[seer]

I don’t think that is the only solution.

I like what Singapore is doing - having a government built “base level” of housing that is both abundant and readily available - it can anchor the price where deep excesses are harder to end up with.

It’s like a market where a very significant player keeps the price law, because of its own reasons.

In such a scenario the price will not go up as sharply, so there would be less incentive for people to buy real estate just as a financial vehicle.

And the government can also prioritise who it sells the units it builds to - e.g. not investors.

I honestly am surprised why western governments are not trying this.

[somewhereoutth]

Yes - in the UK we had a strong social housing sector, with award winning architecture (and some terrible mistakes too).

Then along came 'right-to-buy', allowing tenants to buy their social housing for knock down prices (and so become a natural Tory [right of centre party] voter).

If councils had been allowed to use the money to build more social housing, then maybe this was fine. But they were not. So now we have affordability issues in the UK too.

[FuriouslyAdrift]

Singapore is very special in that 80% of the population lives in "public" housing.

[ryan_lane]

Because the government builds that much housing, and subsidizes the cost, to ensure their citizens (and PRs) have affordable housing.

It's special because they made it that way.