I think, fundamentally, the problem is that there is a highly speculative market (real-estate) attached to a basic needs market (housing).
I think of myself as right-of-center, but think George was more or less spot on w.r.t. land.
I wonder if there is a solution in banning rent itself? i.e. force owners to transfer a % of ownership equal to rental fees received from tenants and allow them to discount improvements against that.
Whether housing is rented or owned has no relation to its price. Making it illegal to speculate/profit from housing doesn't solve the underlying issue that is a massive (xx,000,000) unit shortage of housing in the United States.
Absolutely it has a relation to its price. A domicile's value in any setting is determined by it's speculative value + a discounted income model. This model wildly decreases the discounted income value without addressing the speculative value.
As far as I'm aware there are more housing units than people in the US. We do have an incentive structure that puts property owners' needs at odds w/ society's needs on multiple factors, and some of them (i.e. NIMBYism) can be addressed orthogonally to the intractability of housing as investment vs housing as housing.
I think of myself as right-of-center, but think George was more or less spot on w.r.t. land.
I wonder if there is a solution in banning rent itself? i.e. force owners to transfer a % of ownership equal to rental fees received from tenants and allow them to discount improvements against that.