Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in the US, most monopolies were not government granted Railroads: government granted. Public utilities: government granted. Telephone: government granted. Air travel: government granted. Cable TV: goverment granted. ISP: government granted. Seems like a lot.
It seems like the common factor enforcing the monopoly is high capital cost as a barrier to entry. That moat allows monopolizing companies to focus their resources on capturing the state to maintain their monopoly status. The remedy would seem to be for more decisive government action - to regulate or nationalize the infrastructure, break up the incumbents as necessary, and create a robust market for services that ut…
California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
321–330 of 461 posts
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Standard Oil, whose major "crime" was selling oil more cheaply than all of its competitors.
Standard raised prices to its monopolistic customers but lowered them to hurt competitors, often disguising its illegal actions by using bogus supposedly independent companies it controlled [1]. The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Co. charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field,…
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you want to take what’s someone’s property and make sure you want to ‘allocate’ it to someone else who wants it..it’s called redistribution. They used to send people to re-education camps to ensure it happened smoothly. We may not have re education camps here in CA but asking senior citizens to accept punitive taxes so they would feel incentivized to move to the country so land can be reallocated is the same thi…
> When you want to take what’s someone’s property and make sure you want to ‘allocate’ it to someone else who wants it..it’s called redistribution. No one's property is taken, they'll just sell it on the market to whoever can pay the most. That's not redistribution, it's called markets (what America is build on). I think we fundamentally disagree on economics, so I doubt we'll come any useful agreement here unfortuna…
Secondly it is not market forces when the govt has to interfere and impose more taxes to make sure homes become affordable to the working class by snatching away the economic net of the non working retired class. In fact, it is the exact opposite of ‘Markets’. It’s a freebie by the govt to the govt educated public school kids who became adults. The kids who grew up in public schools are doing what they were taught to do. Redistribution of common resources and wealth. Socialism sits uneasily with free market forces. An imposition of an INCREASE in taxes is not the same as imposing a tax.
Friedman speaks about land value tax on unimproved land. And that the property tax thus collected should be used for public services like law and order, infrastructure and essential services.
Almost 85% of the property taxes collected is used for public system. 45% of California state budget goes to provide free public school education for everyone regardless of whether they pay taxes or not to the tune of 10-12k/child per annum. It is also used to cover unfunded pension liabilities of these public school system teachers.
I am pretty sure you haven’t understood what Friedman suggested and this was read from some Bay Area real estate sponsored article from a click bait’y rag that has nothing to do with economics or Friedman or libertarian economics.
There is zero economic logic is in trying to alleviate housing shortage by taxing retired property owners on fixed incomes except to displace them..aka drive them away to make space for public school educated young people who despite having earning power are not mobile enough to educate their kids in quality schools because California’s educational system is a Ponzi scheme. And no one is paying attention to it because the schools did not do the job of actually educating these kids in..I don’t know..subjects like economics.
Current workinh populace can not afford to buy properties from older folks. Because they lack the purchasing power. So the mob wants to increase taxes so old people who don’t gain anything from public school funding will leave.
This is exactly what is known as ‘cutting the nose to spite the face’ because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The only winner is the govt that gains more taxes from property, income(because only the wealthy can now afford to buy and most of their income is going to income taxes, property taxes, sales tax, gas tax, road tax on top all the other special taxes, parcel taxes, business tax etc). It’s like in the casino..the house always wins. Why anyone with a modicum of understanding of economics cannot see this beggars belief.
The problem is relating property taxes to public education budgets. The problem is the speculative nature of real estate and allowing foreign investors to speculate on California real estate. The problem is the lack of TRUE purchasing power of the Silicon Valley grunt workers allegedly making hundreds of thousands of dollars in income but have little to show for it. The govt is taking them for a ride and they can’t see it because the critical knowledge of evaluating a bloated govt’s economics is conveniently left out in the public school system. And I suspect..by design.
Density benefits taxes. Taxes are ‘good’. The purpose of a tax increase is to make it unaffordable for retirees to continue living in their homes and to displace them. It doesn’t pay for any services. The govt acts like a henchmen so housing stock is cleared and made available for the highest tax paying demographic. So they can collect more taxes. Let this sink in. I repeat. Let.This.Sink.In. Milton Friedman ..trust me on this...wouldn’t approve.
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#324Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental…
It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#326Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think all 40 senators in CA own a home in CA and something like 65% own at least one unit they rent out. This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords.
> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#328There’s one thing that constantly confuses me with the housing crisis, which is why more people aren’t moving to other cities (or at least a lot faster than they currently are). Perhaps my mentality is different than most, but if I can improve my economic situation by moving elsewhere I will. I know for some people it is difficult to move because of family ties or costs associated with moving, but I would have though…
It seems like people from Silicon Valley are moving to Portland and Seattle specifically: https://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/migration.html
Not necessarily the best or most up-to-date sources, but I'm only going to bother spending so much time on this.
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#329Expensive housing is a feature and not a bug for the tech industry. They prefer to hire young, single workers because they will work longer hours in worse conditions, and if they can keep them rent- and commute-burdened they are less likely to switch jobs, start a family, take up a hobby, etc.
Re: California's housing bill SB 50 has died in the state Senate
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This decision is extremely frustrating coming from a legislature filled with landlords. Not only do the people have the power to vote out legislators, in California they also have the power to bypass them and legislate directly. But, while there is broad consensus that housing is a problem, there isn't broad consensus on solutions among the public any more than there is among legislators.
Homeowners are disproportionately likely to vote, so their constituents no doubt agree with them on this issue. The real problem is that when you incentivize and subsidize putting your net worth into a single large investment vehicle, and then let holders of that investment decide how much competition to it will be allowed nearby, it creates a vicious cycle of ever-increasing supply shortage. Eventually, of course, t…
why so salty?