4 ms·

A child comment was deleted that called nemo44x's opinion "dehumanizing" because it didn't account for the extremely limited supply of housing. My response is b

by btown 11y ago

A child comment was deleted that called nemo44x's opinion "dehumanizing" because it didn't account for the extremely limited supply of housing. My response is below: --- The assertion that, for residential rental, anything that is not a free market is "dehumanizing" to "everyone who came after you" is not self-evident. Consider this: when someone gets an apartment, they put down roots. Their utility curve is biased towards them wanting to stay where they are. They arguably should not be asked to swap the location of where they live as easily as a day trader would sell stocks. Think about commuting for a person already making ends meet with multiple jobs; think about the disruption to a child's schooling. Rent control is designed to account for this, to dampen the dynamic system of the housing market as an attempt for greater overall utility. Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Quoth the Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man." [0] You're certainly entitled to call someone else's opinion "dehumanizing," and they are equally entitled to downvote you in return. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

kazinator 11y ago
In fact, a free market is dehumanizing because whether or not some entities participate in free market exchange has nothing to do with whether or not they are human. The concept of a free market only takes into account motivations to trade and subsequent evaluations, which has nothing to to with being human. Robots can engage in a free market with aliens. In a free market, your human attributes are set aside as irrelevant, except to the extent that being human gives you human-specific needs and desires that are relevant to the trade.
bko 11y ago
> Rent control is designed to account for this Well unfortunately intentions are not consequences. Rent control has very visibly benefits (grandma gets to keep her apartment at close to the same rent as she has been paying for decades) but distorts the market in very subtle but destructive ways (landlords not paying for any maintenance and harassment and dehumanization of tenants paying below market rates). There are transaction costs to everything. You think a landlord wants to go through the process of finding a new tenant and moving him in, ideally with no difference between your move out day and the new tenants move in date? Also, the protections you receive are priced into the cost. Would you take a slightly lower rent if the landlord could kick you out at any time? > Putting down roots This is very sentimental but that argument can be used to justify many policies that are meant to favor the recipients of a current system. In America there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor to the old and relatively wealthy. > Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Yes, that's why we have a market and people are willing to trade based on their own utility (e.g. I signed a two year lease at a higher net effective rent)

by btown 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago

In fact, a free market is dehumanizing because whether or not some entities participate in free market exchange has nothing to do with whether or not they are human. The concept of a free market only takes into account motivations to trade and subsequent evaluations, which has nothing to to with being human. Robots can engage in a free market with aliens. In a free market, your human attributes are set aside as irrelevant, except to the extent that being human gives you human-specific needs and desires that are relevant to the trade.

bko 11y ago

> Rent control is designed to account for this Well unfortunately intentions are not consequences. Rent control has very visibly benefits (grandma gets to keep her apartment at close to the same rent as she has been paying for decades) but distorts the market in very subtle but destructive ways (landlords not paying for any maintenance and harassment and dehumanization of tenants paying below market rates). There are transaction costs to everything. You think a landlord wants to go through the process of finding a new tenant and moving him in, ideally with no difference between your move out day and the new tenants move in date? Also, the protections you receive are priced into the cost. Would you take a slightly lower rent if the landlord could kick you out at any time? > Putting down roots This is very sentimental but that argument can be used to justify many policies that are meant to favor the recipients of a current system. In America there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor to the old and relatively wealthy. > Whether it is optimal, whether it is overapplied - since utility can't easily be quantified, that's something that everyone will have a different opinion on. Yes, that's why we have a market and people are willing to trade based on their own utility (e.g. I signed a two year lease at a higher net effective rent)