• florge@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Put a cap on the maximum value a house can be based on bedrooms / floorspace? It’ll never happen since those in power won’t want their million pound houses suddenly being worthless.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s categorically impossible, because value in an economic sense is not determined by any one person.

      You can put limits on price, but that’s a very different thing, and has several downstream effects that are often negative. If you mandate that the price be below an asset’s actual value, the owner is highly incentivized to either sell it in less legal ways, or simply not sell it at all and wait until regulations change or they find some other way of getting its true value. In the basic context of real estate, for instance, you might just meet with people, reject all offers, and then sell the house to a friend who agrees to “gift” you some extra money for it.

      If, in a rental context, you mandate that rents remain below the cost of ownership from mortgage and maintenance, you incentivize the owner to do things like never do any maintenance (because what’s the tenant going to do? Lose a rent controlled apartment?). You incentivize builders to never build anything, because rents won’t be high enough to recoup costs. Some particularly bold landlords may even try to deliberately destroy their units as a way to get rid of an expensive asset (see upper Manhattan in the 70s, where many buildings “mysteriously” burned down).

      Price != Cost != Value. Failing to understand this causes a lot of broken analysis.

      • florge@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh for sure, it’s far too simple to just impose a limit. And if any limits imposed are too punitive, as you say, they’ll likely do more harm than good.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          My main point is that a lot of people read this as a simple problem of mis-allocation of existing housing stock, when essentially all economists agree that the fundamental issue is a lack of total supply. London alone has added two million residents since the year 2000, and I’m very doubtful that it has also added two million new apartments.