7 ms·

Deregulate. Let the market decide.

by crb002 9y ago

fredley 9y ago
What if those in control of the market are those who can benefit more (in the short term) by restricting the supply? A completely free market works well for many things, but not for housing, in part because there is a extremely limited supply of land, and nobody's making any more.
- Retric 9y ago
  There is actually a lot of land, what makes land expensive is being close to useful infrastructure. But, the median cost of an acre of land in the US is still well under 10k.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    That median acre is also in the middle of nowhere with no power, water, sewer, or roads within thousands of feet, if not miles. It's probably covered in wheat or corn too.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Well sure, but again you can still generally turn that into a house with water and power for vastly less than a tiny SF condo. Hell, you can even add both a small airstrip and an airplane and still be less executive than a SF condo. Or skip the land and buy a solar powered houseboat which can go just about anywhere for less than a 600sf condo.
- snidane 9y ago
  How about you make the rules of the game fair in the first place and then let the market work. Let the owners of land pay price for having that privilege (land tax) and only those who make use of that land will hold it. If they decided to just hold the land out of use, they would pay the taxes for you, so it would be win win.
  - fredley 9y ago
    Exactly. Parent was suggesting deregulation. Making the rules of the game fair is regulation.
jonbarker 9y ago
If you deregulate in a market where a group (homeowners and landlords) is already invested, you likely end up with a scenario in which the local politics favor investors and not tenants. While deregulation seems like it might work it would require a blank slate, and no city is a blank slate.
- bcoates 9y ago
  The local politics are always going to side with the people with power and money, that's what politics is. The point of deregulation is to lower the influence of the powerful, which is mostly expressed through their iron grip on local politics.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Because government is the only avenue to express power, or because deregulation makes power disappear?
    - bcoates 9y ago
      Because, in practice, governance is positive leverage on power. Rich people are still more powerful than average/poor people in the absence of intensive, high-impact statist government, but the rich people:everyone else power ratio in traditional western governance is long regulation.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The point of deregulation is to lower the influence of the powerful Except all actual concrete deregulation proposals are backed by powerful interests, and not because it reduces their power. Now, the sales pitch to the public might be about reducing the influence of the powerful, but that's never the actual goal sought by the powerful backers. At best, it'd reallocation of power from one segment of the powerful to another, but more often it's just loosening constraints on the powerful.
  - jonbarker 9y ago
    I agree that politicians typically side with the powerful but I think a good working definition of politics is the rhetoric used by politicians in public and private meetings. This rhetoric can theoretically benefit any group.
dredmorbius 9y ago
The market seeks asset price inflation through supply constraints. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/608w97/asset_price_inflation_of_maslovian_and_productive/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/608w97/asset_p...
CPLX 9y ago
The market on its own will ruin cities. Unless you're enamored with Houston. Classic tragedy of the commons problem. In an actual literal sense in this case, as we all have to share "the commons" in cities.
- jostmey 9y ago
  At least Houston is affordable. Lower income families have places to live. Sure, San Francisco and many other cities may be nicer when you are rich
- bcoates 9y ago
  What's wrong with Houston that growth restriction would solve? Assuming your point isn't "I don't like Houston and wish there were less of it." It's not like those last 2 million people are what prevented it from being a 1000 year old, bike-friendly northern european hamlet or something.
  - CPLX 9y ago
    Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I strongly believe in growth and density and believe the SF approach is literally insane. I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people. But with that said, a knee-jerk cry of "deregulate" isn't going to be much better. The right answer is to figure out a more thoughtful system that enables the market to be channeled properly. Which basically all modern successful cities have figured out.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people. Uh... housing costs in NYC are pretty ridiculous. Commute times as well. The furor over the subway wouldn't be as pronounced if everyone had relatively short commutes.
      - CPLX 9y ago

Deregulate. Let the market decide.

by crb002 9y ago

Deregulate. Let the market decide.

What if those in control of the market are those who can benefit more (in the short term) by restricting the supply? A completely free market works well for many things, but not for housing, in part because there is a extremely limited supply of land, and nobody's making any more.

Retric 9y ago
There is actually a lot of land, what makes land expensive is being close to useful infrastructure. But, the median cost of an acre of land in the US is still well under 10k.
- falcolas 9y ago
  That median acre is also in the middle of nowhere with no power, water, sewer, or roads within thousands of feet, if not miles. It's probably covered in wheat or corn too.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Well sure, but again you can still generally turn that into a house with water and power for vastly less than a tiny SF condo. Hell, you can even add both a small airstrip and an airplane and still be less executive than a SF condo. Or skip the land and buy a solar powered houseboat which can go just about anywhere for less than a 600sf condo.
snidane 9y ago
How about you make the rules of the game fair in the first place and then let the market work. Let the owners of land pay price for having that privilege (land tax) and only those who make use of that land will hold it. If they decided to just hold the land out of use, they would pay the taxes for you, so it would be win win.
- fredley 9y ago
  Exactly. Parent was suggesting deregulation. Making the rules of the game fair is regulation.

jonbarker 9y ago

If you deregulate in a market where a group (homeowners and landlords) is already invested, you likely end up with a scenario in which the local politics favor investors and not tenants. While deregulation seems like it might work it would require a blank slate, and no city is a blank slate.

bcoates 9y ago
The local politics are always going to side with the people with power and money, that's what politics is. The point of deregulation is to lower the influence of the powerful, which is mostly expressed through their iron grip on local politics.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Because government is the only avenue to express power, or because deregulation makes power disappear?
  - bcoates 9y ago
    Because, in practice, governance is positive leverage on power. Rich people are still more powerful than average/poor people in the absence of intensive, high-impact statist government, but the rich people:everyone else power ratio in traditional western governance is long regulation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The point of deregulation is to lower the influence of the powerful Except all actual concrete deregulation proposals are backed by powerful interests, and not because it reduces their power. Now, the sales pitch to the public might be about reducing the influence of the powerful, but that's never the actual goal sought by the powerful backers. At best, it'd reallocation of power from one segment of the powerful to another, but more often it's just loosening constraints on the powerful.
- jonbarker 9y ago
  I agree that politicians typically side with the powerful but I think a good working definition of politics is the rhetoric used by politicians in public and private meetings. This rhetoric can theoretically benefit any group.

dredmorbius 9y ago

The market seeks asset price inflation through supply constraints. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/608w97/asset_price_inflation_of_maslovian_and_productive/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/608w97/asset_p...

CPLX 9y ago

The market on its own will ruin cities. Unless you're enamored with Houston. Classic tragedy of the commons problem. In an actual literal sense in this case, as we all have to share "the commons" in cities.

jostmey 9y ago
At least Houston is affordable. Lower income families have places to live. Sure, San Francisco and many other cities may be nicer when you are rich
bcoates 9y ago
What's wrong with Houston that growth restriction would solve? Assuming your point isn't "I don't like Houston and wish there were less of it." It's not like those last 2 million people are what prevented it from being a 1000 year old, bike-friendly northern european hamlet or something.
- CPLX 9y ago
  Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I strongly believe in growth and density and believe the SF approach is literally insane. I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people. But with that said, a knee-jerk cry of "deregulate" isn't going to be much better. The right answer is to figure out a more thoughtful system that enables the market to be channeled properly. Which basically all modern successful cities have figured out.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > I live in New York City where we have our problems but appear to know how to actually build housing for people. Uh... housing costs in NYC are pretty ridiculous. Commute times as well. The furor over the subway wouldn't be as pronounced if everyone had relatively short commutes.
    - CPLX 9y ago