Martin Duck

Great charts in this, but I'm going to take issue with one sentence. These were political choices, not the unavoidable outcomes of a fiscal crisis.

I have no problem with the state incentivising new supply from private actors if grants/subsidies/incentives are tied to the production of new dwellings, but we don't even do that: currently financial and fiscal measures encourage speculation on the existing stock by small-scale landlords.

The private sector alone has never built enough dwellings for the population to affordably house itself. If the government is serious about housing equity and affordability (it's demonstrably not), it should directly build houses, lots of houses, rather than incentivise even greater demand.

Martijn Konings, Fiscal Dominance? — Sidecar Trump and the Federal Reserve.

New piece about MAGA's Fed strategy:

newleftreview.org/sidecar/post...

How many of Australia’s 2.2 million property investors would lose out under a new plan to curb negative gearing? The new proposal to phase out tax breaks on more than one investment property would affect around 1% of Australians.

theconversation.com/how-many-of-...

Martin Duck, @mdemac.bsky.social and @mkonings.bsky.social on the role of states in reinforcing asset-based welfare policies and class positions, in ”The Edges of the Asset Economy: Housing, Class, and Social Change?”
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....