> My point being that bureaucracy does not inherently need to be so bad Indeed, and my point is that it's this bad on purpose. The nominal reasons are the ones

> My point being that bureaucracy does not inherently need to be so bad Indeed, and my point is that it's this bad on purpose. The nominal reasons are the ones you listed and more, but they're just a front. > And with the rise in compensation, so did the cost of construction (because "non-tradeable", but I disagree that it is inevitable as such, because labor can be imported) and therefore the cost of housing This is pretty much exactly what I wrote, minus the fact that it's non-tradable because of another restriction. Here's how it works algebraically. Let C_x be the coefficient for the amount spent on x by consumers and P_x by producers: Rent = RentTrueCost * RentOverpriceFactor LocalSalary = Rent * C_Rent + TradablesPrice * C_Tradables + NonTradablesPrice * C_NonTradables NonTradablesPrice = TradablesPrice * P_Tradables + NonTradablesPrice * P_NonTradables + LocalSalary * P_Salary => NonTradablesPrice = (TradablesPrice * (P_Tradables + C_Tradables * P_Salary) + RentTrueCost * RentOverpriceFactor * C_Rent * P_Salary) / (1 - P_NonTradables - C_NonTradables * P_Salary) Notice the "zooming effect" from P_NonTradables and C_NonTradables. The more local producers and consumers rely on non-tradable goods and services, the bigger the increase in local prices resulting from a small increase in RentOverpriceFactor. That's because the supply chain has to pay the "rent tax" at every step. From the carpenter, to the carpenter's waiter at the diner, to the carpenters that built the diner and the waiter's house, etc.