4 ms·

> you don't really own land, you just rent it for a very long term from the government. This is probably economically a good idea, absent something like georgi

> you don't really own land, you just rent it for a very long term from the government. This is probably economically a good idea, absent something like georgist land taxes. It eliminates some or all of the incentive to speculate in land, which is of course the whole problem El Salvador ran into with bitcoin as currency.

ggm 2y ago
It hasn't entirely stopped rents in HK being untenably high, for many people. It has rent controls, but the system permits some very untenable outcomes which if left unchecked would re-create Kowloon Walled City. So whilst politically I agree, practically I am unsure there is no land speculation: A waterfront view remains valuable in and of itself, no matter what.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Kowloon Walled City ended because it was attacked by the state, rather than through market forces. Many of those people are now likely in worse shape effectively renting a cage sized bed, but now paying the governments cut on top of whatever black market shenanigans goes on in both the slum housing and kowloon.
  - kiba 2y ago
    Kowloon Walled City was neither a dystopia nor a utopia. It works and was able to maintain itself, but it could have been done better if it was actually supported by the government.
    - gsf_emergency 2y ago
      That's "just" a bug-feature of common law systems >The Kowloon Walled City was exempt and remained under the control of Qing China. https://www.thecollector.com/kowloon-walled-city-lawlessness-and-claustrophobia/ https://www.thecollector.com/kowloon-walled-city-lawlessness... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_leases_in_Hong_Kong#Valuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_leases_in_Hong_Kong#V...
- jaggederest 2y ago
  Right, obviously HK is a bit of a special case. Land in Manhattan would, I'm 100% certain, remain incredibly expensive. The cool thing about leases is that you can change the cost of the lease periodically, which ensures that the value of the land does not accrue purely to the person occupying it.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    > obviously HK is a bit of a special case Reminds me of the old macro economist joke: There are 4 types of economies, developed economy, developing economy, Japan, and Argentina. Maybe HK should be added to that joke...
- 3vidence 2y ago
  Forgive my ignorance but with just so many people and so much money and so little area, isn't high rents inevitable? I contrast that to places like the USA and Canada that have huge amounts of area but policies that encourage inefficient land usage.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  There is no problem with property values or rent values being high because they are the result of demand for living in a high quality area. There isn't a problem either with these prices varying over time as the attractiveness of the area changes. The problems are wholly on the supply side, where either - there are bad laws that lead to any of the following, or - developers legally or illegally cooperate to suppress supply - landlords cooperate to push up rents or reduce quality. - investors use land or housing units as speculative assets - normal people want to use their primary residence as a way to build wealth, so politically support measure that artificially inflate their property values. Individually, this is not a problem, but when everyone does it, the system breaks. The goal is to design a system where all of the above doesn't happen. A very big task. P.S. I don't know anything about HK.
- andreareina 2y ago
  Or in Singapore
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Singapore relies on the fact like 20 or 30% of their tax paying population is ineligible for public housing due to not being a PR nor citizen.
- shipp02 2y ago
  Land in HK is weird. The lease thing is true but there are massive national parks that have nothing built at all. The buildings that do exist are ~50 stories even though that's not optimal because of the typhoon situation. So constructive cost is high because government does not release enough land for development. The rents are high because someone wants it that way. It's not a land scarcity problem IMO. Also the government and the upcoming merge with China is strange in itself.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sidewndr46 2y ago
Economically, communism is a great idea. In practice, you get "collectivization" in the Soviet Union that basically starves millions to death
- MaxPock 2y ago
  Don't millions starve too in capitalism?
  - kragen 2y ago
    No. No liberal capitalist economy has ever had a famine. By contrast, most communist economies have created major famines, and history's largest famines have all been created by communist economies, outdoing even colonialism in their death tolls. These are well-known historical facts.
    - cco 2y ago
      To save some time, can you define the True Scotsman here? Would the US in the 1920s count as a liberal capitalistic country for example? England in the 1860s?
      - kragen 2y ago
        Yes, and yes, which is one reason that, as it turns out, neither the US in the 01920s nor England in the 01860s experienced the famines that affected some other parts of the world at the same time. (In the 01920s Russia was experiencing its first famine that could reasonably be attributed to communism, and in the 01860s Sweden and Finland were experiencing their last famines before their transitions to capitalism.) But not, for example, Ireland in the 01840s and 01850s; that was neither, being colonialist and agricultural. Nobody starved to death in "famines" like the so-called Lancashire Cotton Famine. By contrast, in the Finnish famine starting the next year, almost 10% of the population of Finland died. As it turns out, that was the last famine in Finland because it became capitalist over the following decades.

