3 ms·

The price of gold has risen considerably over the years. There's no particular reason to suspect that this trend will stop, since it is tied in with rising leve

by nwah1 10y ago

The price of gold has risen considerably over the years. There's no particular reason to suspect that this trend will stop, since it is tied in with rising levels of production. It is quite possible to create an artificial scarcity of gold, and thus gold would be higher than it should be. But it would be ridiculous to claim "gold can't go up forever" and that to achieve affordable gold we only need to remove the artificial scarcity. It may be desirable that we remove the artificial scarcity, but it is also a distraction from the core question at hand. It is ignoring the natural scarcity and the general rising level of productivity. Prime locations are prime locations. A port, for instance, only becomes more desirable as total production levels increase.

davidf18 10y ago
> "It may be desirable that we remove the artificial scarcity, but it is also a distraction from the core question at hand." I respectfully disagree and so does Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser who has written extensively about this as does FT columnist and economist Tim Harford (as explained in his book, "The Undercover Economist" as does Steve Beyer who has written about this in the NYT and Forbes as well as other places. Japan passed a federal law that overruled local restrictions and in 2014 Tokyo built 140,000 residences compared with a total of 20,000 in NYC and about 90,000 in the entire state of California. I'm speaking pragmatically. > "A port, for instance..." A port is a much greater and natural scarcity compared with, say Manhattan which is huge as well as London which is not an island, but made "an artificial one" because of the Green Belt that circles London.
- pradn 10y ago
  Japanese people tear down old houses and rebuild new houses to their specifications to a much greater degree than Americans, so it's hard to compare those numbers easily.
- nwah1 10y ago
  Scarcity is a term that is relative to demand. If you have a trillion widgets, but a quadrillion customers desperately want them, you still have a major scarcity. Not all of the land in cities is desirable. Parts of Manhattan are clearly far more desirable than others. And the people who want these prime locations far outnumber the availability of them. Not everyone can own a lot in Times Square, etc.

by nwah1 10y ago

davidf18 10y ago

> "It may be desirable that we remove the artificial scarcity, but it is also a distraction from the core question at hand." I respectfully disagree and so does Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser who has written extensively about this as does FT columnist and economist Tim Harford (as explained in his book, "The Undercover Economist" as does Steve Beyer who has written about this in the NYT and Forbes as well as other places. Japan passed a federal law that overruled local restrictions and in 2014 Tokyo built 140,000 residences compared with a total of 20,000 in NYC and about 90,000 in the entire state of California. I'm speaking pragmatically. > "A port, for instance..." A port is a much greater and natural scarcity compared with, say Manhattan which is huge as well as London which is not an island, but made "an artificial one" because of the Green Belt that circles London.

pradn 10y ago
Japanese people tear down old houses and rebuild new houses to their specifications to a much greater degree than Americans, so it's hard to compare those numbers easily.
nwah1 10y ago
Scarcity is a term that is relative to demand. If you have a trillion widgets, but a quadrillion customers desperately want them, you still have a major scarcity. Not all of the land in cities is desirable. Parts of Manhattan are clearly far more desirable than others. And the people who want these prime locations far outnumber the availability of them. Not everyone can own a lot in Times Square, etc.