4 ms·

I don’t think you’re wrong that there’s a solution that the free market would provide (maybe not yours but I’m a believer in the invisible hand). However, that’

I don’t think you’re wrong that there’s a solution that the free market would provide (maybe not yours but I’m a believer in the invisible hand). However, that’s no good for preventing another situation like this in the long-run and there’s no benefit to allowing renting other than destroying the environment and shifting some bank account numbers. This is all separate from high-efficiency renting (i.e. apartments) because that uses the land well.

civilized 5y ago
What are you talking about? You just described a situation that has never happened. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened in a free market country. And now we need to prevent "another" situation like this in the long run? I'm so confused.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Monopolies have never happened in the US? Tell that to Standard Oil.
  - civilized 5y ago
    So because there was an oil monopoly around 1900, we need to prevent a "similar" housing monopoly in 2021? No, I stand by my post. Nothing remotely like the situation you describe has ever happened. It is not the case that, because an oil monopoly happened in 1900, we need to be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in other industries where nothing remotely like that has ever happened.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      Before the rise of the Chicago school approach to antitrust, government regularly took action to prevent monopolization. Oddly enough, the size of the world's largest corporations has been skyrocketing in that same period. So yes - we should be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in every industry - especially when we have governments decidedly uninterested in preventing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Rise_of_the_Chicago_School_(1970s%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ri...
      - civilized 5y ago
        Okay, you want to talk about monopoly. You don't want to talk about housing. Fine, whatever. But don't pretend your ideas have anything to do with actually helping the cause of affordable housing.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  That’s exactly what’s happening now: housing prices have exploded and corporations are choosing to rent inventory out instead, especially via AirBNB because that makes them more money. Chinese foreigners are snapping up properties at high rates. Zillow buys out entire areas now to raise prices. Meanwhile the American citizenry with humble dreams of one day owning a house feels their dreams drift farther and farther out because some people won’t acknowledge that there’s even a problem. Others want to reward these corporations by building more inventory.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Increasing supply reduces prices, hurts speculators, and makes things more affordable. This is Econ 101. There is no reason to think housing is an exception. But it sure does serve the interests of NIMBYs to pretend as if it is an exception. Are you a NIMBY?
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      I can see why you might think that but no, I’m not. I don’t think unnecessary housing should be built because it damages the environment and wastes usable space for no gain. Likewise, I don’t like cryptocurrency mining much for the same reason. I find it silly to build more housing simply for rent-seekers to line their pockets at the cost of the environment. Mine’s an environmental concern. NIMBYs are just trying to protect their housing investments.
      - civilized 5y ago
        Maybe more housing seems like an "unnecessary" environmental problem to you because you have what you need? Many lower-income people would benefit from affordable housing. Your concern is actually pretty common among the affluent homeowners who prevent development. Probably the second most common concern behind "neighborhood character", which is really just another type of environmental concern (city environment). Very few NIMBYs are purely after money. "Housing defies economic laws and is terrible for the natural and/or city environment" is the prevailing opinion of NIMBYs today, based on the discussions I've been in.

civilized 5y ago

What are you talking about? You just described a situation that has never happened. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened in a free market country. And now we need to prevent "another" situation like this in the long run? I'm so confused.

kennywinker 5y ago
Monopolies have never happened in the US? Tell that to Standard Oil.
- civilized 5y ago
  So because there was an oil monopoly around 1900, we need to prevent a "similar" housing monopoly in 2021? No, I stand by my post. Nothing remotely like the situation you describe has ever happened. It is not the case that, because an oil monopoly happened in 1900, we need to be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in other industries where nothing remotely like that has ever happened.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    Before the rise of the Chicago school approach to antitrust, government regularly took action to prevent monopolization. Oddly enough, the size of the world's largest corporations has been skyrocketing in that same period. So yes - we should be hypervigilant to hypothetical monopolies in every industry - especially when we have governments decidedly uninterested in preventing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Rise_of_the_Chicago_School_(1970s%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Ri...
    - civilized 5y ago
      Okay, you want to talk about monopoly. You don't want to talk about housing. Fine, whatever. But don't pretend your ideas have anything to do with actually helping the cause of affordable housing.
jimbob45 5y ago
That’s exactly what’s happening now: housing prices have exploded and corporations are choosing to rent inventory out instead, especially via AirBNB because that makes them more money. Chinese foreigners are snapping up properties at high rates. Zillow buys out entire areas now to raise prices. Meanwhile the American citizenry with humble dreams of one day owning a house feels their dreams drift farther and farther out because some people won’t acknowledge that there’s even a problem. Others want to reward these corporations by building more inventory.
- civilized 5y ago
  Increasing supply reduces prices, hurts speculators, and makes things more affordable. This is Econ 101. There is no reason to think housing is an exception. But it sure does serve the interests of NIMBYs to pretend as if it is an exception. Are you a NIMBY?
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    I can see why you might think that but no, I’m not. I don’t think unnecessary housing should be built because it damages the environment and wastes usable space for no gain. Likewise, I don’t like cryptocurrency mining much for the same reason. I find it silly to build more housing simply for rent-seekers to line their pockets at the cost of the environment. Mine’s an environmental concern. NIMBYs are just trying to protect their housing investments.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Maybe more housing seems like an "unnecessary" environmental problem to you because you have what you need? Many lower-income people would benefit from affordable housing. Your concern is actually pretty common among the affluent homeowners who prevent development. Probably the second most common concern behind "neighborhood character", which is really just another type of environmental concern (city environment). Very few NIMBYs are purely after money. "Housing defies economic laws and is terrible for the natural and/or city environment" is the prevailing opinion of NIMBYs today, based on the discussions I've been in.