4 ms·
The difference, generally, is who the gains go to. Societally, we want there to be an incentive and reward to those who will produce the things we need so that
by creddit 7y ago
The difference, generally, is who the gains go to. Societally, we want there to be an incentive and reward to those who will produce the things we need so that they get produced. Giving gains to hoarders who artificially lower supplies and then resell when disasters spike demand does nothing beneficial for society. It's rent seeking at its worst. As an expansion on this, the thing you should _really_ be upset with is people who own land and get massive returns on it. Land's value rarely has anything to do with the owners of the land. Note that I'm speaking of the value of the raw land and not any structure built on top of it. With land ownership, especially in a place like the SFBA, huge economic gains have gone to people who have done nothing than own something and vote down housing.
The broad point of all of this is that society should be structured in a way that rewards act as incentives to people to create more benefit to others. That's the core idea behind an Adam Smith type capitalism.
- perceptronas 7y agoI think you are missing the point about housing. Quite the opposite if I understand what you are suggesting. The main problem is that somebody who doesn't own your land can say what you can build or cannot. That's why developers cannot build housing. From that perspective, best incentive would be to leave the housing development for markets instead of politicians. Now politicians with town's majority favor can decide who benefits making it non-fair for the minority of voters. About Tokyo housing development deregulation and its impacts [0] [0] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-home-prices-stay-flat-11554210002 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-housing-crisis-in-japan-ho...
- creddit 7y agoI don't think you understood what I was suggesting since I agree with what you're saying. The land owners (majority not developers) have made it such that building is impossible which greatly increases the value of their property by lowering supply from a natural state.