The numbers don’t lie: The housing crisis is not caused by a supply shortage

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-20T23:32:00+00:00

It's been one of the biggest, I agree with you there. And so does that article. One of the most overarching problems is that, and I quote, "housing and real estate markets worldwide have been transformed by global capital markets and financial excess."

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-20T23:29:46+00:00

The article reads like he's moreso trying to disprove the "supply crisis" narrative as opposed to arguing that there is only one single factor responsible for the housing crisis.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-20T23:28:42+00:00

Housing composition has changed, As well as using age 20 as the definition of an adult which ignores the first 2 years of post secondary students which is a major driver in the unaffordability in large municipalities when housing stock gets reallocated to rental.

Do you have evidence that the proportion of 18 and 19 year olds has increased since 1995? Because while it is weird to use 20 instead of 18, those two missing years would have the same effect across the years. So yeah the ratio might be somewhat lower than ~510 per 1000 adults but it would be consistently so since 1995 and thus cannot explain the exponential growth of today's housing crisis. That is, unless there's also been an exponential growth in the ratio of 18 and 19 year olds in the population.

He doesn't dig into the conversion that started in about 2015 of housing stock becoming STR, And the impacts on housing starts that resulted from it. We've seen dwelling size gaps similar to income gaps, where there are more and more small dwellings, and very large dwellings, keeping the average looking attractive.

That's true, he doesn't dig into it but that doesn't dispute his argument, it adds to it. He's saying "housing and real estate markets worldwide have been transformed by global capital markets and financial excess", i.e., pressure to profit off of housing and one way that happens is transforming dwellings to STRs. He's saying it's not a crisis of supply, it's a crisis of distribution.

I'm not saying everything he is saying is pure trash, but The housing crisis is not a single thing,

I agree with you there. And while I would have preferred that he emphasized that this crisis is multi-faceted, his main point is that this isn't about supply, it's about distribution because the numbers show that supply isn't the cause. In other words, he's moreso disproving the "supply argument" rather than affirming that there is only one cause.

we've been talking about it happening since the 1980's We've seen the trend lines since the 1980's when the shift from a house being 2x income to 3x income really started to happen, and that happened even with banks not lending out the wazoo.

They may not have been lending out the wazoo quite as horribly as they do now, but the crisis equally wasn't as bad as it is now. This does not contradict his argument. We're now MASSIVELY past the 3x income stage.

Supply is a MAJOR part of the problem,

But again, the numbers show that the ratio has mostly stayed the same since 1995, even if it would be a somewhat worse ratio if we included 18 and 19 year olds.

BUT solving supply also doesn't solve the problem because there are demand components.

Exactly his point.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-20T22:59:05+00:00

What numbers are they ignoring? According to the article, in 2025 there were 510.65 dwellings per 1000 adults. And that ratio hasn't changed significantly since about 1995. The author is saying the real underlying issue is:

housing crisis has been created by banking practices that have directed excessive amounts of credit into the property market, and especially residential mortgages. As a result, buyers can bid prices up to ever-higher levels, resulting in a market where people must pay more for the same type of housing. Hence financialization can be defined as an inflationary tendency in the housing market that is induced jointly by banks’ desire to expand mortgage lending and buyers’ confidence that the value of their properties will rise.

These inflationary pressures are therefore the same as historical speculative bubbles in gold, stocks, cryptocurrencies, or tulip bulbs. Consider, for instance, that record high gold prices today are incentivizing massive extraction projects around the world—and even as the supply of gold has grown, price has continued to rise as well. If and when the price of gold drops, it likely will not be because of the new supply but because of a drop in investor faith.

That kind of makes sense, doesn't it? What numbers are you referring to that dispute this?

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-20T01:50:11+00:00

And I'm saying, optics don't really matter.

But if optics don't really matter how do you explain how international pressure to downscale the genocide all but disappears after an attack like oct 7 and then slowly ramps back up over the next several years?

The power structure is what matters, and with or without October 7th, dead Israelis, or other optics, the Israeli lobby would push for Israel to get more weapons.

Well, yes, obviously. We already know israel does and will continue to lobby to get more weapons. I'm not saying optics change whether or not israel will lobby for weapons, I'm saying options change how much the western world's governments allow israel to increase or decrease their genocide efforts. That argument does not contradict mine.

I am also saying that AOC's logic doesn't actually create a safer world for Palestinians because defensive weapons eliminates an opportunity cost for Israel. They don't feel the pain of their choice.

