4 ms·

But yet here the same principal is being applied to housing. Keep raising prices until you can’t, but in the mean time, make people poorer. I don’t know if See

But yet here the same principal is being applied to housing. Keep raising prices until you can’t, but in the mean time, make people poorer. I don’t know if See’s candies are expensive now, but they didn’t used to be. That’s my point. Same with going to the ball game. Same with Disneyland (or at least not at this level). Movies. Going out to eat. Etc.

hbrn 4y ago
Same principle, different markets, different outcomes. > Keep raising prices until you can’t, but in the mean time, make people poorer That's a primitive model employed by people that are unable to think long term and at scale. More than half of US population lived in poverty in 1900. You know what changed that? "Keep raising prices until you can’t" combined with competition. I want good products to have higher prices - this ensures I'll get access to even better products at lower price in the long term. There are dangerous exceptions of course, we learned what those are long time ago: essential goods and monopolized industries. Arguably, housing is both. Candies and "going out to eat" are neither. I couldn't care less if some billionaire is becoming 10x wealthier if I'm also becoming wealthier at the same time. Complain about inequality all you want, but if I was born 100 years ago, my diet would likely be shit. Today and can eat the same (or even better) food than the richest man in the world. Think about it for a minute.