Buyers: "How much will this house cost me?" Sellers: "What's your budget?" Buyers: "Well, it was 500K, but with these new fifty year mortgages, I think it could stretch to million." Sellers: "I have an astonishing coincidence to report." Look, I don't know exactly who's retarded enough to need to hear this, but if you throw money at something, you get more of it. Which means that if you subsidize demand, you get more demand. And if you have the same supply, and more demand, price goes up. This is how the federal Stafford Loan program made college a gateway to permanent debt slavery. Subsidize demand, price goes up. The reason people don't understand this is that most people are only smart enough to think about individuals, not populations. They think if you have more money, you can buy more things, as if things come from the item store in a Japanese console RPG, where the store always has infinity stuff to sell you, and infinity money to buy your loot. People who are capable of thinking about large groups quickly realize that money is just a way of distributing things. Like, there's a limited supply of things, and you're just choosing who gets them. Having more money doesn't make more things. Except... it should, shouldn't it? Eventually? Like, if apples get super expensive, because somebody invented a new kind of apple that's so delicious that everyone wants them, then the price of those apples goes up, so more people start growing them. So why doesn't that work with houses and colleges? Why don't the super-inflated prices of those things inspire profit-minded people to make more? It's almost as if there were some sort of gatekeeper, whose permission you needed to make a house or a university. But that's impossible, because this is a totally capitalist country, so you can just do things, right?