Lessons from Sweden's Capitalist Makeover

WSJ:

• By 1990, center-left raised taxes/spending to 70% of GDP

THEN:

• cuts to unemployment, housing subsidies, pensions
• privatization of public services
• cuts to taxes
• Limit govt. debt to 36% of GDP (vs 129% U.S.)
• govt. spending drops to 24% of GDP (vs. 30% for France, Italy)
• Businesses invent new technologies.
• GDP, house prices, and inequality soar

LESSONS:  

• Incentives drive innovation and inequality
• Innovation drives 2% growth: income doubles in 36 years

HT:  Justin

Where is it cheaper to rent vs. buy?

.

The Economist:  In long-run equilibrium, buyers should be indifferent between renting and buying. If buying were cheaper, then some renters would buy, which would drive down rents and drive up prices, until consumers became indifferent between the two options.  

One of the signs of a housing bubble is when it is cheaper to rent.  

A tale of two cities and rent control

WSJ: What the Twin Cities Tell Us About Fixing the Housing Crisis

The Natural Experiment:

• In 2022, St. Paul enacted one of the strictest rent-control regimes in the country. The ordinance capped annual rent increases at 3% for most apartments, even empty ones. It didn’t adjust for inflation. ... 
• Across the Mississippi River, Minneapolis steered clear of rent control. Instead, city officials strictly focused on creating new housing.

Results:

• [In St Paul]:  Real-estate investment activity nearly froze. Developers halted new projects as lenders pulled back....Property values declined as investment cooled. 
• In Minneapolis:  ...developers kept building. Housing permits surged nearly fourfold in early 2022 from the year before. Downtown hubs blossomed as new apartments hit the market and attracted young professionals.

BOTTOM LINE:  In the short run, a rent ceiling create excess demand for, or shortage of available apartments.  In the long-run, it reduces supply, thereby exacerbating the shortage.   

Winners' curse in real estate auctions

Fortune:

The real-estate 'winner's curse': Study of nearly 14 million home sales over 20 years shows you don't want to win that bidding war

In today’s hot housing market, winning a bidding war can feel like a triumph. But my research shows it often comes with a catch: Homebuyers who win bidding wars tend to experience a “winner’s curse,” systematically overpaying for their new homes.

Note: the winners' curse is a form of adverse seleccton (ch19) HT: Justin

Unfair and Inefficient: Britain's Property and Stamp taxes

 Economist:

Britain levies the highest property taxes of any OECD country, relative to GDP...Unfortunately, British property taxes are not well-designed. Rather, they distort the housing market and undertax the most valuable homes. ...The owner of a two-bed flat in Hartlepool today pays more council tax per year (£2,218) than someone with a ten-bed mansion in Westminster (£2,034).

... stamp duty—paid whenever a house changes hands—is growth-sapping. Although it raised £15bn in 2024-25, at over £40,000 on a £1m home it makes moving house very expensive, resulting in fewer transactions. Because people often move to take higher-paying jobs, inhibiting such moves means less-productive workers, undermining growth.

Why there is a housing shortage in California

The Free Press:

...I spent two and a half years obtaining permits, navigating a labyrinthine zoning department and paying for not only architectural plans but geological surveys, sewer permits, street improvement clearances, an inventory of “California protected trees” performed by a state-licensed arborist and, most of all, fighting an unhinged neighbor who mobilized the entire block against me on the pretense that I had to build a sidewalk in front of my house even though the entire neighborhood is composed of craggy hillsides and there are no sidewalks anywhere.

In California, there are a hundred people who can say "no," and no one who can say "yes."

BOTTOM LINE:  when you restrict supply, prices go up. 

In California, running an auction can land you in jail

Mansion Global: 

Before the palisades fires, a nearbySanta Monica property was listed at $15,000 per month. But afterwards, the landlord held an auction, and there were 10 to 15 offers on the property, and it rented for nearly $30,000 per month.

But,

During an emergency, California law prohibits raising the price of a rental property by more than 10% of what its price was before the state or local emergency was declared.

And so the problem gets worse,

Fears of penalties have worsened housing woes in the city as many agents refuse to deal with rentals altogether. “Because they’re afraid they’re going to be fined, they’re going to lose their license. That’s creating even further a shortage of housing,” Ravitz said.

Remove barriers to progress!

