this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
98 points (93.0% liked)

Canada

7200 readers
324 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

It is not an analogy. That's just math.

I'd like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.

I'll wait.

Some more scenarios:

If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won't be a good "investment".

If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.

I'd like to see this demonstrated as false.

Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.

If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you'd've increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property

  1. S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
  2. S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
  3. S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
  4. S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
  5. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
  6. S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
  7. S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
  8. S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