3 ms·

If their conception of the common good is high property prices sure. If it’s letting people live where they want to then more housing is better. Every capsule a

If their conception of the common good is high property prices sure. If it’s letting people live where they want to then more housing is better. Every capsule apartment a new grad is living in is a larger one further away someone else can live in.

neilv 7y ago
So small apartments might be permitted, but with restrictions on the rents or sale prices that can be charged, for example.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  That’s just a restriction on how many will be built. The less profitable an investment is the less likely it is to be made. If the government makes profitably housing people who want housing illegal it can solve the problem by building the housing itself and eating the loss, whether an actual monetary loss or the loss of the better use the money could have been put to. But if the aim is to house people where they want to live, in conditions they want to live in more choice is better. If there’s an aesthetic preference for government provision over private provision that preference is costly both in terms of money and unsatisfied preferences.
  - neilv 7y ago
    Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable, nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Yes, it does. Money preferentially flows to its most profitable use, where there’s the biggest demand for it. > Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable This is true but the less profitable it is the less investment there will be. Less investment in housing either means less housing or worse housing. > nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere. This is not. Whether within a domestic market or internationally there are a plethora of options for where to invest money, from equities and bonds to venture capital to commercial and presidential real estate. If you artificially reduce the profitability of residential real estate you’ll get less of it unless you subsidise it. That’s just the government paying money to solve a problem the government created.

neilv 7y ago

So small apartments might be permitted, but with restrictions on the rents or sale prices that can be charged, for example.

barry-cotter 7y ago
That’s just a restriction on how many will be built. The less profitable an investment is the less likely it is to be made. If the government makes profitably housing people who want housing illegal it can solve the problem by building the housing itself and eating the loss, whether an actual monetary loss or the loss of the better use the money could have been put to. But if the aim is to house people where they want to live, in conditions they want to live in more choice is better. If there’s an aesthetic preference for government provision over private provision that preference is costly both in terms of money and unsatisfied preferences.
- neilv 7y ago
  Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable, nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Yes, it does. Money preferentially flows to its most profitable use, where there’s the biggest demand for it. > Less-profitable than hypothetically possible (in a totally unregulated market/resources) does not necessarily mean unprofitable This is true but the less profitable it is the less investment there will be. Less investment in housing either means less housing or worse housing. > nor does it necessarily mean less-profitable than investment options elsewhere. This is not. Whether within a domestic market or internationally there are a plethora of options for where to invest money, from equities and bonds to venture capital to commercial and presidential real estate. If you artificially reduce the profitability of residential real estate you’ll get less of it unless you subsidise it. That’s just the government paying money to solve a problem the government created.