3 ms·

So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Commercial property

So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? > if the housing market weren't distorted by people thinking housing needs to be an inflating asset, most of those problems could solve themselves in a market scenario. I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market.

pmiller2 7y ago
> So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Why do you need to own those things? If anything, capitalism has come around to this idea with the "sharing economy," and it works. Do you not think those facilities can be provided for the common use of all who have a need or desire to use them? Why do you feel you should be entitled to exclusive rights to hunt that land, or enjoy the lake shoreline? More importantly, why do you feel you should be able to deny others use of that land? Is there nothing else more useful you can think of to do with that money? > Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? That's one way to go about it. As long as builders are adequately compensated for their labor, does it matter? > I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. Explain Houston, then. The housing market in Houston still inflates at a rate higher than the general rate of inflation, and yet, there is literally no zoning there [0]. > The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. Correct, because people think just because they put a lot of money into buying a house, that it should be an investment and prices should always go up. Japan provides a decent model of how to do it differently within a market framework: https://archive.is/jNx7X https://archive.is/jNx7X > The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market. Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. China and the USSR were really more state capitalism than communism of any sort. --- [0]: https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/
- gsk22 7y ago
  > Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. Sure, Cuba does well in some important metrics like education and healthcare, but overall it is still an impoverished authoritarian state. Not exactly a communist utopia.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Yes, this is why I said "comes closest to the ideal." I would argue that Cuba, relative to its neighbors, is not that impoverished, and that being under sanction from all of the world's top economic powers has put a damper on Cuba's potential. Cuba is no paradise, but they have made some significant strides.
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    It's pretty difficult trying to run a country where you still have an extremely strong blockade against you ran by the strongest economy in the world.

pmiller2 7y ago

> So if I have the cash and I want to buy a lake cottage, a hunting cabin, a second home near my kid's college, etc.--that should be illegal? Why do you need to own those things? If anything, capitalism has come around to this idea with the "sharing economy," and it works. Do you not think those facilities can be provided for the common use of all who have a need or desire to use them? Why do you feel you should be entitled to exclusive rights to hunt that land, or enjoy the lake shoreline? More importantly, why do you feel you should be able to deny others use of that land? Is there nothing else more useful you can think of to do with that money? > Commercial property developers should not exist, and any housing needs should be met presumably by government construction? That's one way to go about it. As long as builders are adequately compensated for their labor, does it matter? > I agree that overly restrictive zoning and planning regulations, IMO largely driven by owners' considerations of property values, distort the housing market by restricting new supply and inflating prices across the board. Explain Houston, then. The housing market in Houston still inflates at a rate higher than the general rate of inflation, and yet, there is literally no zoning there [0]. > The problem is the local government in these cases is being misused to prevent the proper functioning of the market. Correct, because people think just because they put a lot of money into buying a house, that it should be an investment and prices should always go up. Japan provides a decent model of how to do it differently within a market framework: https://archive.is/jNx7X https://archive.is/jNx7X > The solution is not to get rid of private property--dude, it's 2020, and communism is still a failure--it's to reduce the local governments' ability to interfere with the market. Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. China and the USSR were really more state capitalism than communism of any sort. --- [0]: https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/houston-tx/home-values/

gsk22 7y ago
> Where and when have we had communism on a nation-state scale? Cuba arguably comes closest to the ideal, and they're doing well. Sure, Cuba does well in some important metrics like education and healthcare, but overall it is still an impoverished authoritarian state. Not exactly a communist utopia.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Yes, this is why I said "comes closest to the ideal." I would argue that Cuba, relative to its neighbors, is not that impoverished, and that being under sanction from all of the world's top economic powers has put a damper on Cuba's potential. Cuba is no paradise, but they have made some significant strides.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  It's pretty difficult trying to run a country where you still have an extremely strong blockade against you ran by the strongest economy in the world.