the second anyone was allowed to use houses as an "investment" to gain wealth we basically guaranteed this. obviously anyone with a lot of money tied up in housees is going to try and make their value go up. once we got multinational billion dollar conglomerates involved it became child's play for them to make that number go up through infinite methods of varrying complexity carried out by thousands of people working together with billions of dollars behind them.

this problem is inherent to a housing market that people are allowed to speculate on. we just need to make that stop entirely. limit house ownership. no one needs 100 houses. especially not companies. if that results in less rental houses than desired, we need to build more apartments. apartments are different beast, but if the cost of houses are lower then it will be harder to inflate rent if they can afford a house instead. this may result in some people who want to rent a house, but not an apartment, unable to find that. that's not a big problem. they might just need to rent an apartment instead. certainly it's much less of a problem then the current state of no one being able to afford housing.

the rich don't need this vector for growing their wealth. they have enough others and are doing quite alright at it. the world will function just fine without mult billion dollar corporations investing in buying properties for the sole reason that they think they can extract wealth without contributing anything. houses should be for living in, not for extracting wealth.

"Facing" sounds like its a bad thing

"Europe is responsibly decreasing their population "

Alas, it's not trivial to move houses from deserted villages into booming cities. Plenty of European cities already have anti-speculation and rent controls in place, it's not really helping.

Quickest and cheapest option would be to expand public transport actually, I think, spread out the pressure, combined with more remote work. Once you've got a steady, if overall tiny, de-urbanisation trickle going on urban prices are going to tank.

I kinda agree. But I see the government has a role in the zoning and deciding where and what. Like building bridges and roads, define, assign, possible finance and have commercial parties execute in a well regulated environment

It’s governments that are responsible for a lack of housing: local governments through zoning policy. The homeowners in a given city are politically engaged and they vote to protect their own investment in real estate. Call it NIMBYism if you like but homeowners are never going to voluntarily agree to have their house go down in price. Doing so could put their mortgage underwater and result in losing their home and becoming homeless.

Japan does not have this issue to nearly the same extent because they have structured their governments differently. Zoning laws are set by the national government, not the local one, so problems like this can (and have been) set at the national level.

For other countries to solve their housing problem Japan style would require the national government to take power away from the local governments (and in the case of the US, this would put the federal government in a fight with state governments). It would be an extremely messy fight and probably not work out.

There's one common denominator across international lines. It's rent seeking capital looking for a free buck. The zoning laws are literally just regulatory capture of that rent seeking mentality. They're a symptom of the fundamental problem. The one thing too many refuse to see is that this is not a strictly corporate phenomenon. There's all kinds looking for "passive income." Rent seeking is the new American dream, as Trump shows. And it's not exclusive to us.