The number of new NYC buildings with exactly 99 units has surged five-fold. This is a direct result of a new law providing tax exemptions for developers who include affordable housing in buildings with "fewer than 100 units." Developers are optimizing their designs to hit this magic number and maximize their financial benefit.

Scott Galloway's real estate strategy is to buy and develop luxury homes in the few global locations favored by the ultra-wealthy (e.g., Aspen, London). His thesis is that worsening income inequality will create thousands of new billionaires—a homogenous group with predictable tastes—ensuring high demand for these specific properties.

The implementation of wealth taxes could burst market bubbles. Since these taxes must be paid in cash, holders of illiquid assets (like stocks or real estate) are forced to sell. This forced selling creates downward pressure on prices, potentially triggering a broader market downturn.

The "Buy, Borrow, Die" tax strategy concentrates immense wealth, making the broader economy unhealthily dependent on the spending habits of the ultra-rich. As noted by The Wall Street Journal, this creates systemic risk; if the wealthy pull back spending, it could trigger a recession.

High home prices should not be interpreted as a sign of a healthy market. Instead, they indicate a system that is malfunctioning as designed, where artificial scarcity created by policy and corporate buying drives prices up. This reflects a structural failure, not robust economic demand.

Policies intended to curb luxury development, such as a construction freeze, have a counterintuitive effect. They transform the existing luxury housing stock into a limited, finite resource. This artificial scarcity dramatically drives up prices for those assets, making them 'gold' and potentially worsening inequality.

Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.

Drew Warshaw frames the "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) phenomenon as a rational, if selfish, economic decision. Incumbent homeowners are incentivized to restrict new housing supply because basic economics suggest that increasing supply could decrease the value of their primary asset: their home.

Homeowners and local governments block new development, creating artificial scarcity that drives up prices, similar to how luxury brands like LVMH restrict supply to increase value. This "LVMH-ing" of housing makes it unaffordable for younger generations and limits economic mobility.