[Interview file] Never-ending real estate story, 7 uncomfortable truths

President Moon Jae-in, who pushed for a policy of unilateral regulation, saying that he was confident about the real estate issue, said at a New Year's press conference that he would come up with a special supply plan far exceeding expectations to stabilize the market.

This is foreshadowing a major shift in housing policy, which chose regulation rather than supply.

At this point, it is necessary to reflect on some of the essential questions of the real estate problem, which has become the permanent policy Achilles heel of all regimes.

Kim Sang-jo, who appeared on KBS Radio at this time last year, said, "It is a policy impossible goal to stabilize all apartment prices. To be honest, the primary goal is to stabilize Gangnam house prices."

Regardless of the regime, the real estate craze and the beginning of mass production of policies in response to it was always the price of a house in Gangnam.

Gangnam house prices, which wriggled periodically, symbolized the failure of capitalism, which is the gap between the rich and the poor, and at the same time stimulated the sense of relative deprivation of the common people. It was an attractive option to do.

Therefore, whether conservative or progressive, political powers have targeted Gangnam real estate as targets when faced with large and small uncomfortable affairs, seeking a turn of interest or consolidation of guardians.

In the process, Gangnam naturally became a source of unearned income, a tax evasion contest, a real estate craze, and a threat to the entire country by promoting household insolvency.

However, this time, a blast from Gangnam spread across the country.

It is unusual in terms of the case of the last 10 years, and it is also inconvenient to understand from the viewpoints described so far.

I agree that the reasons are generally as follows.

'In the midst of floating funds that couldn't find a place to invest, lit up their eyes and looking for food, real estate regulation policies that constantly poured out brought attention to real estate in reverse.

In addition, statistically, all the people have learned that housing supply is insufficient.

The belief that money can be made even in Gangnam has become the short-term investment philosophy of the whole people.'

economic principle of capitalism is that if there is more supply than demand

price falls.

To prevent a surge in Gangnam real estate, you can build a large-scale housing complex near Gangnam, like Bundang, or increase the reconstruction floor area significantly.

However, it is not as easy to find land as before, and reconstruction through an increase in floor area ratio, which seems relatively easy, can be a dangerous option.

Reconstruction to expand supply usually takes 4 or 5 years.

This creates two uncomfortable situations.

First, depending on the supply, prices can stabilize in the medium term, but they must bear short-term price spikes.

In addition, the short-term surge is naturally taken by Gangnam residents, which widens the asset gap with the surrounding area with enormous unearned income.

Second, when the supply is completed, four or five years later, the regime changes.

The next regime will take the ball of price stability.

It is difficult politically to endure the'choice of giving dogs after death'.

It is a five-year single-term system, and in a political climate where even if regimes with the same ideology come to power in succession like ours, it is not realistic to let the next regime take its policy fruit.

In the middle of that, defocusing appears.

The problem is Gangnam, and a new city construction plan is announced in a remote place.

What is this?

After confusion for a moment, the people adapt as the government intends.

Yes, as the supply increases, the house price will stabilize.

But where does the house price stabilize?

Besides, this time everything was messed up.

In the midst of trying to catch Gangnam, the whole country has gone up, so there is no need to lose focus anymore.

Whenever the house price frenzy blows, all governments profess to catch the house price on the basis of the'regime luck'.

In fact, you have to catch it.

It can create a bubble in the economy, and if the bubble goes out, the whole country could suffer measles with massive household insolvency.

But do Koreans really hate rising house prices?

People who own homes, especially those in Gangnam and other regions where home prices are rising, will be more than happy to rise in home prices than to rise in stocks.

In terms of the proportion of assets, stocks and real estate are incomparable, and when it rises significantly, it is bound to feel joy as it increases several times the annual salary in a few months.

On the contrary, a homeless person will suffer from a sense of despair because of the relative deprivation and dreams of getting my own home.

In addition, all other places are climbing, but it is obvious that even those who do not climb my house will get upset.

Here again, political engineering calculations are involved.

The result is always the same.

There are obviously more tickets that don't like the ones you like because of the high house prices.

This is because, in general, housing prices in certain areas are soaring, and the number of homeless people is still close to half of the people.

In the end, 70-80% of the people have no choice but to make the political choices they want.

Since they say they will beat real estate without covering up the regime, the rise in house prices deserves imprint in the minds of our people as'bad things' for any reason.

So, at the time of soaring house prices, people who have a house hold their breath and like it, and people who do not have a house raise their voices to express a feeling of despair.

Real estate surges must be prevented, but a common view of experts is that a rise in house prices at the level of inflation is desirable for the national economy.

It makes no sense from the beginning.

Young people's so-called'young-eul' investment in real estate was not made to secure it because there was no place to lie down right away.

'Youngchil' is the struggle for asset growth of young people who cannot see the future because the ladder of class movement is broken.

