If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund
At a philosophical level, I am opposed to the idea of funds being able to hold onto property like a pure monetary asset.<p>Past the primary residence, individual landlords have some plausible deniability for having a 2nd&#x2F;3rd home. Maybe they want to return to the house one day. Maybe it is a vacation home. A lot of folks on HN are libertarian and believe in the power of the free market. When supply can be kept artificially scarce, the market stops being free. The Bay Area is a master class in this.<p>Among developed countries, the US is uniquely incompetent at urban development. They&#x27;ve created unsustainable suburbs and made every attempt possible to destroy cities. What&#x27;s worse, is that generations of this pattern have led to rosy eyed images of suburbs among the younger generation and a skewed perspective of what cities look like. I live in an international group home, and Americans are unique in their desire to stay in suburbs. The Europeans, South Asians and East Asians would all much prefer to stay near the &#x27;happening parts&#x27;, and even their choices of suburbs are far denser than 99% of US cities.<p>Lastly, allowing foreign investors to snatch an essential and scarce resource from the hands of your own citizens is incompetence bordering on malice worth the dismissal of everyone involved. Trump did a lot of things wrong, but the US could learn some protectionism. (I am not even American)<p>________________________________<p>I am usually more reserved in my opinion when engaging with people whose intellect I respect. But, this is an exception.<p>[rant] I truly believe that the NIMBY &amp; fans of American urban planning are as objectively in the wrong as one can be on a topic with as much emotional subjectivity as housing. 
It is a strong accusation, but people who still vehemently oppose densification of America are brainwashed , blinded by greed or both. [\rant]