You keep accusing the rental market of leading to oligarchy and concentration of wealth but rentals are, right now, in reality, owned by a diverse and competitive array of owners, and absent the supply shortage this competition would be pushing rents downwards. As for middle class wealth-building,
I'm not accusing the *rental market* of that. What I'm suggesting is that the rental market would tend to that outcome with the advocated restrictions (no Mom and Pops, no foreign owners, no REITs)
I'm 99% sure the people advocating for those restrictions mean that they should be non-market, not that they should be owned by corporations. People anti-reit are also anti-corporation
Market rental ownership is also being diversified currently. Vancouver and Translink, for example, are both starting rental market projects. Most non-profit redevelopment projects now include market rental. There are other options
If this isn't a strawman, name names! Where is this political faction advocating to ban mom-and-pops, REITs, foreign owners, while also being lassez-faire when it comes to corporate power?
"J'accuse, rental market. J'accuse!" 👈
Those are silly restrictions.
No disagreement here.
My 2c on this, amplifying silly arguments by select fringe actors, including fringe academics, will lead to silly discussions and distracts from the real issues. Calling out specific arguments when they are put forward might make sense, but engaging with silly arguments usually ends in silliness.
That feels a bit too much like gatekeeping. Who is, or is not, a fringe actor? Particularly when those "fringe" academics receive CMHC or other federal funding.
How about ideas in this report? Are they worth examining publications.gc.ca/collections/...
Fair, the distinction of "fringe" is not simple. I think engaging with things like the linked report can be useful, although I personally find it difficult to engage in arguments that aren't grounded in empirics but are instead phrased and argued entirely within one specific ideological framework.
Agreed, it does make it difficult. But those reports are funded by the federal government and influencing federal policy.
I am not particularly worried about government funding a variety of reports, including those that I think have little value. And not sure this report had noticeable impact on policy?
Either way, there would be value to have a piece that directly addresses the concerns and recommendations raised in that report and contextualize them in the actual problems Canadians are facing. Just to have something to point to when this topic comes up.
Reading through this report, it's pretty clear August is squarely in the "almost everything should be social housing or owner-occupied" camp. Also, they explicitly call for strong anti-trust rules against rental owners. That contradicts your original characterization. Do you have any other example?
I mean, monitoring and regulating market concentration is good. I just don’t think we are anywhere near problematic levels. Except maybe in some isolated cases, maybe Whitehorse, that are worth taking a closer look at.
I agree, but Moffatt's central claim is that people on the left haven't considered market concentration when they call to ban REITs etc. But the one paper he has cited specifically does so!
Any report with that title has about a 5% chance of being worth reading tbh
...in a non-dysfunctional housing market it's generally better fiscally speaking for people to rent instead of buy. If you take what you save on not paying mortgage/insurance/upkeep and invest it into an index fund, you generally come out ahead. The stock market outperforms real estate!