3 ms·

How's the free market working for you? Is rent cheaper on your side of the pond? Can you afford your medicine? I am tired of this zealotry toward free market a

How's the free market working for you? Is rent cheaper on your side of the pond? Can you afford your medicine? I am tired of this zealotry toward free market absolutism, thougtlessly reciting econ 101's tenets as a mantra. Free stuff is good actually, some industries just work better and more efficiently as a centralized common: electricity, water, rail, healthcare... That's an empirical fact. I believe housing too could be on the list. There is more to the economy than rational agents systematically looking for what's best at the lowest prices and lawful entrepreneurs tirelessly striving to improve the utility of their customers.

dmix 2y ago
Housing is as regulated in American big cities as it is in Europe. That’s always been the critique in SF and NYC and elsewhere? Aggressive city planning, outdated unchanging zoning, backlogs, rapid growth of heritage building, NIMBY protectionism supported by municipal gov, extreme tenant laws disincentivizing renting half empty properties, etc etc. The only solutions they’ve tried are rent control and extremely slow gov investment in housing which have done nothing to help (rent control historically reduces supply making the problem worse). They’ve tried everything except liberalizing the market and letting people build. We don’t need to wait for huge gov spending programs to solve a problem when there’s already a mountain of capital waiting to build the second the gov lets them do it.
robocat 2y ago
> some industries just work better and more efficiently as a centralized common: electricity, water, rail, healthcare... That's an empirical fact. Not a fact. Easily demonstrated by falsification by examples of each of those where they have failed because of centralization. Infrastructure is deviously hard to get right. Edit: we can find examples of decentralized infrastructure that works great (internet, Apps, banking). Healthcare in particular must always fail because there's an unreasonably infinite cost for and ideal service. There's no good answer to what price (what resource limitations) we should put on fixing little Jimmy's cancer. Governments struggle to make compromises in healthcare, and plenty of citizens are super unhappy with any compromises made. Of course a free market can't fix that problem either. Disclosure: I'm not a free market zealot. Too many people want to define sides and then get idealist about "their side"; how tiresome. Perhaps you are similar to the free market zealots? > I believe housing too could be on the Be careful of what you wish for. Government housing is rarely brought out as an example of success? Maybe Singapore. "Too much government" is a common reason for housing (market) failure. Supply availability is mostly constrained by regulations. Demand is driven by desirability. House prices are driven by mortgage availability in developed countries. House unavailablity is often because of governmental choices over regulations and interest rates. Governments obviously mostly fail to get those right. What makes you believe a government can get socialised housing right? We don't have infinite resources. Neither government provided services nor free markets solve that. Anyone answering with either of those solutions is the same. You might find this article interesting: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/08/30/libertarians-took-control-of-this-small-town-it-didnt-end-well/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/08/30/libertarians-took-c...
- thrance 2y ago
  It certainly is a complex topic, with no perfect solution. My personal answer to how much we should be willing to pay for little Timmy's cancer is "whatever it costs". By "empirical fact", I meant that our socialized healthcare system here in France seems to do a better job than America's in two key metrics: cost (we dedicate a lesser part of our income to healthcare than Americans, through taxes) and life expectancy (ours is slightly higher). The one caveat I would concede is that we have less access to experimental treatments for rare diseases, but we eventually get most of them. And at a better bargain than Americans too. For electricity, we had a very cheap, clean grid thanks to our nuclear reactors. It started going downhill the instant Europe asked us to "liberalize" our national monopoly. "Private companies" began reselling electricity for a premium. These are essentially useless parasites. Price got up, all else equal. As for housing, I know we already have more vacant homes than homeless people (from our national statistics agency). So the issue is only one of repartition. I don't care about any rationalization or gesturing about "market forces" or whatever. We ought to distribute housing to those that lack it. I'll read your article, thanks.
  - Plasmoid 2y ago
    > whatever it costs This isn't an appropriate answer because it can't be applied to the whole of society. You can't spend an unlimited amount of money on everyone and suggesting shows a certain amount of naivete. Every medical systems grades treatments based on life extensible compared to cost. If it's over the limit you can't have it. You need to do the most good for the most people and you don't have unlimited funds.
    - thrance 2y ago
      By "whatever it costs" I meant that we all get a shot at chemotherapy, at the very least. We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old who just retired because his death would alleviate strain on our retirement fund, if it's what you think.
      - robocat 2y ago
ipsento606 2y ago
> How's the free market working for you? There isn't a free market in housing in any large American city. They all have overly zealous zoning policies that restrict density, driving up prices.

