4 ms·

A naïve application of supply and demand isn't always right, but it often is.

by Strang 9y ago

mjevans 9y ago
It tends to work well enough over broad stretches, including the end points. Since the model for the last couple generations was expanding in to the "green field" suburbs and that model is now breaking down due to the distances finally becoming too insane / growth boundaries being enforced, there has now been a building pressure that is finally being re-directed in to other areas. Unfortunately civic codes are focused more on preventing the loss of life than on making life a quality affair. I would really love to have actual peace and quiet at home; being completely unable to hear those on the other side of the walls, and requiring that build in appliances be similarly quiet instead of the cheapest possible and least effective exhaust fans.
jerf 9y ago
I think people see exceptions and make too much of them. The law of gravity is not falsified by the existence of birds, planes, or rockets. To think otherwise would say more about the naivety of the attempt to apply it than the law itself. I also think people dismiss "economics" as a whole, when a distinction really needs to be made between micro and macro. Macroeconomics is really hard, and in terms of its ability to apply to the real world, I can make a solid case for calling it a "crock". By contrast, microecon is about as solid as you could ask for for a science as removed from physics as it is [1], and anyone who proposes an economic theory of either variety that fundamentally violates its tenants is starting out behind the eight ball as far as I'm concerned. It is conceivable that building more houses, once examined through the lens of a rich exterior world with countless forces acting every which way on every time scale in crazy, arbitrarily-complicated ways might raise housing prices for some period of time. But it's going to be something overwhelming the still-existing underlying trend that building more housing is going to drop prices, and as the amount of housing added limits to infinity, basic supply and demand will eventually overwhelm those other forces. [1]: https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/ That is to say, I recognize that microecon is not necessarily "solved" nor is it completely accurate; for instance, while "homo econimus" is a bigger problem for macroecon, it can still bite at the micro level. But for what it is, it's solid enough to be worth paying attention to, a case I can not always make for macroecon.

A naïve application of supply and demand isn't always right, but it often is.

by Strang 9y ago

A naïve application of supply and demand isn't always right, but it often is.

It tends to work well enough over broad stretches, including the end points. Since the model for the last couple generations was expanding in to the "green field" suburbs and that model is now breaking down due to the distances finally becoming too insane / growth boundaries being enforced, there has now been a building pressure that is finally being re-directed in to other areas. Unfortunately civic codes are focused more on preventing the loss of life than on making life a quality affair. I would really love to have actual peace and quiet at home; being completely unable to hear those on the other side of the walls, and requiring that build in appliances be similarly quiet instead of the cheapest possible and least effective exhaust fans.

jerf 9y ago

I think people see exceptions and make too much of them. The law of gravity is not falsified by the existence of birds, planes, or rockets. To think otherwise would say more about the naivety of the attempt to apply it than the law itself. I also think people dismiss "economics" as a whole, when a distinction really needs to be made between micro and macro. Macroeconomics is really hard, and in terms of its ability to apply to the real world, I can make a solid case for calling it a "crock". By contrast, microecon is about as solid as you could ask for for a science as removed from physics as it is [1], and anyone who proposes an economic theory of either variety that fundamentally violates its tenants is starting out behind the eight ball as far as I'm concerned. It is conceivable that building more houses, once examined through the lens of a rich exterior world with countless forces acting every which way on every time scale in crazy, arbitrarily-complicated ways might raise housing prices for some period of time. But it's going to be something overwhelming the still-existing underlying trend that building more housing is going to drop prices, and as the amount of housing added limits to infinity, basic supply and demand will eventually overwhelm those other forces. [1]: https://www.xkcd.com/435/ https://www.xkcd.com/435/ That is to say, I recognize that microecon is not necessarily "solved" nor is it completely accurate; for instance, while "homo econimus" is a bigger problem for macroecon, it can still bite at the micro level. But for what it is, it's solid enough to be worth paying attention to, a case I can not always make for macroecon.