point taken. I bought my house in the wake of the 2008 crises (bought in 2011 when prices were rock-bottom). One point of view is that I did a good thing by buying when the market was at a free-fall (even though I did it strictly for investment purposes, I'm a single guy with no need for a 4bd house). I helped create a bottom, I helped create a demand where there was none.
People have made your argument but with short-selling in the stock market: "short selling should be banned, there shouldn't be incentivized pessimism in the market", but those people overlook the fact that short-sellers are obligated to buy back, and they can create a bottom in the market when there otherwise wouldn't be one. (if XYZ corp just went up in flames, who the hell would want to buy them (thus allowing more people to unload their shares)? Why, short-sellers of course - because they have to )
I don't agree that my argument is akin to wanting to ban short-selling. I don't see the link. You've brought up an argument about creating bottoms in the market, but my argument has nothing to do with those.
the similarity is that you want to ban something ("landlording") that doesn't have a positive, feel-good reputation (poor people getting cheaper houses/rents), but which has positive effects such as creating a bottom and increasing market efficiency.
People have made your argument but with short-selling in the stock market: "short selling should be banned, there shouldn't be incentivized pessimism in the market", but those people overlook the fact that short-sellers are obligated to buy back, and they can create a bottom in the market when there otherwise wouldn't be one. (if XYZ corp just went up in flames, who the hell would want to buy them (thus allowing more people to unload their shares)? Why, short-sellers of course - because they have to )