I wonder what would happen if instead the state spent the 300m on building houses and selling them, say, 10% below market price or sth.
Well I guess you can build a fair few houses for that money. In this programme it was funding 20% of the house rather than 100%, but the 100% also includes the markups of the various business doing the building.
Meanwhile, not only do you end up with more houses, diluting the price down, but also neighbouring sellers / developers need to compete with the state cheapo houses, bringing prices further still.
Of course the other thing that happens is that because housing is a localized Ponzi scheme, local residents are aghast (understandably to me) because after years of saving to buy a house, the state devalues their property.
Though maybe if you spread out the housing... Now I'm just thinking aloud.
Well I guess you can build a fair few houses for that money. In this programme it was funding 20% of the house rather than 100%, but the 100% also includes the markups of the various business doing the building.
Meanwhile, not only do you end up with more houses, diluting the price down, but also neighbouring sellers / developers need to compete with the state cheapo houses, bringing prices further still.
Of course the other thing that happens is that because housing is a localized Ponzi scheme, local residents are aghast (understandably to me) because after years of saving to buy a house, the state devalues their property.
Though maybe if you spread out the housing... Now I'm just thinking aloud.