4 ms·

Places where many people already live will always be the most attractive. You are not going to solve this by trying to even out population density. Trying to ma

by shlant 2y ago

Places where many people already live will always be the most attractive. You are not going to solve this by trying to even out population density. Trying to manipulate demand with anything is almost always a losing approach. You don't have to overcomplicate things. Supply less than demand > price goes up. Increase supply > price goes down. The data shows the same pattern over and over again[1]. See Japan as an international example or Minneapolis[2] and Austin[3] as US examples. [1] https://deny.substack.com/p/tracking-the-anglo-worlds-housing https://deny.substack.com/p/tracking-the-anglo-worlds-housin... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181dbc5 https://www.ft.com/content/86836af4-6b52-49e8-a8f0-8aec6181d... [3] https://archive.ph/X3zAx https://archive.ph/X3zAx

sincerecook 2y ago
> Trying to manipulate demand with anything is almost always a losing approach. There goes the entire marketing industry. And taxes on cigarettes.
- shlant 2y ago
  "almost always". Yes, advertising being the main exception. Kind of hard to change demand for homes.
  - sincerecook 2y ago
    "trying to manipulate demand with anything is almost always a losing approach" > The exception being the demand manipulating industry that is used every day by every product being sold to consumers What would a Venn diagram of these two categories look like.
afpx 2y ago
Those are the three examples everyone uses, but I thought those were pretty weak so I didn't include them. In fact, I was curious enough that I looked up comparable homes to mine in both Austin and Minneapolis, and the house prices were practically the same. So, 100 years, and three weak successes (if you can call them that) - doesn't sound like a winning strategy. A demand view gives other routes to explore, at least.

4 ms·

Places where many people already live will always be the most attractive. You are not going to solve this by trying to even out population density. Trying to ma

by shlant 2y ago

sincerecook 2y ago
> Trying to manipulate demand with anything is almost always a losing approach. There goes the entire marketing industry. And taxes on cigarettes.
- shlant 2y ago
  "almost always". Yes, advertising being the main exception. Kind of hard to change demand for homes.
  - sincerecook 2y ago
    "trying to manipulate demand with anything is almost always a losing approach" > The exception being the demand manipulating industry that is used every day by every product being sold to consumers What would a Venn diagram of these two categories look like.
afpx 2y ago
Those are the three examples everyone uses, but I thought those were pretty weak so I didn't include them. In fact, I was curious enough that I looked up comparable homes to mine in both Austin and Minneapolis, and the house prices were practically the same. So, 100 years, and three weak successes (if you can call them that) - doesn't sound like a winning strategy. A demand view gives other routes to explore, at least.