The Curiously Consistent Housing 'Crisis'
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung's recent spat with the People Power Party’s Jang Dong-hyeok over multi-homeowner policies, as reported by the Korea Times, appears to be a spirited debate on the 'public nature' of housing. Lee insists public sector involvement is key, arguing against tax breaks for multi-homeowners and stressing their 'responsibility' in the face of housing speculation. One
might, however, recall the 2008 global financial crisis, precipitated precisely by the unchecked financialization of housing, turning shelter into a speculative commodity rather than a human right. Curiously, the discussion often circles back to 'multi-homeowners' as the problem, rather than the systemic forces that facilitate such accumulation. This selective focus avoids uncomfortable questions
about, for instance, the influence of large real estate conglomerates or investor funds that disproportionately control vast swaths of property, often with quiet government backing. In cities like Seoul, home to 10 million people, such concentrated ownership can easily manipulate supply and demand, yet the public discourse rarely identifies these players by name. This isn't a uniquely Korean
phenomenon. From New York to London, 'housing crises' are routinely framed as issues of individual greed rather than failures of policy designed to enrich a few. When former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, stated years ago that 'housing is not an investment' for the average American, it was a subtle confirmation of the system working as intended for those at