4 ms·
A (very) tiny bit of econ knowledge is dangerous, isn't it. Markets find prices, yes, but that's not applicable to what we're discussing. Maybe in some Georgis
by weeksie 3y ago
A (very) tiny bit of econ knowledge is dangerous, isn't it.
Markets find prices, yes, but that's not applicable to what we're discussing. Maybe in some Georgist utopia we might have housing prices being priced purely at their utility.
But that's not the NIMBY complaint. The NIMBY complaint is that wherever they live is at the perfect balance where any more development would only make things worse. Game theory and equilibrium pricing have nothing to do with that because in our current regulatory system, land owners can extract rents by blocking new development.
Every time I post in this Dunning-Kruger tar pit I'm reminded of why I usually abstain.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoIf there were no regulation at all, equilibriums would still exist. Yes, it might be melee than now, or could be less, but at the end of the day we are looking at scarce land and other resources, so there has to be some carry capacity for the land. It’s the same reason why San Francisco loses population sometime: it has too many people for the resources it provides, and costs rise, forcing people (or perhaps just encouraging them) to leave. Yes, you can change the rules to get more people into a place, but you are just looking at a different equilibrium number to be reached. And then people like you will complain it is still too low, and nothing really changes.