• dx1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    That’s an easy explanation to reach for, but the theory rapidly breaks down without a unified cartel controlling the entire thing, because it’s opportunity cost down the drain to sit on properties to try to drive up prices across the market - each individual participant would make more money breaking with the cartel and just selling/renting their stock. Hence, the sheer number of actual participants in the market disproves it.

    • Nevoic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There are a ton of reasons why individuals/corporations would scalp housing units and hold onto them without opening them up to use, from laws requiring fair treatment of renters like in NYC (where 90,000 rent controlled apartments remain vacant), to “unified cartels” actually have incredibly large influence over some areas (there are some companies that hold 10s of thousands of housing units, like blackrock, and these corporations purposefully keep some vacant to inflate the price of all units and control supply).

      But even if you want to just close your eyes and ignore my last paragraph, you can try to rationalize away the data, but the data will still be there. There are 16 million vacant housing units in the U.S. Even if you can’t fathom any reason why these might exist, they still do, and they still impact supply even if you’d like to believe they don’t.

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m not pretending they don’t exist. I’ve called the problem out myself. But simple “capitalists are hoarding them to price gouge” is not a plausible explanation as to why.

        • Nevoic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You didn’t respond to anything I said. You essentially said “I agree and you’re wrong” with some fluff, so uhm okay good talk buddy.