Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will just rent it. I don't know what the solution to the problem is, but I fear where it's heading. If people cannot get housing, anarchy and revolution are in the making. Then it's heads on pikes, French Revolution style.
Yes. That's the point. People will rent it. Which means they need to be priced such that people can rent it. (If the rent is too high, people can't rent, which means it sits empty, which triggers the punitive tax). Lower rents will drive prices down, as people will decide to rent instead of buy for a while.
Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
801–810 of 1001 posts
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#802Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#803These are boogieman policies that have zero influence on the root cause. Foreign investors jump into the housing market because the current system ensures that the supply of housing is limited so it is an attractive way to park your wealth. But that is not the root cause. The root cause is the system that is geared to keep houses always appreciating via supply constraints: aggressive zoning, discretionary permitting,…
Until the policy is fixed, additional foreign investment is pointless and only serves to drive speculative price increases. It makes sense to deter it.
In theory as countries apply similar policies across the world, the surplus countries driving these capital flows will be forced to either invest in developing countries that could actually use the funds, or park the cash domestically. That will force countries like China and Germany to deal with their issues internally instead of exporting them.
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#804These are boogieman policies that have zero influence on the root cause. Foreign investors jump into the housing market because the current system ensures that the supply of housing is limited so it is an attractive way to park your wealth. But that is not the root cause. The root cause is the system that is geared to keep houses always appreciating via supply constraints: aggressive zoning, discretionary permitting,…
It'll be interesting in a couple years when prices are still crazy and someone has to come up with an excuse for why. It's amazing to me how resistant people are to the idea that housing is expensive because there aren't enough homes for people to live in. It's always a search for exotic explanations like foreign buyers and mysterious empty apartments.
They are about 0.5% of my neighborhood and are built by all sorts of people, but always for the same reason: Housing is an asset class. In some places, its expected return is always positive even without rental income.
You should buy in those places. If you leave it empty, you get an appreciating asset, and the demand for homes to live in remains the same.
And then, there are places like Kharian, where there is huge demand for the idea of housing, but the living is mostly done elsewhere. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fOYJ3_ZppM
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#805Earlier quoted context omitted.
>how resistant people are to the idea that housing is expensive because there aren't enough homes for people to live in. I imagine there are enough homes in both America and Canada (they are two of the largest countries after all). But it's all about location. Very few can even afford to move out to the middle of nowhere just to own land. And not many people that can are willing to turn their potentially short commut…
In Los Angeles 90 minutes is a very short commute. The average for my colleagues is 120 min and many have a 160-180min commute. Per day. Usually worse on Fridays. The waste of time, energy and the resulting pollution are mind blowing.
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it? Or would it simply push home ownership further out of reach and favor landlords with capital?
To rephrase my point: What do you think would happen to the price of the average home if we printed, and handed out, each man, woman, child, and dog in Canada a million dollars? My guess is that it would increase by ~2.6 million. But it would certainly level the playing field between the average person and 'the landlord with capital'. So if we are so concerned about keeping the average Joe up with that landlord, why…
Many companies and people buy homes currently for investment rentals. They’re competing with homebuyers. Strictly speaking I would expect the share of homes owned by landlords to rise even if prices fall.
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's when you have the government bail them out :)
And then the people who profited in the interim buy up all of the cheap surplus, sit on it for a few years and then trickle it back out as the prices return to normal, making massive returns on their investment, profiting off of the misery they created in the first place. And you can't even be mad at them for it because there's no collusion, no intent to manufacture the disaster, no single person responsible for it a…
It's analogous to a bazar except you must go to this specific bazar and there is a limited number of stalls. You only need a stall for 5 minutes to do your transaction, you don't need the stall itself. We have collectively decided that people have the right to own these stalls. Here is the problem. If you are young and you have to work, you need to go to a stall and do transactions that let you sell your time. However, all the stalls are already taken by older people. They won't let go of their stalls, they want to take them into the grave, because they are scared of not having a stall when they really need it. So instead, they rent out the stall and let you use it for a short amount of time.
Now let's say the interest rate demanded is way too high and you refuse to borrow and fall for the debt trap. What are you going to do? Stay unemployed? Ok, but now you have lots of time to think and organize and a clear group of people that you dislike. This is the perfect growth medium for extremism.
So, we did away with a fixed number of stalls. Instead, we have decided to give everyone a stall. The problem is that those old people are now buying a second, third, hundredth stall. The amount of free stalls remains laughably small, forcing the government to keep increasing the number of stalls exponentially.
When you think about it, those stalls are public property and people who have no business blocking them are wasting everyone else's time. It's like someone is parking in the middle of the road and blocking traffic. Normally you would call the police and they will confirm the traffic violation and then tow the car away and fine the owner.
We don't do this with the stalls. There is no incentive for anyone to get on with their business as quickly as possible, so people grab as many stalls as possible. There is no opportunity cost to them but there is a huge opportunity cost to those who need stalls but can't get them. This is where the exploitation of the have nots by the haves originates. There are enough stalls for everyone but nobody is giving up the extra stalls that they don't need immediately. The wrong/incorrect allocation of stalls toward those who don't need them and away from those who need them is at the root of the problem. In theory, a market would automatically solve this problem. Why doesn't it?
My argument is that we need to introduce a fee on the stalls to punish slowpokes and make sure people keep those stalls free if they don't need them. This means that if people are refusing to rent a stall, the owner of the stall would be left with an asset that is losing them value instead of a tool that can be abused for power.
In short, the problem is that the interest rate must become negative to discourage people from indebting other people against their will when an economy that is no longer growing (for short bursts or maybe even forever) has no need for further debt, debt that can only be paid through inflation.
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#808Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can still back out of the deal but you will typically forfeit your deposit or earnest money (sometimes in the $10’s of thousands). But I hear you with the seller’s market - we just purchased a couple homes in the Austin area, bid significantly over asking price, waived all contingencies, and offered free 2-month rent back.
I discussed this with our realtor: forfeiting your full 3% earnest deposit is apparently rare. It’s not automatic, and when somebody backs out due to a non-contingent reason, it’s usually for a fraction of the full earnest deposit. (At least, that’s for the SF Bay Area.)
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#809These are boogieman policies that have zero influence on the root cause. Foreign investors jump into the housing market because the current system ensures that the supply of housing is limited so it is an attractive way to park your wealth. But that is not the root cause. The root cause is the system that is geared to keep houses always appreciating via supply constraints: aggressive zoning, discretionary permitting,…
If they were targeting mainland Chinese investors, it's too late. China already stopped capital flight out of their country two years ago. They even banned crypto, so getting money out of China is both difficult and expensive for both Chinese citizens and even expats. The former is understandable since it's an authoritarian country, but expats? That's a new one unless countries in the Middle East do the same thing.
Re: Canada bans foreign home buyers for two years
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
It artificially drives prices up. This is not a good thing for housing
Exactly. Which makes the subsidies a funnelling of taxpayer money into the pockets of landowners - obviously this is not good, but if you have a population of majority landowners, then this is a sure-fire way to get votes.