For those who have turned their eyes to bitcoin or stocks to catch the ropes of entry into the middle class fleeing into the air far away, prospects have poured out that a decline in supply will lead to higher house prices.

The impatience of having to ride the last train spread even with irrational numbers.

The judgment that it is impossible to buy a house now or even enter the middle class forever made it possible to grasp the ropes of buying a house with a sharp thorn of a debt with the power gathered up to the soul.

The supply of public housing is an indispensable policy for the stability of the people's housing, but it cannot be an alternative to the asset growth expected of the current'Young-eul'.

If the idea was to prevent the'spirit' of the youth by constructing public housing, this is also an attempt to blur focus and is a typical tabletop administration.

How many citizens want to live as tenants forever?

In Korea, where competition is fierce, housing is still the biggest asset and the best asset growth tool.

In Korea, the proportion of people who have homes, that is, homeowners, is about 60% of sixteen.

The remaining 40% live in cheonsei.

Some of the homeowners are multi-homed, and 40% of tenants live in the houses they rent.

Then, if these multi-homed people sell their homes to tenants, will the crying and laughing over the house disappear as everyone has a home?

This is also included among the main reasons the government is pressing multi-homed people to sell their homes.

There is something to think about here.

The reason tenants are renting houses is because multi-homed people do not sell their houses.

There are a number of reasons, but the biggest reason is probably because you can't afford to buy a house.

100 houses are needed in a neighborhood with 100 households.

Because there are only 70 houses in this neighborhood that can afford to buy a house, if only 70 units are supplied, the remaining 30 units have no place to go.

In the end, the solution is to allow multi-homed people, buy the remaining 30 households, and rent them out to households that cannot afford the house.

Like this, a structure in which the lessor and the tenant live together is essential.

The role of the government is to regulate when multi-homeowners increase their rent excessively and to induce competition in the rental housing market through public rental supply.

The counterattack of the market is that if both are made hostile forces, the supply will decrease and the possibility of an expedient being intervened will increase.

As the demographic structure changes, all experts say that someday, home prices will fall.

That is the truth.

However, the important factors to consider are the'someday' and'regional variables'.

The biggest variable of'someday' is the increase in single-person households. At a New Year's press conference, President Moon Jae-in pointed out the increase in single-person households as the cause of the surge in house prices, but this was not a sudden variable, but a constant variable. Since single-person households need one house even if they live alone, it clearly increases the demand for housing and dilutes the factor of population decline. In addition, the continuous increase of foreigners is also an important variable. There are 1.4 million foreigners staying in Korea. Early on, it far exceeded the population of Ulsan City. Their demand for housing is also challenging.

A decade ago, the prospect that the price of a house would drop sooner or later due to a declining population attracted explosive attention, inducing a large number of people to sell the house, and then disappearing nicely at some point. The reason seems to be that these variables are underestimated.

'Regional variables' cannot be neglected either. One of the experts the reporter met said:

“Population decline will surely have an impact, but it will vary by city size. Cities with a population of around 200,000 will sooner or later drop as their population declines, as Japan did. Small neighborhoods will disappear, hospitals, convenience stores, hospitals, convenience stores, and so on. There will be consolidation of neighborhoods due to essential facilities such as schools, but the influx of population in large cities will delay the period, especially in Seoul, where the rise of single-person households and the influx of foreigners will lead to a decline in house prices decades later. ."

It is worth a reference. However, it is difficult to predict even a year from now. How do you know exactly how many decades will come? The long-term trend, however, does not know how the real estate market will fluctuate due to political and economic variables in the short or medium term, so the outlook is always counter-threshing and is quickly forgotten and repeated, and the success or failure of investment is entirely up to investors.

Unfortunately, there must be many difficulties. Provincial cities with strong population inflow factors, such as innovation cities and corporate cities, will withstand for a considerable period of time, but cities with a population of less than 200,000 to 300,000 will have a large impact on population decline.

In particular, the practice of creating new towns in order to show off the outward achievements of group heads as the local government system is implemented makes the situation worse. The population is declining or stagnant, but the city density decreases as the city flat area keeps increasing. As a result, the city's vitality disappears as the old city center collapses, and in the mid- to long-term, pressure on housing prices to fall due to oversupply increases.

This is why it is difficult to last a long time soaring the nationwide housing price, which is the result of a decrease in supply and an increase in liquidity.

Capitalism always implies the possibility of market failure. The role of the government is to actively intervene in the market to heal side effects in order to resolve the market failure, and as the economy becomes more complex, the role of the government is becoming more important worldwide.

It is the duty and authority of the government to correct problems such as distribution distortion, polarization, monopoly, and other problems caused by market failure, and to correct the market.However, if a policy that disrupts the fundamental order of the market for political reasons is implemented, the public must bear the effects of its side effects. It's something everyone will be reminded of at this point.

(Photo = Yonhap News)