Is this a creative way of arguing that landlords are a net loss for the country? Because I would like to remind you that MANY people cannot afford to buy homes, and renting is how they make sure they don't become homeless.
Foreign capital is undesirable in the housing market because:
1) It raises demand (when buying a home as a local, you now also have to compete with foreigners "investing", and this raises prices).
2) It often develops housing in a very unhealthy direction: Airbnbs and vacation apartments are toxic for local society and must be kept in check, otherwise you end up with half the houses just being shuttered for the whole off-season, and towns becoming empty husks.
3) Rent is a lot of money, and its obviously beneficial if it stays in the local economy instead of flowing abroad.
Not landlords as a general concept, but there are many categories that are:
- Investors buying areas in bulk to monopolise available living space and manipulate prices
- Demand of renting space by investors making purchases unaffordable
- Temporary living space (Airbnb, etc) removing long term residence offer.
- Foreign investors exploiting living space from abroad, since the money extracted from rent will not be reinvested in the country.
The usual free market response to this is "more offer will even out demand". But there's lots of obstacles to this in real life. Regulatory capture, high upfront costs that limit builders, near inhexaustible demand by investors and tourism, etc.
I guess that’s a good thing (for voluntary renters… not so much for involuntary renters) but not really supposed to happen.
2) rent being the only way to afford shelter has zero relation to whether it is a net loss or not