This is a great counter to the very popular, socialist nonsense about banning private equity from buying homes. The only thing I disagree with from Bob is when he says that the houses are bought solely to be sold at a later date for a profit (or rented out), as he says from 9m-16m. I’d argue instead that their primary use (or at the very least an under-appreciated use) is as *collateral* to speculative attack and accrue Cantillon effect profits ad infinitum. That’s the reason why they’d buy and not sell. That being said, I have no “should” statement here, like the popular left and right: “the government should ban private equity from buying homes.” No, that’s socialist nonsense. The only insight I have is that we effectively have is a potential short squeeze on houses. Bitcoin can trigger that squeeze by more people putting their cash balances / long term savings into Bitcoin instead of houses. Then we rug the banks when we start to get some turncoats, then buy the houses near their utility value. They’re choosing a poor money (houses) to leverage an even poorer money (fiat), while we’re choosing perfect money. I wonder who will win. P.S. If you really cared about this issue, what you’d be calling for is a repeal of the Fed’s charter, something well within the power of Congress, which would destroy the socialist banking cartel that facilitates the nonsensical monetization of these houses.