And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that when I said "bu

And what about “We want less traffic. Build more roads.” Macroeconomics rarely have such simple solutions. Sorry, I thought it was obvious that when I said "build" it was building housing, since that is the YIMBY platform were talking about. The simplicity or not of macroeconomics may or may not come into play, but citing roads as example when we're talking about housing is disingenuous. In the context of housing, "We want less traffic" is equivalent to "We want housing near public transportation", to which the YIMBY solution is the same "Build [housing] near public transit". Attacking it from the other side, build more public transit, is entirely possible too, and is a problem worth tackling, and fits within the YIMBY platform in general, but it's not directly about housing. And YIMBYs have rightly realized that focusing on too many solutions at once spreads effort too thin and plays into the incessant delays that result in nothing getting done. You’ve articulated exactly the problem; YIMBYs have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority. This leads them to be dismissive of and even paternalistic towards those who actually experience the direct effects of displacement and gentrification. So while we're here, your claim that YIMBYs are not listening to low income communities could use some substantiation. Which concerns are being ignored by the platform of build more? And you can't say "more below market rate housing" because driving down prices by encreasing supply is exactly the position that YIMBYs have. Unless we're concerned that a protected class of people would disappear because housing would be affordable and there would be no need for a BMR classification to rally for. have an over simplistic understanding of economics yet exhibit extreme confidence and authority You can say this about pretty much EVERYONE on EVERY SIDE of this issue. This is really a debate about which economic solution is the best/most appropriate, which is why it makes no progress. Everyone and their dog can show up and spout off. That being said, I find the refutations, refutations of well established and accepted supply-and-demand solutions, to this problem to be naive and unfounded. And part of the problem is that even trying to experiment is difficult because good ideas and compromises are shutdown. And those who prefer the status quo of no building get exactly what they want, so status quoers are incentivized to muck up the process and cause delays by whatever means necessary. Part of the debate is if those who prefer the status quo should have as much voice or influence as they do.