201–210 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How about for fun, instead of rhetorical devices and snarky projection, just look at the facts. The data on effects of zoning reform in places like Minneapolis and others, about where housing is cheaper wherever it's easier to build, about rent dropping ( https://denverite.com/2025/07/25/denver-rent-prices-drop-q2/ ) when you build way more units, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fridman is on the other end of the spectrum I'm describing.
You said heavily processed and barely-reported If you want to say Fridman's content is "barely-reported", i.e. he barely does journalism, then I won't really argue. But the interviews are NOT heavily processed, and that's precisely why some on the left won't sit with him. (But not Thompson and Klein, because they actually have something to say.) So ironically, it kinda balances out. Being credulous attracts guests wh…
Someone actually looking for facts about reality would be far more useful and valuable to society. Not that we reward that sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Property taxes are relatively independent from the absolute value of the property. Only the relative value of a property to other properties in municipality determines property taxes.
I live in California where property tax is fixed at 1% due to Prop 13, so I don't really know how it works anywhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking why they don't build affordable housing is like asking why don't they build used cars
No… it’s like asking why they don’t build cheap cars. Which they do.
But all things held equal, if you have a new house that's big and a new house that's small, the smaller one is cheaper. And further, mixed density builds will be cheaper than single detached homes. Beyond that there's nothing caked-in to the walls that makes a house cheaper or expensive. Shitty houses are just unmaintained, dilapidated. Flooding the market with houses will drop prices.
So much of the journalism we read is heavily processed and barely-reported and it's startling to see how much of a superpower simple shoe-leather reporting actually is. Derek Thompson's an incredibly sharp writer, but not really a subject matter expert on housing economics; all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed. We're often so down on j…
This article is good, but the phrase "antitrust left" really turned me off. I am probably some kind of a leftist (I want higher taxes on rich people and a society much more welfare oriented with a substantial degree of labor and resource allocation performed democratically instead of by markets) but I don't know a single leftist who actually cares about this housing shit except to think that houses should be cheaper…
This pitched debate may very well simply represent an attempt to forestall action by bogging efforts down in debate over what's effective or correct, of course. It's worked for any number of groups looking to forestall what seems like an obvious and inevitable solution: reducing lead exposure by banning its use in consumer products, reducing tobacco-related illness by making it difficult and more uncomfortable to partake, and, in our case, making housing affordable by letting prices fall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 premise here is investors that just continually buy up all the supply, even as supply continues to increase, in the hopes that some day housing, the single largest asset class in the United States, will reach the limit of all possible supply? You don't feel like this is "spherical cow" calculating? The amount of investor-owned housing in most metro markets is a rounding error, and the amount of vacant investor-ow…
Or is the argument that merely building more houses isn't sufficient?
(Also presumably you could build an infinite amount of houses, but the land itself is somewhat of a fixed supply...)
This "Abundance" nonsense is simply liberal repackaging of Reagan's trickle down economics and deregulation. That's all it is. Reagan's policies were designed to transfer wealth from the young and the poor to the old and the wealthy. Abundance will do (more of) exactly the same. The very best case fo housing deregulation as per this Abundance nonsense is Houston. And that's only if you have essentially unlimited land…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reporters used to start at something like the City News Bureau.[1] For a century, the City News Bureau covered local news for Chicago and sent it in to the local newspapers. Lasted until 2005. Young reporters started there, covering every police station, every major crime, every major fire, every major trial, and getting the facts right, or else. The bureau`s unsentimental motto: ”If your mother says she loves you, c…
The problem is that nobody would pay for it. People expect news to be free, and click bait and lazy copy paste or LLM journalism is cheaper and works just as well to get clicks for ad dollars. Would people pay for real journalism?
What about wealth inequality as the root cause of housing shortage? Even if supply is eased, the wealthy (those who have enough capital to earn passive income) will buy the extra supply and rent to the poor. The Piketty effect takes over, they invest their profit in more housing, wealth inequality continues to get worse, and while more housing exists, it owned by an increasingly small cohort. Personally I'd like to s…
If Piketty was correct, then inflation adjusted housing cost per sqft floor would always go up everywhere all the time. But we see dramatic differences in different periods of history, between different cities and we see rents stabilize & decline after building booms. We see housing costs go up the most in the places that build the least and the least in places that build the most.
If Piketty was correct, rich people could do this with things other than housing - they could buy cars and rent them out and then reinvest the profits to buy more cars. Ofc this doesn't actually work because there is no scarcity of cars - for better or worse we have chosen to place almost no limits on the quantity and density of cars in any city, state or country, while placing extremely tight & arbitrary limits on the quantity & density of floorspace in every city. For every car a rich person buys up to rent out, a car company reinvests the profits to build 1 more and then some. There is no functional reason residential floorspace cannot be exactly like that.