4 ms·

As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. So the key thing here is to setup a society and gov

• hnarn 8y ago
  > As you know with security, it's very difficult to predict in advance how flaws/loopholes will be exploited. Not always. This law has some very obvious loopholes that I would be very surprised if they weren't abused, should it ever become reality. > So the key thing here is to setup a society and government that can quickly respond + adapt and fix loopholes. Nobody's saying that this is a bad thing, and it doesn't in any way require badly thought out laws like this one. > some theoretical discussions about 'markets' "Some theoretical discussion" is exactly what is missing in this proposal, which is why it's so badly thought out and will miss the mark, to nobody's benefit but the property owners of what politicians arbitrarily decide is "old" real estate.
  • wukerplank 8y ago
    Which policies do you propose to protect lower/middle incomes from getting priced out of their cities?
    • barry-cotter 8y ago
      Build more housing, lots and lots more housing. Central Paris is beautiful and it’s almost uniformly dense eight story walk ups. Build new cities. It’s not like the Dutch haven’t built commuter cities around Amsterdam before. Do it again, taking account of the lessons learned from places like Almere.
      • somecallitblues 8y ago
        Sydney is a great example of where that doesn’t work. There’s a crane every 100 meters here and everyone but people with loads of money or rich foreigners is priced out.
      • maxsilver 8y ago
        > Build more housing, lots and lots more housing. We've already tried this, it doesn't work. Housing is valued exclusively by the value of the housing around it. Building more housing raises the value (and therefore the cost) of all nearby housing, and does so continuously until the economy resets. So, if you are a private equity firm, you love this, because it's a guaranteed safe place to park tons and tons of money. But if you are a human who needs to buy housing to survive, more housing hurts you, because it drives the "fair-market value" for all nearby housing higher, making any specific unit less affordable to you personally. Paradoxically, the more housing construction happens, the less likely a person can actually get housing. --- There isn't a "just supply vs demand" on housing, because supply isn't fungible, and (with the exception of perhaps California), the demand is not primarily driven by people, but by private equity. You can't out-build private equity, no matter how many cranes hit the sky, because (currently) the act of taking the loan to begin construction generates more of the private equity that you are trying to outbuild. To fix housing, you have to fix equity first, because (in most but not all cities) the finances are the problem, not some huge influx of new residents. "We'll just out-build these high prices" is the housing equivalent of "we'll lose money on each transaction, but make up for it in volume".
        • mft_ 8y ago
          > We've already tried this, it doesn't work. Housing is valued exclusively by the value of the housing around it. Building more housing raises the value (and therefore the cost) of all nearby housing, and does so continuously until the economy resets. Really? Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but surely building enough dwellings to exceed the immediate demand would lead to prices dropping? Could you point towards some links to learn more about this?
          • 8y ago
• barry-cotter 8y ago
  It is very difficult to predict in advance how flaws will be exploited but you should at least think very hard about how they might be exploited before announcing a policy. You should ideally have thought about it enough that you have the policy ready when you announce it and can explain and justify it, including all the details. Good policy beats discretion reliably and consistently for reasons of dynamic consistency. If you find yourself announcing a policy when you don’t even have the details ready you are doing it half assed. You certainly haven’t had tax lawyers or economists with expertise in mechanism design look over your policy proposals. You are an unserious person, making policy up on the fly, floating trial balloons while running off your mouth, a Trump or AOC. Cities don’t exist for rich people to exploit but if you build less housing than there is demand for the richest will, on average, get more of what’s available than the poorer.
  • somecallitblues 8y ago
    Why would you think they haven’t thought about it? Sounds like a great plan.