7 ms·
I am appalled at how many comments in this thread appeal to the "laws of supply and demand" and economic theory as if a theoretical model could apply perfectly
by igammarays 5y ago
I am appalled at how many comments in this thread appeal to the "laws of supply and demand" and economic theory as if a theoretical model could apply perfectly to something as complex as housing. The map is not the territory. The invisible hand of the market cannot do its work if it is prevented by the realities of building codes, high capital/safety/aesthetic costs of creating supply, the psychological costs of losing your home and irrational behaviours associated with it, the desirability of having less rich/poor segregation, and the fact that a neighbourhood community cannot form if people keep moving around. Stability in housing is a highly desirable goal even at the cost of efficiency of markets.
- ItsMonkk 5y agoAll of those things are just a symptom of the economic problem. Existing owners lobby for those things because those things make them rich. Every building not built leads to everyone in the neighborhood making another dollar. When being a NIMBY makes you money, everyone becomes a NIMBY. When you align incentives and setup a Land Value Tax, not having enough housing in an area raises taxes. Suddenly people come out of the woodwork becoming YIMBYs to get those people housing so that their taxes drop. If people still want aesthetic and other factors, they can have it. But it's going to cost them.
- dionidium 5y ago> Stability in housing is a highly desirable goal even at the cost of efficiency of markets. So just give poor people money. If somebody needs shoes you can buy them a pair of shoes. You don't have to set price caps on shoe sales. (Meanwhile, if you have laws that are artificially limiting the production of shoes, then you should probably get rid of those laws and let people make more shoes if they want to.)
- igammarays 5y agoThe entire point of my comment was to say that commodity products like shoes cannot be compared to housing. There is no psychological cost to changing shoes. There is no effect on community development. Moving homes, however, has second and third-order destructive effects, on families, communities, and even individual mental health. The point is not the price-cap, the point is stability in housing is a desirable goal.
- dionidium 5y agoIt is illegitimate to seize real property to protect a third party from the psychological costs of moving.
- igammarays 5y agoIt is illegitimate to allow rent-seekers to take advantage of a capital position to force people out of their homes.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]