Open Philanthropy's Progress and Growth Fund

• ...scientific and technological progress that creates ideas is the main driver of long-run growth...But ideas don’t automatically raise living standards; economic growth requires turning them into technologies that can disseminate throughout society. 
• Burdensome government regulations and institutional constraints are increasingly slowing the pace of this progress and creating artificial scarcity. 
• Restrictive zoning and land use regulations have created housing shortages in many major cities, driving up rents and preventing people from [moving to] to centers of economic growth and innovation. 
• Similar constraints hinder scientific and technological innovation — key institutional funders ...burden researchers with excessive paperwork and overly lengthy grant review processes, [leading to] low-risk, incremental research over higher-risk but potentially transformative ideas. 
• ...environmental review laws slow a wide variety of infrastructure projects, including green energy. [Irony is my favorite kind of humor.]

HT:  MarginalRevolution

Historical conservationists are the bad guys

 Economist:

[Cambridge, MA] is “becoming a barbell society,” ...The poor got help and the wealthy lived well, but ... young families leave for cheaper places. “One of the biggest signs that something was going wrong,” says Mr Azeem, is “when you can’t create space for the next generation.” 

But now, they are relaxing zoning to allow " six-storey residential buildings citywide ... People are waking up to the fact that land use regulation has something to do with housing costs”. 

But: “The minute someone tries to put a six-storey building in a residential zone that has historically been no higher than 35 feet, there’s going to be immediate negative pushback,” from "powerful historic conservationists"

Do Environmentalists and NIMBYs share blame for LA fires?

The Economist thinks so:

Strict regulations in LA require new homes to be fire-resistant, but most homes are not new. NIMBYism and convoluted environmental rules make it extraordinarily difficult to build, so much of the housing stock pre-dates the modern building code and is packed with flammable wood.

Mortgage debt is rising, but lending standards are strong

From CalculatedRisk:

The bottom line is there will not be a huge wave of distressed sales as happened following the housing bubble. Most homeowners have significant equity, were well qualified, and have a mortgage with low rates that they can afford.

NIMBY zoning is killing us

From The Studies Show:

How much is [restrictive zoning] costing the US economy as a whole? A famous paper (Hsieh and Moretti, 2019) estimates the US economy would be almost 3.7% larger if only San Francisco, San Jose, and New York City had zoning laws that were less restrictive1. Amazingly, 40 percent of Manhattan buildings standing today would now be illegal to build, hinting at the vast extent of our zoning problems.

So why aren’t zoning laws less restrictive? Existing homeowners have no incentive to increase housing stock. In fact, they benefit from exclusionary zoning laws that increase the value of their real estate. But while existing homeowners profit, everyone else loses.

The United States, long a country famed for internal migration, has in recent decades had the lowest rate of migration since record keeping began in 1948. Fewer people are moving—which means they aren’t following jobs to the most productive areas of the country. Staying put in dying towns or unproductive regions has big consequences. While mortality has dropped across the developed world, middle-class American whites, many of them stuck in moribund rural areas, have been dying at accelerated rates.

What would be the effects of VP Harris' housing plan?

Here is the plan:

•  expand rental assistance for veterans and other low-income renters, 
•  increase housing supply for people experiencing homelessness, 
•  enforce fair housing laws, 
•  hold corporate landlords accountable [for charging high prices?]. 
•  provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers 
•  First-generation homeowners – those whose parents did not own homes – would receive more generous assistance.

WSJ Analysis:

• The law of supply and demand dictates that an increase in demand without a commensurate increase in supply will result in higher prices.
• As of August, the overall supply of homes for sale was 3.7 months’ worth. For houses in lower price tiers, that number drops to 2.4 months. Sellers’ markets create upward price pressure on home prices, which grows more powerful when demand is further stimulated. Ms. Harris’s policy would do just that, boosting demand by giving buyers more spending money.

My take is that the real barrier to increasing housing supply is not money but rather the restrictive zoning (see Nice Summary of the Affordable Housing Crisis) but, politically, restrictive zoning is very popular.  

The WSJ is right to point out that increasing demand will exacerbate the very problem VP Harris says she wants to address.  She can begin by listening to her economists, if she has any.  

Rent control, really?

 WSJ:  

By limiting supply, rent control leads to "housing shortages, underinvestment, tenant discrimination or falling property values." The most recent evidence comes from Argentina.

