541–550 of 1001 posts
So glad we don't need to re-write the first chapter of almost every economics 101 textbook!
They also teach you about elasticity in econ 101. It's foolish and anti-intellectual to insist that the housing market has only two factors, while simultaneously condescending about your understanding of economics shows that you really don't understand economics, it's more about your ego.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
I don’t understand your sentence. What’s the subject of the verb “housing.”
Sure, so long as involves (you / us / society) not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation. Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.
This is theoretical MBA101 speech: In reality, those ideas do not apply to the housing market, esp. as there is no real competition; and because the demand is absolutely inelastic (if we are already applying in MBA-wording universe) Also, that this is true you can see if you compare to housing markets which "are more free than the Australian"
Do you think, people will migrate to a city with an unaffordable housing (unaffordable for them)?
Unless you are living in North Korea, the competition is also there.
So glad we don't need to re-write the first chapter of almost every economics 101 textbook!
Meanwhile, California is also trying to build housing near transit, but Menlo Park wants to preserve the character of downtown by preserving dirty, cracked, flat, surface-level parking lots like it's 1950.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing. Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half h…
As for larger homes, people should be allowed to live in there as larger, extended family groups - a common pattern in non-Anglo cultures. Ban "single family" restrictions since they amount to unconscionable discrimination against such reasonable living arrangements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing. Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half h…
Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still remains untapped demand of others that can be fulfilled by further production of homes for those specific people.
This story fails when land becomes restricted, which is exactly what zoning laws cause. Zoning is a big harm to the poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation. Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.
The good ol' invisible hand; Literally an appeal to ignorance. "What else could it be?"