3 ms·

Yeah the most succinct criticism of Piketty is simple: The gains in r > g are almost exclusively down to housing, not other sources, and you can fix the housing

Yeah the most succinct criticism of Piketty is simple: The gains in r > g are almost exclusively down to housing, not other sources, and you can fix the housing problem without touching (and potentially cocking up) the rest of the economy if you wanted to. Instead, people want to take Piketty's conclusion, not look at where the r > g comes from, and then go on to fuss about with other things (like forms of wealth distribution, taxes, etc), instead of directly addressing the one thing that causes most of the r > g, which is housing, which does not need massive economic intervention to solve, but something entirely different (relaxing of building laws, etc).

vanderZwan 7y ago
> which does not need massive economic intervention to solve, but something entirely different (relaxing of building laws, etc). Nitpick: you're probably thinking of directly intervening with the economy through regulations and subsidies, but isn't disrupting the housing market technically going to be a massive economic intervention in practice? As in, kind of by definition? Also, I'm not sure if it's actually that easy to change the laws surrounding housing in such a way that pushes back against wealth accumulation.
- simonsarris 7y ago
  Well, I agree on both points, but "We should tax X [and maybe redistribute Y]" is very different from "We should de-regulate or fundamentally change Z", is all. It's hard to actually address Piketty's inequality at all if people think it spawns from something fundamentally different from land/real estate appreciation. > I'm not sure if it's actually that easy to change the laws surrounding housing Totally agree, but I don't mean to make any claims about how hard it would be, only that it would actually address the thing in question, whereas other interventions would not.
  - JimboOmega 7y ago
    Couldn't we address the real estate problem by having (more) property taxes? I wonder how much impact prop 13 alone had on the problem (I also wonder how the US analysis would look with California subtracted) Of course such taxes wouldn't automatically create housing, but it definitely disincentivizes hoarding it, and allows the state to capture more of the accrued wealth to redistribute it. It makes real estate look like a less enticing holding and would make people less entrenched in defending its value, etc.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Property taxes are higher on more developed property. In general, when you tax something more you get less of it. There might be exceptions, but wouldn't a more credible plan be to relax some of the zoning and regulation that are widely acknowledged to deter housing construction?

vanderZwan 7y ago

> which does not need massive economic intervention to solve, but something entirely different (relaxing of building laws, etc). Nitpick: you're probably thinking of directly intervening with the economy through regulations and subsidies, but isn't disrupting the housing market technically going to be a massive economic intervention in practice? As in, kind of by definition? Also, I'm not sure if it's actually that easy to change the laws surrounding housing in such a way that pushes back against wealth accumulation.

simonsarris 7y ago
Well, I agree on both points, but "We should tax X [and maybe redistribute Y]" is very different from "We should de-regulate or fundamentally change Z", is all. It's hard to actually address Piketty's inequality at all if people think it spawns from something fundamentally different from land/real estate appreciation. > I'm not sure if it's actually that easy to change the laws surrounding housing Totally agree, but I don't mean to make any claims about how hard it would be, only that it would actually address the thing in question, whereas other interventions would not.
- JimboOmega 7y ago
  Couldn't we address the real estate problem by having (more) property taxes? I wonder how much impact prop 13 alone had on the problem (I also wonder how the US analysis would look with California subtracted) Of course such taxes wouldn't automatically create housing, but it definitely disincentivizes hoarding it, and allows the state to capture more of the accrued wealth to redistribute it. It makes real estate look like a less enticing holding and would make people less entrenched in defending its value, etc.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Property taxes are higher on more developed property. In general, when you tax something more you get less of it. There might be exceptions, but wouldn't a more credible plan be to relax some of the zoning and regulation that are widely acknowledged to deter housing construction?