Post

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈
@maxdubler.com

The Netherlands banned investor ownership of housing in 2022. It did not reduce home prices. New homeowners had higher incomes, were more often Dutch-born, moved shorter distances, and stayed longer than the renters whom they replaces. I do not think this was an equitable outcome.

Elizabeth Warren@warren.senate.gov

Democrats dropped a bill TODAY to stop private equity's housing takeover. Let's get this done.

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈
@maxdubler.com

People desperately want a solution to high housing prices that does not require building new homes in their neighborhoods. No such solution exists. If we want lower rents and home prices, we need to build more homes in the places people want to live. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you.

Max Dubler 🏳️‍🌈
@maxdubler.com

Perfectly put:

alasdair@alasdairc.bsky.social

making it harder to rent out a house also means its harder to rent a house. the group of people who can buy a house are better off than the group of people who can rent a house. so the dutch policy benefited the first group at the expense of the second.

3 reposts62 likes

Mike Sand✨
@mikesand.com

It's both a logical fallacy and a suffocatingly simplistic view of policy. bsky.app/profile/mike...

Mike Sand✨@mikesand.com

Regardless of the charged phrase, this is a logical fallacy—false cause/affirming the inverse: "Because ban-> displacement, therefore no ban-> no displacement." No. "No ban" could mean instead of buying, native-born who want to buy that housing would be outbid, and then pay investors higher rent.

alasdair
@alasdairc.bsky.social

thatd be true if they just looked at what happened as a whole post ban and attributed all the effects to the ban. the paper exploited geographical variation in the policy's implementation (tax value cap) neighbourhood by neighbourhood to extract the effect via diff in diff