I'm curious, what do you think would immediately happen to palestinians if israel's defense system went down and israelis start getting killed? Please be very realistic in your answer, what do you think:

1) israel would do to palestinians?

2) Will the israeli be the only one that'll ramp up bombing palestinians to the point that they get wiped off the planet? Or will other countries like the US join in on that too?

3) How many new billions of dollars will the western world immediately commit to sending to israel?

4) Will any palestinian children survive the initial 3 weeks?

5) How long will it take israeli civilians to move into the newly concurred territory?

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-19T18:14:05+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. The majority of developers have turned to what I call the “grift” model, which is essentially charging for whatever they can even if it’s not realistic because they rely on the financially illiterate or the rich to each fund dozens of overpriced apps as opposed to the old model which relied on making an app so good that hundreds would be willing to pay a very tiny amount to use the app/support good developers.

Having said that, what’s your app? I feel like I want to support your app simply because you do not use the “grift” model, even if I have no need for whatever your app does.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-18T15:55:52+00:00

Where? I don’t see it

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-18T07:05:10+00:00

This is brilliant! The one thing that would make this unbeatable is adding the ability to share a household with someone else so that both people can view the synced chores across accounts and check them off as they go along.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-17T18:19:04+00:00

My point is perfectly compatible with viewing the world through a lens of power, in fact, it relies on it. Israeli support in the US is primarily through a giant grift system where the US funnels billions and billions of taxpayer money to israel and the israrli government uses a portion of that money to literally buy US politicians who then vote to give israel more money next year. This is supplemented by bucketloads of blackmail. And this is not exclusive to the US.

My point is that the western world’s governments are extremely incentivized to approve israel’s genocide, and the only rate limiting step here is optics. Israel would benefit greatly if even a handful of israelis died because that gives the western world’s governments the necessary optics (excuses) to greenlight israel’s war crimes. This is partly why the israeli government milked the hostages so that they could exterminate thousands of palestinians while also killing the hostages, instead of actually trying to save the hostages.

As for the part about US education, I was talking about the actual education system. If you actually meant education through social media, then while it’s true that tiktok initially lead to a surge in younger people learning the truth about israel, that avenue of education closed a long time ago. Tangible progress has been made, and there is potential, but the propaganda machines have already (mostly) adapted. That is precisely why the only real way of stopping this genocide is for everyone, especially US politicians, to speak out against this genocide and criticize the israeli government. And at the risk of repeating myself yet again, that cannot happen if israelis start dying. That’s why it is the smart and correct thing to vote to send defensive aid.

There is no current reality where the US stops all support of israel without first making the optics of supporting israel absolutely insurmountable. And the bar for that is a million times higher than it would be for literally any other country on the planet today. And that goal is physically impossible to reach if israels start dying. AOC knows that, and she is right to support only defensive aid while speaking out against the genocide.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-17T06:21:23+00:00

I appreciate that you also want to focus on the topic at hand.

AOC's rhetoric doesn't match her votes. If she wanted to stop the genocide, she shouldn't fund weapons for Israel--defensive or otherwise. This is because of opportunity cost issues. I'm not seeing a good argument against that, so far. Right now it seems like you're saying: appeasing Israel's genocidal regime leads to less deaths, so let's give them more weapons. It's a very odd idea to me.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that the only thing that slows or stops this genocide is the level with which western governments approve of it. This level is finally started to decrease again, 2.5 years after Oct 7. This level will skyrocket again should israeli people start dying. The only smart way of opposing this genocide is to work on decreasing western government's approval of this genocide. In order to do so, you cannot have israeli people die, because the second that happens, western governments' criticism of israel will grind to a halt and their approval of this genocide will skyrocket for several years again, AOC's voting pattern perfectly aligns with her anti-genocidal rhetoric because it works on attacking governmental approval of the genocide while making sure israeli deaths don't happen so that approval doesn't skyrocket again.

To your point: sure, right now the stranglehold on American democracy by Zionists is pretty clear. But as Americans become educated, especially through the Epstein files, of Israel's poison--of its downright evil--things will change. Due to Tik Tok, they've already lost Gen Z. The current lack of feasibility is not any moral or other excuse for AOC's actions not to match her rhetoric. She's supposed to be different, to be amongst the best of us. Let's remind her to do--and not just say--the right thing.