ggm 2y ago

It hasn't entirely stopped rents in HK being untenably high, for many people. It has rent controls, but the system permits some very untenable outcomes which if left unchecked would re-create Kowloon Walled City. So whilst politically I agree, practically I am unsure there is no land speculation: A waterfront view remains valuable in and of itself, no matter what.

ty6853 2y ago
Kowloon Walled City ended because it was attacked by the state, rather than through market forces. Many of those people are now likely in worse shape effectively renting a cage sized bed, but now paying the governments cut on top of whatever black market shenanigans goes on in both the slum housing and kowloon.
- kiba 2y ago
  Kowloon Walled City was neither a dystopia nor a utopia. It works and was able to maintain itself, but it could have been done better if it was actually supported by the government.
  - gsf_emergency 2y ago
    That's "just" a bug-feature of common law systems >The Kowloon Walled City was exempt and remained under the control of Qing China. https://www.thecollector.com/kowloon-walled-city-lawlessness-and-claustrophobia/ https://www.thecollector.com/kowloon-walled-city-lawlessness... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_leases_in_Hong_Kong#Valuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_leases_in_Hong_Kong#V...
jaggederest 2y ago
Right, obviously HK is a bit of a special case. Land in Manhattan would, I'm 100% certain, remain incredibly expensive. The cool thing about leases is that you can change the cost of the lease periodically, which ensures that the value of the land does not accrue purely to the person occupying it.
- FabHK 2y ago
  > obviously HK is a bit of a special case Reminds me of the old macro economist joke: There are 4 types of economies, developed economy, developing economy, Japan, and Argentina. Maybe HK should be added to that joke...
3vidence 2y ago
Forgive my ignorance but with just so many people and so much money and so little area, isn't high rents inevitable? I contrast that to places like the USA and Canada that have huge amounts of area but policies that encourage inefficient land usage.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
There is no problem with property values or rent values being high because they are the result of demand for living in a high quality area. There isn't a problem either with these prices varying over time as the attractiveness of the area changes. The problems are wholly on the supply side, where either - there are bad laws that lead to any of the following, or - developers legally or illegally cooperate to suppress supply - landlords cooperate to push up rents or reduce quality. - investors use land or housing units as speculative assets - normal people want to use their primary residence as a way to build wealth, so politically support measure that artificially inflate their property values. Individually, this is not a problem, but when everyone does it, the system breaks. The goal is to design a system where all of the above doesn't happen. A very big task. P.S. I don't know anything about HK.
andreareina 2y ago
Or in Singapore
- ty6853 2y ago
  Singapore relies on the fact like 20 or 30% of their tax paying population is ineligible for public housing due to not being a PR nor citizen.
shipp02 2y ago
Land in HK is weird. The lease thing is true but there are massive national parks that have nothing built at all. The buildings that do exist are ~50 stories even though that's not optimal because of the typhoon situation. So constructive cost is high because government does not release enough land for development. The rents are high because someone wants it that way. It's not a land scarcity problem IMO. Also the government and the upcoming merge with China is strange in itself.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

sidewndr46 2y ago

Economically, communism is a great idea. In practice, you get "collectivization" in the Soviet Union that basically starves millions to death

MaxPock 2y ago
Don't millions starve too in capitalism?
- kragen 2y ago
  No. No liberal capitalist economy has ever had a famine. By contrast, most communist economies have created major famines, and history's largest famines have all been created by communist economies, outdoing even colonialism in their death tolls. These are well-known historical facts.
  - cco 2y ago
    To save some time, can you define the True Scotsman here? Would the US in the 1920s count as a liberal capitalistic country for example? England in the 1860s?
    - kragen 2y ago
      Yes, and yes, which is one reason that, as it turns out, neither the US in the 01920s nor England in the 01860s experienced the famines that affected some other parts of the world at the same time. (In the 01920s Russia was experiencing its first famine that could reasonably be attributed to communism, and in the 01860s Sweden and Finland were experiencing their last famines before their transitions to capitalism.) But not, for example, Ireland in the 01840s and 01850s; that was neither, being colonialist and agricultural. Nobody starved to death in "famines" like the so-called Lancashire Cotton Famine. By contrast, in the Finnish famine starting the next year, almost 10% of the population of Finland died. As it turns out, that was the last famine in Finland because it became capitalist over the following decades.