4 ms·

Well, economists said similar things before the Great Depression. But market couldn't fix it, so government had to basically redistribute tax money "from rich t

Well, economists said similar things before the Great Depression. But market couldn't fix it, so government had to basically redistribute tax money "from rich to poor". Yes, there were mega-projects like Hoover dam, but the main idea was to give poor some money to buy the goods. I don't have opinion on rent control in question, but I can see it as yet another form of redistributing money "from rich to poor". Every single revolution happened because of income disparity, so I can see it as a form of loosening that tension a bit. Whether it works -- I don't know.

autokad 8y ago
capitalism probably was not the cause of the depression, its also worth noting that arguably none of those "from rich to poor" things worked, and arguably it was the end of WW2 that ended it. i myself am in a rare camp that believe the great depression was caused by a decline in population blip created from ww1/spanish flu. the pattern seems rather consistent, you first have a boom (roaring 20s) followed by a difficult / if not impossible to end depression - like Japan as well. but I'm in a rare camp, so don't take my opinion for a grain of salt.
bhl 8y ago
You're onto something. The thing that got the United States out of the Great Depression and into 20 years of prosperity between mid 1940s and late 1960s was the Federal government's massive involvement in the economy, mainly during World War 2 and afterwards. Surprisingly, Roosevelt's attempt to boost the economy with public works in the 1930s didn't help much. If you look at charts around this time, economic inequality was decreasing and the median wage was growing linearly with productivity. It was also during this time that rent control was implemented as a public policy (mentioned in the podcast).
rahimnathwani 8y ago
"I can see it as yet another form of redistributing money "from rich to poor" Except that rent control is not usually means tested. If you've lived in a rent-controlled apartment in SF for 10 years, and worked as a software engineer all that time, you might choose to stay put even if you buy an apartment. You can pay rent at slightly above prices from 10 years ago, and receive market rent on your new place.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Sure, but the same thing happens to landlords. If they can afford the buy in, then they keep their properties and charge as high a rent as possible. Usually you find landlords slowly expand their holdings over time, and if your city can't support enough private buyers, then it becomes predominantly landlord owned and there are no affordable places anywhere. So the question becomes, if not rent control, then what do we do to keep our cities livable to a range of people?
  - rahimnathwani 8y ago
    "then it becomes predominantly landlord owned and there are no affordable places anywhere" I'm not sure I follow. Why would a large proportion of properties being owned by landlords reduce affordability? "So the question becomes, if not rent control, then what do we do to keep our cities livable to a range of people?" Allow people and companies to build apartment buildings, either on green field sites, or by knocking down houses. Stop allowing existing property owners (NIMBYs) to veto new building.

autokad 8y ago

capitalism probably was not the cause of the depression, its also worth noting that arguably none of those "from rich to poor" things worked, and arguably it was the end of WW2 that ended it. i myself am in a rare camp that believe the great depression was caused by a decline in population blip created from ww1/spanish flu. the pattern seems rather consistent, you first have a boom (roaring 20s) followed by a difficult / if not impossible to end depression - like Japan as well. but I'm in a rare camp, so don't take my opinion for a grain of salt.

bhl 8y ago

You're onto something. The thing that got the United States out of the Great Depression and into 20 years of prosperity between mid 1940s and late 1960s was the Federal government's massive involvement in the economy, mainly during World War 2 and afterwards. Surprisingly, Roosevelt's attempt to boost the economy with public works in the 1930s didn't help much. If you look at charts around this time, economic inequality was decreasing and the median wage was growing linearly with productivity. It was also during this time that rent control was implemented as a public policy (mentioned in the podcast).

rahimnathwani 8y ago

"I can see it as yet another form of redistributing money "from rich to poor" Except that rent control is not usually means tested. If you've lived in a rent-controlled apartment in SF for 10 years, and worked as a software engineer all that time, you might choose to stay put even if you buy an apartment. You can pay rent at slightly above prices from 10 years ago, and receive market rent on your new place.

dv_dt 8y ago
Sure, but the same thing happens to landlords. If they can afford the buy in, then they keep their properties and charge as high a rent as possible. Usually you find landlords slowly expand their holdings over time, and if your city can't support enough private buyers, then it becomes predominantly landlord owned and there are no affordable places anywhere. So the question becomes, if not rent control, then what do we do to keep our cities livable to a range of people?
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  "then it becomes predominantly landlord owned and there are no affordable places anywhere" I'm not sure I follow. Why would a large proportion of properties being owned by landlords reduce affordability? "So the question becomes, if not rent control, then what do we do to keep our cities livable to a range of people?" Allow people and companies to build apartment buildings, either on green field sites, or by knocking down houses. Stop allowing existing property owners (NIMBYs) to veto new building.