That logic only works if you have some notion that any action that causes economic harm also causes harm to the party who takes it: like the economy is a magical game of tit-for-tat...
If I fund a REIT and buy up half the housing in some bumbling town to extract rent, and let those who can't afford it go pound sand: it can be profitable for me, yet be a net cost to the wider economy.
In fact, it can cost significantly more than the profit I gain: A couple of cases homelessness can end up costing the state millions over the next few decades in knock on effects, the extra rent my REIT extracts in rent ends up in less economically stimulating places than the local economy, etc etc.
In the end I can end up contracting the economy by 100s of millions and still profit, as long as that contraction doesn't overlap with my personal interests too much. Increased homelessness might lower the value of my properties, but the majority of the economic loss doesn't fall on me so I might even expand on that loss in value.
If I fund a REIT and buy up half the housing in some bumbling town to extract rent, and let those who can't afford it go pound sand: it can be profitable for me, yet be a net cost to the wider economy.
In fact, it can cost significantly more than the profit I gain: A couple of cases homelessness can end up costing the state millions over the next few decades in knock on effects, the extra rent my REIT extracts in rent ends up in less economically stimulating places than the local economy, etc etc.
In the end I can end up contracting the economy by 100s of millions and still profit, as long as that contraction doesn't overlap with my personal interests too much. Increased homelessness might lower the value of my properties, but the majority of the economic loss doesn't fall on me so I might even expand on that loss in value.