3 ms·

> This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. Good. Treating increasing unaffordability as a good thing is an insane part of American cult

> This has the real possibility to destroy wealth and land value. Good. Treating increasing unaffordability as a good thing is an insane part of American culture. We didn't celebrate car prices going through the roof during the pandemic, and neither does it make sense to celebrate skyrocketing housing prices. The ideal price of housing would be zero, same as other products.

rcme 4y ago
No, not good. It doesn't make sense to destroy wealth. If you want to transfer wealth from one party (land owners) to another (renters) that's fine. The land itself has intrinsic value. It's fine to transfer that value from one party to another. But it's absolutely not fine to destroy it. Everyone is worse off. Your argument is basically that we should start salting farm land to decrease its value.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  Nah, that's ridiculous and you know it. Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something. If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. Truth be told, the value of the land itself in these cities, I don't think will change very much. The value of the property on top of that land though, that'll probably change, as the total housing supply increases.
  - rcme 4y ago
    > If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money. Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.
Slighted 4y ago
I mean hey, sucks for the people that live there already, but it ain't happening to me so its not my problem!
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  This was exactly the attitude causing the problem in the first place. The long term solution of housing being cheap is obviously superior to the long term solution of housing prices doubling every generation until nobody but the very wealthy can afford to buy a home. My parents own a home in the bay area, so it does actually indirectly affect me. But so did leaving the bay area because it was insanely expensive (and similarly, almost everyone from my graduating class left too).

rcme 4y ago

No, not good. It doesn't make sense to destroy wealth. If you want to transfer wealth from one party (land owners) to another (renters) that's fine. The land itself has intrinsic value. It's fine to transfer that value from one party to another. But it's absolutely not fine to destroy it. Everyone is worse off. Your argument is basically that we should start salting farm land to decrease its value.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
Nah, that's ridiculous and you know it. Destroying wealth because you've lowered the price of goods and make them more accessible, is not the same thing as destroying wealth by actually destroying the utility of something. If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. Truth be told, the value of the land itself in these cities, I don't think will change very much. The value of the property on top of that land though, that'll probably change, as the total housing supply increases.
- rcme 4y ago
  > If I made a super food replicator that halved the price of food permanently, that would destroy much wealth in the agricultural sector, and it would still be a good thing for humanity as a whole. No, no wealth would be destroyed. Some of the old agricultural sector's wealth would be transferred to you. The rest would stay with the purchasers of food. Again, no wealth is destroyed when you make something more productive. In fact, your food replicator creates wealth because people get the same amount of food and have more money. Again, I think you're getting confused by the concepts of destroying wealth and transferring wealth. In your scenario, you're transferring and creating wealth through innovation. In my anecdote, wealth was destroyed. It didn't go anywhere. It just ceased to exist.

Slighted 4y ago

I mean hey, sucks for the people that live there already, but it ain't happening to me so its not my problem!

TulliusCicero 4y ago
This was exactly the attitude causing the problem in the first place. The long term solution of housing being cheap is obviously superior to the long term solution of housing prices doubling every generation until nobody but the very wealthy can afford to buy a home. My parents own a home in the bay area, so it does actually indirectly affect me. But so did leaving the bay area because it was insanely expensive (and similarly, almost everyone from my graduating class left too).