And another set of numbers, showing the focusing effect of increasing inequality:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...dominates-creates-mismatch-supply-demand.html
When the wealth collects at the top, the investment and marketing and so forth will focus there as well.
These guys seem to think the "market" will correct the situation, as demand for lower end housing will draw supply - but the "market" is set by the wealth, not the people. It doesn't matter how many people need lower end housing, it only matters how much money needs lower end housing. Demand is not people, in capitalism - it's money.
Inequality of wealth is not necessarily self-correcting under capitalism. Great inequality of wealth can be a stable equilibrium.
as you point out, what seems to be breezed right past is the actual market.
when the premis is "Let the market regulate the market"
but the market doesnt choose when and how much money is invested into it, that part is people.
and... the market doesnt decide who lives in the houses either or how much rent they pay, that to is decided by people.
Capitalism doesnt exist without people, so it seems a little odd that people who wish to be considered sane and credible suggest the market should not be governed by people.
it seems to be a game of which came first instead of attending to the actual utility process of the housing and working needs of the people.
The irony in that proof is that the protagonists of pure capitalism with no regulation declare that those buying the houses or paying rent do not need to be doing so in collaboration with work.
yet... what do the adverts for houses and rentals say ?
close to shops, schools, transport etc...
The product is advertised as an expected premium around making the dwelling a working partner with income generation and expense.
announcing and delcaring that the market should not be concerned with the availibility of the housing to employment seems quite odd and at odds with the basic premis of a functioning mixed market ecconomy where housing & transport need to be partnered to maintain a profitable working ecconomy moving upward or atleast standing still.
considering this, then examine the process of large scale housing developments with demanded kick backs from government for a percentage of lower costing houses...
is the lower costing housing making the price come down or up ?
regardles of the theory and best ideals, is the market changing the intended outcome ?
does the last run on the availible houses create an inflation instead of a market stability because there is already a shortage in the market which is leaning on increasing demand with increasing value ?
why does wages not follow the same value to income model if the market is self regulating ?
surely wages should be going up considerably ?
surely busines owners should be just as vocal about the massive unafforable increase in wages which can be seen along side the massive unafforable increase in housing ?
is there a growing demand for higher paid employees ?
or, in reality a growing demand for lower paid employees blowing out and labelled as a shortage in labour as the market has a race to the bottom to try and deliver goods and services to the falling income earner ?
... the stats are probably quite complicated.
there might be a correlative % of how-much(critical minimum figure)low cost housing required to stabalise the market per total number of houses built dependant on the over all market, prices, inflation, employment, mean hourly rate. transport options and cost.
at some point the market just keeps spinning out of control with increasing inflation fueled by various things.
if the action of investment is always a last ditch effort, then it is fuelling the inflation end of the market, not the supply.
the supply simply becomes a secondary means to the inflationary value.
the only way that the money in the inflating house prices maintains its value, is if the majority of the population continue to lose money.
this loss of money as a loss is the only thing validating the increasing inflation of the house price.
this seems fairly obvious once you stop to consider the influencing mechanisms and effect of the maket on both ends of the process.