Since the law’s repeal, supply has reportedly rebounded and prices have fallen by double digits.

As Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck observed, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.” No matter how many times we try, we can’t outsmart economic first principles.

BUT,

Rent control is in vogue among Democrats. President Biden in July proposed capping landlords’ annual increases at 5%, and Kamala Harris vowed to “take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.”

Marin residents say they care about affordable housing but don't act like it

Housing prices are prohibitively expensive because we enact strict zoning that prevents other people from building more of it. These restrictions on new supply drive up the price of housing. No where is this more evident than in Tiburon, just north of San Francisco, with its own temperate micro climate and beautiful views of all three bridges across the Bay. When owners tried to develop a property to create 43 single family homes, the project was stalled for decades by lawsuits filed by neighbors.  Recently the county purchased the property under the pretext that it would "preserve open space."

Jenny Silva of Sausalito, a volunteer pro-housing watchdog who's been monitoring the creation of housing elements in Marin, said ... "there’s a housing crisis, not an open-space crisis." She noted that 31% of respondents to the county’s 2023 Community Survey said housing should be the No. 1 priority, ... Silva called it “frustrating” that Marin’s latest budget then dedicated more than twice as much to open-space expenditures than to its affordable-housing trust: $11.23 million versus $5 million.

BOTTOM LINE:  Marin residents say they care about housing but don't act like it. Instead, they have "revealed a preference" for open space which increases their own property values. But they are not the only ones (see previous blog posts on housing).  

Rents fall ==> new supply falling ==> rents will increase

 WSJ:

Apartment Construction Is Slowing, and Investors Are Betting on Higher Rents 

For more than a year, apartment renters in many cities have been getting some relief from price increases because of the enormous amount of new supply being delivered by developers.

Now, big investors are betting that downward pressure on rents from new supply is coming to an end and the market is shifting back in landlords’ favor. At the heart of their reasoning: the critical metric of new construction starts, which began slowing last year and now are falling even further.

Apartment developers are stepping on the brakes, especially compared with the building frenzy in the early years of the pandemic. Across the country some rental-construction projects are getting stalled, as developers struggle to obtain the financing needed to complete them. Other investors are pivoting to more lucrative alternatives.

...

Most apartment developers today build high-end units for middle- and upper-income households, which have little impact on the affordable-housing shortage. Lower-cost rentals—the kind most in need by low- and moderate-income households—remain scarce and are rarely built without a government subsidy.

VP Harris advocates price controls, so I am sending her a copy of my textbook.

TRUTH IN BLOGGING: I was political appointee in the Trump administration (Chief Economist of the Antitrust Division).

VOX on regulating rents:

Harris’s remarks to cap rents echoed a recent proposal from the Biden administration just two weeks earlier to limit rent hikes to 5 percent nationwide over the next two years for all landlords who own more than 50 units. (They estimate this would cover over 20 million units across the country.) The Biden plan — which would require congressional approval — would exempt not-yet-built units, so as to not discourage much-needed new housing. The two-year rent cap, Biden officials said, would serve as a way to drive down costs while new housing was under construction.

Harris’s seeming embrace of the Biden plan isn’t the first time she’s expressed support for rent control. In 2019, after Oregon adopted a then first-of-its-kind statewide rent control measure, she tweeted in praise of the bill signing. “No one should ever have to choose between paying their rent each month or feeding their children,” Harris wrote. As a senator, she also introduced legislation to offer tax relief to renters who earned less than $100,000 if they spent more than 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities.

ANALYSIS: 

• Chapter 2: Voluntary transactions create wealth by moving assets to higher valued uses. Price controls deter some transactions by limiting the range of agreements between sellers and buyers. 
• Chapter 8: With a price ceiling below the market clearing price, there will be more buyers than sellers. Who gets to buy?  In Sweden, politically connected buyers are more likely to be chosen.
• Chapter 9: In the long run, assets will exit the industry, or new supply will not enter, exacerbating the very problem (high prices) the price controls were designed to solve.  Although VP Harris seems to be aware of this problem, she thinks she can solve it by creating an exception for new supply. However, would-be builders will wonder how long before their new supply becomes old and subject to the controls?  
• And don't forget the increase in the number of government bureaucrats to enforce the new rules.

