Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
The stock gets replaced if there's sufficient money in it for the developers. If you artificially create a mass of low-income consumers (as happened between 1997 and 2010), you inevitably eat up the existing stock and give no economic incentive for the market to create more homes - because those consumers cannot pay the sums needed to make the deal profitable. The state then becomes the only party capable of breaking this impasse and it - in a society where property rights are enshrined in law - must still dance to the market's tune.
I agree with you about the effects of immigration on the market but if I was neo-liberal like my Bulgarian friend, for example, who thinks that there should be a completely free market in labour, and that the market should decide when people stop moving to this country (when it is worse than Bulgaria, for example), then I would suggest that you accept market realities and not interfere with it by imposing socialist immigration controls.

Another state-interference in free markets is the prevention of building on the green belt by middle-class nimbys.

You see, this free market mularkey has it limits, wouldn't you agree?