4 ms·

> I think we'd see pretty insane food prices then as well. All you are saying is "imagine if food supply was more constrained" with more words. Commodification

> I think we'd see pretty insane food prices then as well. All you are saying is "imagine if food supply was more constrained" with more words. Commodification and constrained supply are orthogonal concepts -- the argument here is that increased commodification may lead to increased supply, so long as the market is allowed to act freely. > that ear of corn was where your family has been buried for centuries, This argument of "what if your family lived there before" in housing discussions annoys me to no end. We don't live in a feudal society where the right to a particular village is passed down through bloodlines. The fact that your family lived somewhere in the past doesn't entitle you to anything; you're not a Hapsburg monarch.

horsawlarway 4y ago
> This argument of "what if your family lived there before" in housing discussions annoys me to no end. It's NOT about right - it's about demand. It's not relevant at all if it annoys you, the issue is that people can and do form sentimental attachments to the places where they live, and those attachments influence their willingness to pay (or hinder their willingness to sell). And no - I'm not saying "imagine if the food supply was more constrained". I'm very clearly saying that food is fungible (you know - the thing I actually said...). The housing supply is both constrained and non-fungible. The food supply can be constrained or not, but it's fungible as all get out - For the purposes of not starving, a calorie is a calorie, and where it comes from is irrelevant in a broad sense.
- capitalsigma 4y ago
  > It's NOT about right - it's about demand. Sure, that's fair. I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material. > I'm very clearly saying that food is fungible My point is that the reason "fungibility" is important is actually because it impacts supply: there aren't just 100k houses vs 100k households, there are actually 10k houses with some desirable property (close to where most people work, sufficiently large to raise children, whatever) vs 50k households willing to pay a premium for that desirable property. Your point about fungibility doesn't change the conversation about supply and demand, it's just a partial explanation of the mismatch.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    So outside of the context of most of the previous discussion: > I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material. What is it that bothers you about this? Basically - my counter argument is: If a person has been living in an area for decades, and that area is now gentrifying, can't it be reasonably expected that person (or their family) were fundamentally a part of driving that gentrification? It means that person was putting in their labor and money into that location for decades, and that labor and money was key for creating the conditions that are allowing for gentrification (even if the final catalyst was something else - like a company using the stable area for new expansion) Simplifying - My counter argument is that forcing this person out is robbing them of the fruit of their labor: A nice neighborhood. They were there when it wasn't nice. They worked in making it nice. Now you kick them out because they were working with a lower income to do it (usually meaning they put in considerably more "sweat equity"). Seems pretty unfair to me.

horsawlarway 4y ago

> This argument of "what if your family lived there before" in housing discussions annoys me to no end. It's NOT about right - it's about demand. It's not relevant at all if it annoys you, the issue is that people can and do form sentimental attachments to the places where they live, and those attachments influence their willingness to pay (or hinder their willingness to sell). And no - I'm not saying "imagine if the food supply was more constrained". I'm very clearly saying that food is fungible (you know - the thing I actually said...). The housing supply is both constrained and non-fungible. The food supply can be constrained or not, but it's fungible as all get out - For the purposes of not starving, a calorie is a calorie, and where it comes from is irrelevant in a broad sense.

capitalsigma 4y ago
> It's NOT about right - it's about demand. Sure, that's fair. I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material. > I'm very clearly saying that food is fungible My point is that the reason "fungibility" is important is actually because it impacts supply: there aren't just 100k houses vs 100k households, there are actually 10k houses with some desirable property (close to where most people work, sufficiently large to raise children, whatever) vs 50k households willing to pay a premium for that desirable property. Your point about fungibility doesn't change the conversation about supply and demand, it's just a partial explanation of the mismatch.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  So outside of the context of most of the previous discussion: > I'm really reacting to arguments about gentrification, where people do talk about "rights" to stay in a particular neighborhood that apparently get passed via genetic material. What is it that bothers you about this? Basically - my counter argument is: If a person has been living in an area for decades, and that area is now gentrifying, can't it be reasonably expected that person (or their family) were fundamentally a part of driving that gentrification? It means that person was putting in their labor and money into that location for decades, and that labor and money was key for creating the conditions that are allowing for gentrification (even if the final catalyst was something else - like a company using the stable area for new expansion) Simplifying - My counter argument is that forcing this person out is robbing them of the fruit of their labor: A nice neighborhood. They were there when it wasn't nice. They worked in making it nice. Now you kick them out because they were working with a lower income to do it (usually meaning they put in considerably more "sweat equity"). Seems pretty unfair to me.