RELATED:  This is the third time I have had to send out an unsolicited copy of my textbook:  President Maduro (Venezuela, below), The Pope, and now VP Harris.

UPDATE (MarginalRevolution):

Here is the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell on Harris’s price control policy:

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

[2016]: Political compromise is like collusion, ...

... in that both harm consumers.  Steven Landsburgh's famous essay from The Armchair Economist:

Driving through northwest Washington, D.C., I remarked on the opulence that is so conspicuous in that quarter of the city. My friend Jim Kahn, in the passenger seat, wondered how such great wealth could have accumulated in a city that is notorious for producing almost nothing of value. I was too quick with the obvious cynical response: Most of it is the moral equivalent of stolen, partly through direct taxation and largely through political contributions that constitute the collection arm of a vast protection racket. 

But Jim was quicker than I and saw that according to economic theory, my explanation was not cynical enough. In the presence of competition between the parties, all of those ill-gotten gains should be used to buy votes. If the Republicans are in power, pocketing $100 billion per year, then the Democrats can offer to duplicate Republican policies exactly plus give away another billion per year to key constituents. Unchallenged, this strategy would enable them to buy the next election, pocketing a net $99 billion. But the Republicans would counter by offering to give away an extra $2 billion and settle for $98 billion for themselves. Our experience with competitive markets tells us that there is no end to this bidding war until all excessive profits are competed out of existence. 

When an industry is dominated by two highly profitable firms, theory tells us that if there is no price war then there is probably collusion. In the case of the Republicans and Democrats, the requisite collusion is on display for all to see. It is called bipartisanship. 

When Republican and Democratic legislators meet to "hammer out a compromise," they are engaging in an activity that could land any of their private-sector counterparts in jail. We do not allow the presidents of United and American Airlines to hammer out compromises regarding airfares. Why do we allow the majority and minority leaders of the Congress to hammer out compromises regarding tax policy?

Adam Smith observed that "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That truth is the basis for the antitrust legislation that attempts to prevent such conspiracies and contrivances from getting off the ground. When the president of United runs into the president of American at a picnic, he is forbidden by law to say "I will not undercut you on the Chicago-to-Los Angeles route provided that you do not undercut me on New York-to-Denver." Yet we allow Republican leaders to greet Democrats with offers like, "I will support housing aid to your urban constituents if you will support agricultural programs for the farmers in my district.”

When people get rich running airlines, I can surmise that it is because they have an extraordinary talent for delivering good air service. When people get rich in the political establishment, I am reluctant to surmise that it is because they have an extraordinary talent for delivering good government. Economics provides an alternative explanation: the absence of political antitrust [enforcement].

I propose that all political compromise—indeed, all discussion between candidates, officeholders, or officials of competing parties—be fully subject to the same provisions of the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust acts that regulate the activities of every private business in America. I predict that political antitrust legislation will confer on voters the same benefits that economic antitrust legislation confers on consumers. Once the wealth of northwest Washington is depleted by the resulting political price wars, politicians might be forced to compete by offering more efficient government. 

President Biden proposes nationwide rent control, then offers to help landlords who are hurt by policy

WSJ Editorial:

Higher mortgage rates and home prices are pushing Americans out of the home-buying market. This is contributing to higher demand for rental housing. Rents on average nationwide have risen 30% over the last four years and even more in Sun Belt states with fast-growing populations. Evictions are also increasing in many markets.

Enter Mr. Biden, who on Tuesday pitched conditioning “valuable federal tax breaks” on landlords capping rent increases at 5% annually. The White House says its plan would apply to “corporate” landlords with more than 50 units, covering more than 20 million units or roughly half the country’s rental stock.

If the "valuable federal tax breaks" offset the loss in profits from "capping rent increases," the only effect of the policy would be to increase the number of government employees who must oversee it.  

Why is housing inventory for sale increasing in TX and FL?

From CalculatedRisk.com:

Q: What is causing the sharp increase in inventory in the South, especially in Florida and Texas?

Inventory is up sharply, and already above 2019 levels in many parts of Florida. I think the primary reason is the lack of affordable homeowners’ insurance because of destructive storms and rising sea levels due to climate change. A year ago I wrote: The Long-Term Housing and Population Shift. I noted that a combination of water availability and widespread use of AC drove the growth in the West and South over the last 60 years. However, climate change might make some areas further north more desirable. I think we are starting to see the start of that trend