dmix 2y ago

Housing is as regulated in American big cities as it is in Europe. That’s always been the critique in SF and NYC and elsewhere? Aggressive city planning, outdated unchanging zoning, backlogs, rapid growth of heritage building, NIMBY protectionism supported by municipal gov, extreme tenant laws disincentivizing renting half empty properties, etc etc. The only solutions they’ve tried are rent control and extremely slow gov investment in housing which have done nothing to help (rent control historically reduces supply making the problem worse). They’ve tried everything except liberalizing the market and letting people build. We don’t need to wait for huge gov spending programs to solve a problem when there’s already a mountain of capital waiting to build the second the gov lets them do it.

robocat 2y ago

> some industries just work better and more efficiently as a centralized common: electricity, water, rail, healthcare... That's an empirical fact. Not a fact. Easily demonstrated by falsification by examples of each of those where they have failed because of centralization. Infrastructure is deviously hard to get right. Edit: we can find examples of decentralized infrastructure that works great (internet, Apps, banking). Healthcare in particular must always fail because there's an unreasonably infinite cost for and ideal service. There's no good answer to what price (what resource limitations) we should put on fixing little Jimmy's cancer. Governments struggle to make compromises in healthcare, and plenty of citizens are super unhappy with any compromises made. Of course a free market can't fix that problem either. Disclosure: I'm not a free market zealot. Too many people want to define sides and then get idealist about "their side"; how tiresome. Perhaps you are similar to the free market zealots? > I believe housing too could be on the Be careful of what you wish for. Government housing is rarely brought out as an example of success? Maybe Singapore. "Too much government" is a common reason for housing (market) failure. Supply availability is mostly constrained by regulations. Demand is driven by desirability. House prices are driven by mortgage availability in developed countries. House unavailablity is often because of governmental choices over regulations and interest rates. Governments obviously mostly fail to get those right. What makes you believe a government can get socialised housing right? We don't have infinite resources. Neither government provided services nor free markets solve that. Anyone answering with either of those solutions is the same. You might find this article interesting: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/08/30/libertarians-took-control-of-this-small-town-it-didnt-end-well/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/08/30/libertarians-took-c...

thrance 2y ago
It certainly is a complex topic, with no perfect solution. My personal answer to how much we should be willing to pay for little Timmy's cancer is "whatever it costs". By "empirical fact", I meant that our socialized healthcare system here in France seems to do a better job than America's in two key metrics: cost (we dedicate a lesser part of our income to healthcare than Americans, through taxes) and life expectancy (ours is slightly higher). The one caveat I would concede is that we have less access to experimental treatments for rare diseases, but we eventually get most of them. And at a better bargain than Americans too. For electricity, we had a very cheap, clean grid thanks to our nuclear reactors. It started going downhill the instant Europe asked us to "liberalize" our national monopoly. "Private companies" began reselling electricity for a premium. These are essentially useless parasites. Price got up, all else equal. As for housing, I know we already have more vacant homes than homeless people (from our national statistics agency). So the issue is only one of repartition. I don't care about any rationalization or gesturing about "market forces" or whatever. We ought to distribute housing to those that lack it. I'll read your article, thanks.
- Plasmoid 2y ago
  > whatever it costs This isn't an appropriate answer because it can't be applied to the whole of society. You can't spend an unlimited amount of money on everyone and suggesting shows a certain amount of naivete. Every medical systems grades treatments based on life extensible compared to cost. If it's over the limit you can't have it. You need to do the most good for the most people and you don't have unlimited funds.
  - thrance 2y ago
    By "whatever it costs" I meant that we all get a shot at chemotherapy, at the very least. We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old who just retired because his death would alleviate strain on our retirement fund, if it's what you think.
    - robocat 2y ago

ipsento606 2y ago

> How's the free market working for you? There isn't a free market in housing in any large American city. They all have overly zealous zoning policies that restrict density, driving up prices.