Herdanos wrote:Grumpy David wrote:the article you linked is misinformation and easily proven as such
So you are saying that all of the points made in the article, and the accompanying statistics, are false?
Grumpy David wrote:The article you linked only offers the 2nd suggestion and denies the existence of the 1st as a meaningful issue.
And as we all know, linking to an article means your opinions align completely with the author on every point.
You seem particularly keen to defend landlords, David. What's your view?
Did you read The Financial Times article or The New European article I linked in my previous post? I have to ask because your posts only make sense if you haven't done this?
You linked an article with no comment at all. I wasn't critical of you, I was critical of the article being deeply flawed.
I've no skin in the game (it seems like you're insinuating I'm a landlord?).
I'm not defending private landlords, I'm not a landlord and never will be (and have repeatedly argued it's a terrible investment choice even if you're in a position to buy a rental property).
It's just not true that abolishing private landlords will fix the actual issue - we've not built enough homes for almost half a century and we now have a deficit of 4 million+ homes needing to be built which widens every year since we don't even build enough to maintain just a deficit of 4 million.
I wish it was as simple as that article made out, abolishing landlords would be a much faster fix than actually building 4 million homes and all the necessary associated infrastructure alongside it. Any article that doesn't acknowledge the reason housing is so expensive is because we've not built enough is putting secondary factors ahead of the primary factor.