6 ms·

“who gets the nicer plots” is probably the most important question. This proposal doesn’t actually change any of the structures that make some land more valuabl

“who gets the nicer plots” is probably the most important question. This proposal doesn’t actually change any of the structures that make some land more valuable than others. I’m guessing we’ll get more traction from making more places attractive places to live and work than we will by changing the rules around how land is acquired. What he’s proposing is essentially feudalism but with money instead of connections. I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. Basically centralization results in small business closures, which reduces opportunity, which cuts the value of affected land. By contrast, if most products are produced by companies of only a few hundred employees, then every region has its own version of everything, and you now need a lot more surface area for the economy. More surface area means people can live more places. In my mind it all comes back to stronger antitrust enforcement and more progressivism.

philipallstar 24d ago
> I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. The reason is that there are far more people coming in than there is room to keep up with demand, so dwellings are chopped up into smaller dwellings and rented out, and house prices rocket. Cities are only so big, and putting endless additional people in them can be great if you own property, but terrible if you don't.
- arrosenberg 24d ago
  That’s the proximate cause, but OP has correctly identified that finance capitalism, outsourcing industry, and corporate consolidation are the forces that have driven people out of small towns and into cities looking for economic opportunity.
  - philipallstar 23d ago
    I doubt corporate consolidation has driven people out of small towns. Outsourcing, yes, but that's globalisation rather than outsourcing per se. Finance capitalism - any sort of finance, whether capitalism or raised through taxes - can pull people somewhere. Washington DC would be a ghost town without the tax dollars to draw people to it. Those three are not the forces, and they aren't necessarily the most significant ones either.
    - arrosenberg 23d ago
      Two businesses merge, now one bigger enterprise has two plants, which they consolidate into one. Maybe they outsource instead (or “globalize” if you prefer, though I’m not clear on your distinction). Now one or two towns that previously had a business providing jobs don’t. Younger people leave since there is no opportunity there. Now repeat this for decades.
novok 24d ago
It's misregulation and boomerocracy eating their seed crop in societies where land is set up as an investment and most boomers put their life savings into real estate in the 80s/90s since the stock market was not properly accessible and the dot com bust scared the rest away from it. Since the old boomers vote, are retired and thus have more free time to be political and are a large voting block, the democracies satisfy their short term needs since they need their votes to be a viable political party. Trump knows exactly what to do to fix it, but he knows it's completely politically unviable so he doesn't, and he states the entire logic in public speeches so it isn't a secret either. Japan is pretty much where you want to be wrt to land. Free market land use, but national zoning regulations and a bunch of other things to prevent housing bubbles. Japan had their 'never again' real estate bubble in the 80s & 90s, so their boomers-in-power don't want real estate to be a speculative bubble and thus at least real estate is affordable even in Tokyo even with a near 0% interest rate for a very long time. When the boomers die and millennials become the olds, they will probably implement the regulations to not allow real estate to be a bubble, because they had their 'never again' real estate bubble ruining their economic formative years in 2008 and onwards. The millennial equivalent will be index funds, which will have different deleterious effects.

philipallstar 24d ago

> I’m beginning to suspect that centralization consolidation of corporate structures are more of a causative factor for why land in cities is very expensive. The reason is that there are far more people coming in than there is room to keep up with demand, so dwellings are chopped up into smaller dwellings and rented out, and house prices rocket. Cities are only so big, and putting endless additional people in them can be great if you own property, but terrible if you don't.

arrosenberg 24d ago
That’s the proximate cause, but OP has correctly identified that finance capitalism, outsourcing industry, and corporate consolidation are the forces that have driven people out of small towns and into cities looking for economic opportunity.
- philipallstar 23d ago
  I doubt corporate consolidation has driven people out of small towns. Outsourcing, yes, but that's globalisation rather than outsourcing per se. Finance capitalism - any sort of finance, whether capitalism or raised through taxes - can pull people somewhere. Washington DC would be a ghost town without the tax dollars to draw people to it. Those three are not the forces, and they aren't necessarily the most significant ones either.
  - arrosenberg 23d ago
    Two businesses merge, now one bigger enterprise has two plants, which they consolidate into one. Maybe they outsource instead (or “globalize” if you prefer, though I’m not clear on your distinction). Now one or two towns that previously had a business providing jobs don’t. Younger people leave since there is no opportunity there. Now repeat this for decades.

novok 24d ago

It's misregulation and boomerocracy eating their seed crop in societies where land is set up as an investment and most boomers put their life savings into real estate in the 80s/90s since the stock market was not properly accessible and the dot com bust scared the rest away from it. Since the old boomers vote, are retired and thus have more free time to be political and are a large voting block, the democracies satisfy their short term needs since they need their votes to be a viable political party. Trump knows exactly what to do to fix it, but he knows it's completely politically unviable so he doesn't, and he states the entire logic in public speeches so it isn't a secret either. Japan is pretty much where you want to be wrt to land. Free market land use, but national zoning regulations and a bunch of other things to prevent housing bubbles. Japan had their 'never again' real estate bubble in the 80s & 90s, so their boomers-in-power don't want real estate to be a speculative bubble and thus at least real estate is affordable even in Tokyo even with a near 0% interest rate for a very long time. When the boomers die and millennials become the olds, they will probably implement the regulations to not allow real estate to be a bubble, because they had their 'never again' real estate bubble ruining their economic formative years in 2008 and onwards. The millennial equivalent will be index funds, which will have different deleterious effects.