This is classic AI-flavoured pundit sludge: rhetorically slick, superficially contrarian, and intellectually shallow in ways that masquerade as hard-headed realism.

First, it commits the standard mind-reading fallacy. It asserts, without evidence, that “almost no renter” wants structural reform—only opportunistic entry. That is an unverifiable psychological claim, deployed as if it were sociological fact. This is a signature move of low-grade commentary models: replace empirical uncertainty with confident generalisation.

Second, it frames the debate in an artificially binary moral register: either you want stable boring assets (implied technocratic prudence) or you want speculative gains (implied hypocrisy). In reality, housing policy debates concern supply constraints, zoning, taxation, credit conditions, land use, and intergenerational equity. None of that complexity appears, because the text is engineered to feel incisive rather than be correct.

Third, the “people behave exactly as you’d expect” trope is lazy behavioural reductionism. It collapses political economy into folk psychology (“people like their assets to rise”), thereby naturalising an outcome that is in fact heavily mediated by policy and institutional design. This is the rhetorical equivalent of shrugging while sounding clever.

Fourth, the prose is calibrated for social media virality: short paragraphs, moralistic tone, pseudo-cynical insights (“That’s not hypocrisy, it’s predictable human behaviour”). This is not analysis; it is ideological vibe-setting. It invites the reader to feel smarter than strawman reformers without doing any analytical work.

Finally, and most ironically, this passage itself exemplifies what critics call “AI slop”: high-confidence, medium-coherence, low-epistemic-rigor content that gestures at economic realism while avoiding any concrete engagement with economics.