The problem is multi-faceted.
Is there asset price inflation due to cheap money? Yes.
Have foreign nationals been parking their cash in real estate in certain western countries? Yes.
Has restrictive zoning and NIMBY-ism reduced the incoming supply of new homes? Yes.
Multiple things can be true at the same time, all contributing to the current state of affairs.
Land and stock tend to go up in value. But land also sometimes go to 0, just like stocks.
With the booming American car industry in the 50's and 60's, who would have thought that houses in Detroit could go from having a premium price in 1970 to be sold for $1 40 years later?
Who's to say SF isn't going to be next?
Without any external influencing factors, a house would not typically depreciate. So a depreciating house isn't normal, there is something external causing it (like the city is going broke, lost most jobs, or environmental factors make the area bad to live in, etc).
But if all is well, a house will not depreciate if it is lived in and maintained. A house can last centuries and inflation means building an equivalent house is always more expensive later than it was to build this one.
So it is not natural to expect a house to depreciate.
Fixing the issue has been stymied for too long by each pointing at the others and saying "They're the real problem!" to justify inaction / rolling back fixes on their pet interest.
All need to be addressed.
That's going to be the biggest contributer as time goes on (not right now though), as eventually all desired land will have been bought by what amounts to an oligarchy.
Honestly, land/homes should never be inheritable, and companies should never be able to own land altogether. Not that this would ever happen. The status quo is too profitable for the land/home owners.
Eh, nah. But, there should be inheritance taxes set at a level which prevents the formation of a "landed gentry". Unfortunately, the issue has been demogogued to the point that middle-class people (who won't have anywhere near the assets to be taxed, as in not by an order of magnitude) treat the idea as anathema.
Well since Canada only has a slightly declining natural population rate, not many in comparison to births?
They added 500.000 people to their populace since the beginning of the year. The births are on top of that.
It‘s not true that immigration numbers are worth nothing. Immigration happens mostly in densely populated areas, thereby further increasing home prices.
Your list can be easily sorted this way (Notably, foreign nationals with money are just an instance of asset price inflation, in no way an instance of "nuance" or something).
I see the chain of causation thus - a flood of printed money has increased the value of all capital assets (some of that money appears as the money of foreigners and some of domestic investors, some as hedge funds, etc). Housing has been a focus and areas with restricted supply are where the money has been most attracted (it's spread more and more as the scale increases - a key point of the gp).
Is there any discussion in the scaling/proportion of a given facet when these get brought up?
