91–100 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Trickle down was a Reagan thing. I'm very confused by your statements. I mean it was the Big Beautiful Bill that just added 3-5 trillion in debt and reduced taxes on the very wealthy. I don't think those impotent Dems had any sway in this.
The bigger problem, at least in my neck of the woods, is they're not building affordable housing. By-and-large they are building luxury apartments and luxury homes. We've torn down half the city to build luxury apartments that sit at 20-30% occupancy. Building luxury housing won't help the housing crisis until the sellers are on the brink of bankruptcy and forced to sell their properties at a reasonable price.
The bigger problem, at least in my neck of the woods, is they're not building affordable housing. By-and-large they are building luxury apartments and luxury homes. We've torn down half the city to build luxury apartments that sit at 20-30% occupancy. Building luxury housing won't help the housing crisis until the sellers are on the brink of bankruptcy and forced to sell their properties at a reasonable price.
If US car sales were capped at 10 million cars per year manufacturers would immediately focus on their luxury brands and leave their regular brands out of stock. When you keep strict zoning, give NIMBYs veto power, let environmental review be weaponized as a delay tactic, you are capping new construction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. New housing is simply more expensive; so it's marketed as "luxury", and it's sold at a premium to the higher end of the housing market. This reduces demand for the older, more affordable existing housing stock, and with depreciation and wear and tear, the new housing will become more affordable as time goes on. If you're in a market with a shortage of housing, those with mo…
> This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. I think the entire analogy falls apart the minute you realize houses almost always appreciate while cars do the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't actually worked this example out. Try it. The wealthy buy the extra supply; they now compete with all the existing supply for tenants. What happens next?
Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on how many tenants there are: is is a buyers' or sellers' market?
Whether it's a buyer or seller's market depends on supply!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thompson is responding to a specific paper. yes, he's responding to [0] which was written by Musharbash and published in Matt Stoller's newsletter. and as I said, he's being selective about what criticism he's responding to and what he's ignoring. because Stoller has also published, in the same newsletter, articles about RealPage price fixing [1, 2]. Thompson says: > The antitrust left, however, claims... if he's g…
It's not on him to rebut every single argument Stoller has ever made. Several arguments Stoller made were refuted by the authorities Stoller himself cited, which is both interesting to read and also telling. Stoller is free to find similarly decisive refutations of arguments Thompson had made (they're unlikely to be forthcoming).
That's not true. At all. That's what Thompson _claims_. Look at what was actually written.
It's incredibly sleazy writing. It's so one-sided it might as well be a celebrity gossip magazine piece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfectly succinct way to put it. New housing is simply more expensive; so it's marketed as "luxury", and it's sold at a premium to the higher end of the housing market. This reduces demand for the older, more affordable existing housing stock, and with depreciation and wear and tear, the new housing will become more affordable as time goes on. If you're in a market with a shortage of housing, those with mo…
> New housing is simply more expensive There is no natural reason for this to be the case. If anything, learning curves and economies of scale should result in new units costing less, not more, than ones built by artisans.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/sketch-of-a-theory-of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Trickle-down" economics is a direct subsidy for high-income earners meant to spur demand . That's the opposite of what increasing the housing supply does.
Totally wrong strawman missing the bigger point. It's still a vague, misguided utopian ideology focused on helping the rich supposedly "overproduce" while doing nothing for everyone else. That's trickle-down economics 101.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether it's a buyer or seller's market depends on supply!
If the wealthy buy up existing limited housing supply and there are many tenants looking for housing, then they can continue to raise rents, no?
The logic you're using here depends on deliberate vacancy; as soon as you concede that investors let out properties, you force them to compete in the market for housing with all the other supply.