4 ms·

> Similarly, gentrification is about people wanting to pay higher rent to live in a nicer neighborhood. Yes the landlords get more money... but the tenant gets

> Similarly, gentrification is about people wanting to pay higher rent to live in a nicer neighborhood. Yes the landlords get more money... but the tenant gets the nicer neighborhood! (Or closer access to more jobs, or whatever.) That's the whole point. That's free trade. You're misreading the argument. Yes, the renters want to pay more, but the problem is not that they want something nicer, it's that this system takes that natural desire for something better and combines it with NIMBY policies to skew it in a way that results in the centralization of financial capital in fewer people. This cripples the economy overall. The renters ARE getting capital in the form of nicer streets, better coffee, and a shorter commute, but you can't buy goods and services with nice streets, better coffee, and shorter commutes. You buy goods and services with money, but all the money is in the hands of the landlords. The economy does better with a wider distribution of resources because a wider distribution results in more spending on real goods and spending on real goods generates new wealth. One person with a great deal of financial capital will buy real goods too, but only up to a point. After that, they will invest in markets, which create and destroy money seemingly at random. That's not a good place for most of our economic resources to be. It's better to have as much money being spent on real, useful products as possible in order to maximize economic stability long term.

crazygringo 8y ago
> This cripples the economy overall. It prevents San Fran from growing even faster than it already is, but it's not going backwards or anything. NIMBY is a separate problem. > but you can't buy goods and services with nice streets, better coffee, and shorter commutes That's turning it backwards. That's like saying you can't buy clothes with food or vice-versa. The streets, coffee and commutes already are the goods and services which people, on the whole, desire (even if some individuals don't). Complaining that money is in the hands of landlords is no different from complaining it's in the hands of Starbucks shareholders. Money doesn't disappear... when landlords receive higher rent, that money is either being re-invested or spent on "real, useful products" in the end.
- rcpt 8y ago
  It cripples the economy overall. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...
  - crazygringo 8y ago
    It means the economy doesn't grow as fast as it would otherwise. But again, it's not shrinking, or remaining stagnant. If you call that "crippling" then keeping Central Park in Manhattan also cripples the economy, by preventing the economic growth that would result in replacing it with hundreds of blocks of offices and apartments. Democratic communities are allowed to choose to slow down economic growth in order to preserve a more liveable physical environment. Do you think preserving Central Park cripples the economy overall?
- camelNotation 8y ago
  > when landlords receive higher rent, that money is either being re-invested or spent on "real, useful products" in the end. This is simply untrue. Wealthy people do not eventually hit zero on their balance sheets, they typically keep the wealth, invest it by gambling in the market, and pass it on to their children who also do not spend it all. Spending is the key to economic growth and wealthy people absolutely do not spend as much as poorer people on real goods. The economy is always better off with wider distribution of wealth.
  - smallgovt 8y ago
    Can you expand on this? Wealthy people may not hit zero on their balance sheets, but isn't investing their capital in corporations a form of spending? That is, it enables the corporation to make capital expenditures to produce goods and services that will in turn be purchased. As long as wealthy people continue investing their capital, it should be healthy for the economy?
    - camelNotation 8y ago

crazygringo 8y ago

> This cripples the economy overall. It prevents San Fran from growing even faster than it already is, but it's not going backwards or anything. NIMBY is a separate problem. > but you can't buy goods and services with nice streets, better coffee, and shorter commutes That's turning it backwards. That's like saying you can't buy clothes with food or vice-versa. The streets, coffee and commutes already are the goods and services which people, on the whole, desire (even if some individuals don't). Complaining that money is in the hands of landlords is no different from complaining it's in the hands of Starbucks shareholders. Money doesn't disappear... when landlords receive higher rent, that money is either being re-invested or spent on "real, useful products" in the end.

rcpt 8y ago
It cripples the economy overall. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulations-us-economy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/opinion/housing-regulatio...
- crazygringo 8y ago
  It means the economy doesn't grow as fast as it would otherwise. But again, it's not shrinking, or remaining stagnant. If you call that "crippling" then keeping Central Park in Manhattan also cripples the economy, by preventing the economic growth that would result in replacing it with hundreds of blocks of offices and apartments. Democratic communities are allowed to choose to slow down economic growth in order to preserve a more liveable physical environment. Do you think preserving Central Park cripples the economy overall?
camelNotation 8y ago
> when landlords receive higher rent, that money is either being re-invested or spent on "real, useful products" in the end. This is simply untrue. Wealthy people do not eventually hit zero on their balance sheets, they typically keep the wealth, invest it by gambling in the market, and pass it on to their children who also do not spend it all. Spending is the key to economic growth and wealthy people absolutely do not spend as much as poorer people on real goods. The economy is always better off with wider distribution of wealth.
- smallgovt 8y ago
  Can you expand on this? Wealthy people may not hit zero on their balance sheets, but isn't investing their capital in corporations a form of spending? That is, it enables the corporation to make capital expenditures to produce goods and services that will in turn be purchased. As long as wealthy people continue investing their capital, it should be healthy for the economy?
  - camelNotation 8y ago