The impulse to enlist the government to regulate private property and investments is not productive and results in endless encroachment of individual liberties and rights to governments.
But that's the problem, isn't it? The basic necessities of life shouldn't become a vehicle for speculation.
FTR, all of my wealth is in two homes.
I live beside the river Thames, which private "investment" has transformed into a sewer. My access to food has shrunk; I used to have access to butchers, greengrocers and so on. Now all my food comes from supermarkets. The health system I depend on has been gradually privatized, and it is now at breaking point.
> the lessons of history
History is squishy stuff; we mould it to support the conclusions we want to draw.
[Edit] I'm interested that you didn't challenge my equating of investment with speculation, because I didn't mention investment. Obviously, without capital investment, you don't get capital assets like houses. But my neighbourhood is blighted by absentee landlords; one neighbour is an AirBnB, the other has been empty for 5 years. Both are owned by absentee landlords, one living 2,000Km away. That's not investment; that's speculation.
Lamenting the rise of supermarkets as a death knell for local butchers and greengrocers is a misplaced nostalgia that ignores consumer choice and market efficiency. Supermarkets thrive because they offer what consumers demand: variety, convenience, and affordability. To decry this as a market failure is to advocate for a return to less efficient, more costly ways of living, under the guise of preserving tradition. It’s an affront to consumer sovereignty and a free market that naturally evolves to meet changing societal needs. Yearning for a past that restricts choice and elevates prices is a backward step, not progress.
Criticizing absentee landlords as mere speculators ignores the benefits they bring: paying property taxes and injecting capital into the economy. This isn’t about speculation; it’s about fulfilling market demand and facilitating economic activity. The real issue lies in state-imposed barriers that prevent adequate housing supply, not in the actions of individual investors. Blaming investors for taking advantage of market opportunities is misguided and diverts attention from necessary reforms to increase housing availability and affordability.
The collectivist dismissal of history as "squishy" is a deliberate evasion of undeniable truths. History is replete with the failures of socialism and the triumphs of capitalism. To mold it to fit a narrative that justifies state control and collectivism is intellectually dishonest and dangerously naive. The empirical evidence is clear: wherever socialism has been tried, it has led to economic stagnation, misery, and the erosion of freedoms. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty and spurred innovation and prosperity unmatched by any collectivist scheme. Ignoring these facts is not just an error in judgment; it's a willful blindness to the lessons that history has painstakingly taught us about the superiority of market freedom over state control.
Whenever the cry of "market failure" echoes, a closer inspection often reveals the true culprit: state failure. "If someone considers that there is a market failure, I would suggest that they check to see if there is state intervention involved. And if they find that that’s not the case, I would suggest that they check again, because obviously there’s a mistake." This wisdom holds true across the spectrum of economic grievances. Time and again, what is hastily labeled as a failure of capitalism turns out to be the unintended consequences of excessive regulation, misguided policies, or government overreach. The path to prosperity is not paved by increasing state control but by unleashing the creative and productive powers of the free market.