I'm 35, I'm an addict as well. I suffer from a grinding omnipresent feeling of wasting time.... I have a wife cery anti drugs. My cou try has legalized weed... Very rarely use it... Once a year maybe. But I have incredible rich experiences being stoned, being in the moment. Maybe to truly check out we need some form of drugs... Dopamime shots retain us, THC gives us temp relief?
They reverse engineer CEO's trackrecords... Good thing all these CEO's are blissfully unaware of their relative luck and build upon their own ability to fix anything.
I see it like this... Crashes will happen if we block self driving cars. Crashes costs lives... People will die. But if they die and the algorhythm learns from it and prevents the crash the next time... In a couple of years of further crashes maybe we can iron out most flaws and we save lives.
I've been looking at buying a bigger home than the current one I own. It's near impossible as prices keep on going up. Very disapppinted that cities have to arrange this - it means that some cities won't yet introduce anything.
I can already see investors swooping into those markets without the ban... i.e. Haarlem where I live will be among them.
We'd need to look at demand versus supply, including new builds before we can point the finger at "investors", which may be convenient but not necessarily useful.
Ultimately, market forces are what they are. If demand exceeds supply then some people will always miss out.
There is also the problem of the amount of liquidity available. Since 2008 and even more since Covid mountains of cash have been created at zero interest rate and that partly explains assets' price inflation.
Let's also not forget that many people cannot afford to buy, and don't want to for whatever reason, so decimating the private letting sector is not great, either, and will only cause rents to skyrocket.
Rents have already skyrocketed while the private residential letting sector is thriving.
It's not clear at all that changing the market forces to increase access to ownership by occupiers would lead to increasing rents, even with reduced supply of rentable properties.
At the moment, a lot of tenants would rather buy if they could, and are paying the same or more in rent than they would pay on an equivalent mortgage, plus rents are rising faster than a mortgage would if they had one. Rents are also rising faster than their salaries. So they would gain location stability and financial stability by owning, but they can't get a mortgage. Mortgages, like anything in a competitive market, are preferentially offered to the best-looking customers, and property speculators are better-looking than ordinary working folks struggling to make ends meet on their current and rising rent.
If those people could buy properties like the ones they are currently renting, rentable supply would go down. But demand would also go down by the same amount, and mostly from those competing to pay the higher end of rents currently. I think this would reduce average asking rents for the remaining tenants.
The proposal is to ban investors from buying more properties, it is not to increase access to ownership. If anything the effect is more likely to reduce supply than to increase it.
Those who are already able to buy may benefit, but that's about it.
Again, a big part of the problem is also the mountain of free money in the market.
