitable.
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-r...
There are multiple lawsuits, and settlements are already in with some property managers. Yieldstar/RealPage are not the only culprits, either: https://imgur.com/a/EmJQryv
Eventually there are more houses than people who want to be in them, regardless of whether or not they're being rented or owned.
When that happens you'll see the prices fall. After all, if nobody wants to rent your house, you'll either rent it for lower or sell it.
If nobody wants to buy it, you'll lower the price.
Ad nauseum.