So? Increasing interest rates lowers prices, it doesn't improve affordability. At the end of the day real estate is paid for by virtually everyone on a time-basis, whether you rent the home or rent the money to buy the home (mortgage), you're paying for the time you use it.

If you increase interest rates, you're simply artificially increasing the costs to rent the money to buy a home. The only reason prices go down is because you're making it more expensive and reducing people's ability to afford a certain amount of loans. It's not magically becoming cheaper, and it's certainly not magically becoming more affordable.

> rents (i.e. those not benefiting from leverage) are lower

Says who? Try increasing the interest rates in any other industry and see what happens. Raise interest rates for car rental companies, renting a car will not become cheaper. Raise the interest rate for bakeries, the bread will not become cheaper. Try lowering the amortisation length for any organisation's loans, their monthly costs will increase, and if they're selling/rentingout something (e.g. buying a home with a loan with a shorter amortisation length and renting it out), that price must increase, not drop.

> the size of of the real economy being dumped into to unproductive assets is smaller.

Define unproductive asset... Is food an unproductive asset? Is a car? Is a gym subscription? Is a healthcare service? Why take that perspective?

At the end of the day, housing is a valuable good that people are willing to pay for. If we allocate more money to it, there's a bigger incentive to build more of it. This narrative to paint it as an unproductive asset implies we shouldn't be allocating capital towards it, as if it has no value, and should instead manipulate the prices to drive capital away from a good which the marketplace (i.e. citizens) values

How much housing shortage do you think there'd be if we artificially capped prices at 10% of the current prices, as an extreme example? I'd suspect property development to plummet and housing demand to skyrocket, leading to some lucky few purchasing more than they need at artificially low prices. This idea to manipulate housing prices downwards without addressing the shortage itself doesn't work.

> you are mixing 'homes' with 'real estate'. Those are different things. When homes get built, there is value added, the 'land part' just economic rent, it's a net neutral exercise. If the demand is there for homes, the homes will get built. The frothiness and excess profits won't be quite as nice, but they will be built because money can be made.

What in the world are you talking about? Please take an economics class if you think reducing profits has no bearing on allocation of capital to that sector, or economic activity in a sector.

Just imagine a scenario with interest rates in real estate at 50% or to -50%. If you think there's no change in the willingness or amount of construction, that's a joke. Besides it's not just about building new homes. A ton of capacity is in renovations, adding floors on rooftops, digging out floors under gardens, revamping old offices into housing units etc etc. Low interest rates are absolutely helping drive that.

> The entire article is about an 'artificial' move by the government to provide economic incentives to promote affordability.

What are you talking about, at this point you're literally just making shit up? There's absolutely no word on the government in the article. And the central banks aren't intervening in real estate, they're intervening in interest rates in order to manage inflation, which is their core purpose. Denmark has averaged a sub 1% inflation rate for a decade. If the central banks didn't lower interest rates, you'd see a deflationary cycle. What they're doing is not real estate policy, it's simply a general central bank core responsibility and the government is not involved at all, and certainly not to promote affordability of housing. There's no word on that in the article and saying that 'the entire article' is about that, is total nonsense.