See my earlier comment regarding NZ. The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
>I think my suggestion that finance is the most significant factor here is a stronger argument than a supply shortage.
You have zero evidence for this claim and cited zero sources.
>The number of homes per 1000 people changed very little between 2011 and 2022. At the same time prices went from NZD350k to NZD900k.
You cannot look at an entire country's housing/population ratio and think that explains everything. New homes in Queenstown don't reduce housing costs for people in Auckland or Christchurch. You need to look at the supply of housing in an area where it is a substitutable good: where you can switch housing without switching your job, school, friends, and life.
A new house 6 hours from me does not lower the price of housing in my neighborhood.
Are you sure finance wasn't the main cause?
sources: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-cons... https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/pacific/new-zealand/home...
Edit: Also compare what happened to the money supply over the same period: 2011(NZD180 billion) to 2022(NZD400 billion). https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/money-supply-m3
I don't think anyone would disagree that finance has an impact, but these are only indirect evidence.
It seems to me that increasing urbanisation and desire to live in cities could easily have pushed city prices up much faster than anything else, while less populated areas stagnate.