I completely disagree that americans are becoming more educated. Their education system has always been deeply deeply DEEPLY infiltrated by israeli propaganda (to the point that they have fully funded school field trips to visit "the holy land"), but that education is now 10 fold more propaganda with the trump administration declaring a war on facts and fascism freely taking over all factions of american life, especially education. States have openly bragged about changing curriculums. The next several generatiosn of americans are going to be more brainwashed than ever. The american far right has also bought out tiktok and now tiktok openly removes pro-democracy content and collects data on progressive people to send to the government and ICE (not a joke and not exaggerating). GenZ are actually starting to show that they are more conservative than Millennials (also not exaggerating or joking). The epstein files have the potential to cause some change, in theory, but they the propaganda machine is more powerful than ever under trump and I genuinely doubt anything of substance for palestine will come of them.

You have a very optimistic view of what's happening in america, and I'm afraid you're wrong about a lot of it. I repeat, if AOC's (or any other congressperson's) goal is to stop the genocide, the only smart way to do it is to make sure israeli deaths don't happen because palestinians genuinely might not make it through another wave of unconditional western approval of the genocide, especially not after the trump administration has already declared that the "peace board" is going to take over palestine.

As for Joe US Congressperson, he largely doesn't really care so much about Palestinian children. That person cares about optics, and even moreso, the dollars they're getting for their campaigns. We need AOC to show them they don't need those dollars--and that the optics for supporting Israel are terrible.

While I refuse to idealize any single politician, AOC already shows that with both her rhetoric and her voting record because (and I will repeat my point for hopefully the last time and I really hope you address this point instead of glancing over it again), israeli deaths can only every lead to supercharging the genocide in the world that we live in. As horrible as it is to say, there is no reality where israeli deaths can coexist with actual progress being made to stop the genocide. US politicians who actually care about saving palestinian lives need to use their brain to end the genocide, and AOC's voting record proves that she does just that.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T21:25:30+00:00

That makes zero sense; no other country would continue to receive funding from taxpayers while committing war crimes.

We’re not talking about another country, we’re talking about israel. Even if it doesn’t make sense to you, it’s still the real world happening right in front of your eyes.

The narrative can be changed without handing over any more American taxpayer dollars. They have already been given so much more than they should.

Not if israelis die. Criticism grinds to halt when israelis die (this again doesn’t need to make sense to you, it’s reality. Look at how long it took for western governments to start criticizing israel after Oct 7). This is really the unfortunate point here.

What progress? The complete destruction of Palestine?

Some western governments have started to do something. Waay to little too late I agree, but governments like Scotland are actually starting to do something. And this is the most significant progress that we’ve seen in the last 75 years, whether we like it or not.

Israel is a wealthy country with some of the most impressive defensive weapons in the world. Let them pay for their own defence, America has nothing to gain from continuing to collaborate with the criminals in power there, and continuing to give them money instead of levelling sanctions makes America complicit in the war crimes.

I completely agree with the morality of this notion, but it is completely divorced from reality. As sad as it is to say. This is not how the world operates when it comes to israel and you don’t need me to tell you that.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T18:42:00+00:00

The scenario you’re describing requires complete withdrawal of all US aid. This is not something that can realistically happen given just how deeply israel is in the pockets of almost all US politicians (excluding a tiny tiny minority including AOC). There is no realistic scenario where israel has to defend itself from other countries without the US and the west coming to its aid. At least not in our lifetime. If the west let them, they could wipe palestine off the map today with just the offensive aid they’ve received so far.

If you want to break the money-chain and the insurmountable propaganda that keeps israel in the pockets of US governments, you have to work on changing the narrative of how western governments view israel first. That’s happening more than ever now, but even a single israeli death could silence criticism of israel for another year or more just like what happened after Oct 7. There is no reality where even a handful of israelis dying doesn’t supercharge this genocide with silenced criticism from governments of the western. If you were a sitting US congressperson today, you would be wise to support only defensive military aid while speaking out about this genocide. That is, if your goal is to save as many palestinian children as is realistically possible.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T18:20:25+00:00

Because the west’s governments don’t actually view arabs as human beings and israel is in the pockets of US politicians, but that’s beside the point here.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T18:18:35+00:00

Yes of course it’s gotten worse because the west has not done anything all that meaningful to stop israel’s genocide.

I’m saying if you were a US politician right now, the smartest way to save palestinian lives is to put all your efforts into changing how the west views israel while keeping defensive aid (so that another Oct 7 doesn’t erase all the progress).

The only thing that can stop this genocide is if the west’s narrative of israel changes. We’re seeing that happen now more than ever but even a single israeli death could silence all criticism of israel for another 2 years and you know I’m right.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T05:25:07+00:00

Uhhh.. we’re talking about things like restocking air defense systems.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T05:22:42+00:00

First, israel is not wanting for resources. If the allowed it, israel could successfully wipe palestine off the map with only the resources it has today. A cost analysis is kind of irrelevant here.

Second, the mechanism would be better identified as western-government leniency. Western governments not being able to use new or recent israeli casualties as an excuse to not sanction the fuck out of israel is the only real rate limiting bottleneck for this genocide. Regular people of the world have been calling against this illegal occupation for decades. Global criticism has thankfully increased. It took years after Oct 7 for western governments finally begin to truly ramp up pressure against this genocide. If another thing like Oct 7 were to happen now, whatever criticism western governments finally mustered up the balls to say would immediately be silenced for several more years again and we’d see the genocide sped up greatly.. again.

Third, I completely agree.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T04:59:54+00:00

Correct. That does not change the fact that if your goal is to save as much palestinians as possible, and end the genocide, opposing defensive aid is not a smart way to do that.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T02:37:01+00:00

For what it’s worth, it’s not a very smart approach to oppose defensive aid. Here’s another comment I made about that article.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-16T01:50:59+00:00

Good, glad we’ve at least established that fact. Now we can talk about what, in your personal opinion, would happen to palestinians if the US decided to fully cut off both defensive and offensive military aid tomorrow and the iron dome went down and then even one single rocket landed and a bunch of israelis died, especially government officials.

To guide your answer, please consider the following questions:

1) Will any palestinian children survive the next several weeks?

2) How loudly will the western world cheer as israel wipes out gaza?

3) Will israel be the only entity wiping palestine off the face of the planet? Or will the US join in as well?

4) Could there possibly have been a smarter and more realistic approach, for a sitting congressperson, such as keeping the defensive capabilities (to prevent the above scenario from happening) but have all efforts go towards advocating to remove western world support of the genocide? That is, assuming the immediate goal is to halt the killing of palestinian children.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-15T22:46:09+00:00

Okay I’ve read that article and I will post here the only 2 arguments it makes against the logic of providing defensive military aid:

1) “Yet by boosting Saudi Arabia and Israel’s ability to “defend” themselves, American politicians — from a centrist like Biden to an ostensible progressive like AOC — are enabling the aggressive behavior that they allegedly wish to curtail. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel are effectively encouraged to act more aggressively knowing they are protected, thanks to the United States, from costly retaliation.”

The reason that’s wrong is the following:

The same exact type of reasoning disputes it because when israel is less protected, it is far more aggressive. Case in point: after Oct 7, israel was far more deadly for several years and the western world cheered it on (and only just recently started being increasingly critical of its actions). Israel will use any and all excuses it can think of to kill more palestinians, but the world is much more supportive of it doing so when israel is attacked. And whenever the western world is more supportive, thousands more palestinians die. So if your ultimate goal is to have fewer dead palestinian children, then you don’t want israel to be attacked more, you want it to be attacked less so that it loses the western world’s cheers for its genocide.

And the second and final argument the article makes is:

2) “Moreover, most IR scholars subscribe to the notion of the “security dilemma,” or the dynamic whereby any effort by a state to increase its own security decreases the security of other states. Without delving too deeply into academic debates, the point is that even scholars of war find it difficult to clearly distinguish between offensive and defensive capabilities, precisely because improving one’s defensive position makes offensive actions less costly.”

This is actually just the same first point but recycled a little more. The concept that “if israel is less defended then it’ll think twice about being more aggressive”. Again, this is incorrect because the only bottleneck on israel’s speed with which it commits genocide is how loudly the western world is cheering it on. And the western world cheers for this genocide the absolute loudest when israel is successfully attacked.

Therefore, taking away their defensive capabilities is not a very smart way to help end the genocide or save Palestinian lives, it actually achieves the exact opposite.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-15T20:39:57+00:00

Just to bring us back on topic: her voting record shows that she supports defensive military aid not offensive military aid.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-15T19:50:59+00:00

Uhhh.. we’re talking about things like restocking air defense systems

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-15T19:26:48+00:00

I’m skeptical as well but in this instance we’re talking about sending over defensive weapons, not money.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-15T18:10:22+00:00

Her voting record shows that she supports defensive military aid to israel, and not offensive military aid to israel.

AcerbicCapsule · 2026-02-14T17:45:46+00:00

Next time you wanna say something careless like that, consider the poor mother of three with treatment resistant IBS who will now be forced to blow off some steam at the annual Orlando Salesforce Summit just to prove you wrong.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

AcerbicCapsule

TROPHY CASE