3 ms·

Distorting markets like that tend to have unforeseen deleterious side effects that just make things worse. For example: rent control

dymk 1y ago
Well, what we have right now obviously isn’t working. So what’s your proposal?
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Return to free markets in housing.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Got anything more specific than cliches? For example, do you have any examples of this demonstrably making housing more affordable (ie lowering housing costs as a percentage of income) at scale?
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Rent control making creating more rental units unprofitable. Zoning laws that prevent housing density.
      - TFYS 1y ago
        Those are the result of a free market. Zoning laws are the results of participants in a free market protecting their investments. Even in the absence of a government (if functioning markets could exist in such an environment) with which to create such laws, people would find other ways to do it. Rent control comes after rents in the free market have already increased to the point where people create political pressure to make these policies (if it's not the result of lobbying by investors). You could temporarily make the situation better by getting rid of these laws and regulations, but over time they would just come back because in a free market the players that get such policies implemented get richer and win.
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        I asked you for examples of market deregulation making housing more affordable at scale. I am not interested in your assertions about how the market works, but empirical data of your proposals leading to improved outcomes. Apparently you don't have any.
zefhous 1y ago
How one defines “distorting markets” is an important question when it comes to defining policy, and not an un-contentious one.
Avicebron 1y ago
"Markets" exist because they are a thing people find useful. If people can't afford shelter and participate in the "market" of leveraging property because they are being pushed out by a soulless outgrowth of "line go up" thinking, then the "market" has failed and needs to be fixed until it is useful for people again.
- derektank 1y ago
  It's not the fault of private capital firms that local governments have essentially outlawed building new homes in many areas. The solution should be focused on restricting the ability of localities to do this, not restricting the ability of companies to buy real estate.
  - Avicebron 1y ago
    > It's not the fault of private capital firms Which doesn't really matter because they don't need to be "protected" in any capacity. Removing their ability to purchase those homes, and letting it get sorted between the people who are "outlawing building homes" and those who want to move there makes more sense.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Deciding who gets to buy what is known as central economic planning. It doesn't have a good track record. In this case, by restricting who can buy, you're reducing the demand for housing. Less demand means lower prices. Lower prices mean fewer homes will be built, meaning less supply. A better scheme would be to lower the costs of home construction by reducing regulations and taxes on them.
  - xphos 1y ago
    Yeah I agree with this here. Its simply to hard to build housing and the number permits and zoning restrictions have lead to localized housing shortages where people want to live. Its simply a difficult poltical issue to solve because most of the time zoning is handled at the local level and old people who have houses attend town hall meetings where zoning is discussed (if seldomly ever). Homeowners who have treated housing as a speculative centeralized asset have little to gain in allowing the market fixing itself.
hooverd 1y ago
rent control is good actually combined with robust building
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Rent control has a tendency to kill robust building.
thrance 1y ago
So basically remove all regulations and everything will fix itself automatically? This kind of wishful thinking is ludicrous, and it's insane how common it is. Markets have issues that need to be addressed through regulations, unless we want a return to the Gilded Age.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > So basically remove all regulations and everything will fix itself automatically? I didn't say that. I said "rent control". And yes, remove all regulations on rent. > unless we want a return to the Gilded Age The Gilded Age was a time of great prosperity in the US.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > The Gilded Age was a time of great prosperity in the US. In aggregate, sure. (At least compared to times prior.) How the prosperity was distributed, OTOH...
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Wealth isn't "distributed" in a free market. People work and invest to get money in exchange. Consider Jeff Bezos. He was roundly criticized for the profligacy of spending $80 million for his wedding. But look at it another way. He spread the wealth around by paying artisans, workers, craftsmen, photographers, travel agents, hotels, restaurateurs, etc.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > Wealth isn't "distributed" in a free market. Wealth has a distribution in any economy, and the actual distribution is a consequence of the economic system which itself is the aggregate of specific policy decisions.
      - TFYS 1y ago
        Those people could have been doing something more useful with their time if Bezos hadn't bought them. Because Bezos has such an obscene amount of wealth, he can outpay any other cause that people would want to pay for. Those craftsmen and workers could have built a farm and a school, but because the people that need those don't have the kind of money Bezos does, they used their time to entertain Bezos and his friends for a couple of days instead.
anigbrowl 1y ago
“Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.” “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” “A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.” “The sea in the neighbourhood of the islands of Shetland is more than commonly abundant in fish, which make a great part of the subsistence of the inhabitants. But in order to profit by the produce of the water, they must have a habitation upon the neighbouring land. The rent of the landlord is in proportion, not to what he can make by the land, but to what he can make both by the land and water. It is partly paid in sea-fish.” Karl MArx? No, Adam Smith.

dymk 1y ago

Well, what we have right now obviously isn’t working. So what’s your proposal?

WalterBright 1y ago
Return to free markets in housing.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Got anything more specific than cliches? For example, do you have any examples of this demonstrably making housing more affordable (ie lowering housing costs as a percentage of income) at scale?
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Rent control making creating more rental units unprofitable. Zoning laws that prevent housing density.
    - TFYS 1y ago
      Those are the result of a free market. Zoning laws are the results of participants in a free market protecting their investments. Even in the absence of a government (if functioning markets could exist in such an environment) with which to create such laws, people would find other ways to do it. Rent control comes after rents in the free market have already increased to the point where people create political pressure to make these policies (if it's not the result of lobbying by investors). You could temporarily make the situation better by getting rid of these laws and regulations, but over time they would just come back because in a free market the players that get such policies implemented get richer and win.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      I asked you for examples of market deregulation making housing more affordable at scale. I am not interested in your assertions about how the market works, but empirical data of your proposals leading to improved outcomes. Apparently you don't have any.

zefhous 1y ago

How one defines “distorting markets” is an important question when it comes to defining policy, and not an un-contentious one.

Avicebron 1y ago

"Markets" exist because they are a thing people find useful. If people can't afford shelter and participate in the "market" of leveraging property because they are being pushed out by a soulless outgrowth of "line go up" thinking, then the "market" has failed and needs to be fixed until it is useful for people again.

derektank 1y ago
It's not the fault of private capital firms that local governments have essentially outlawed building new homes in many areas. The solution should be focused on restricting the ability of localities to do this, not restricting the ability of companies to buy real estate.
- Avicebron 1y ago
  > It's not the fault of private capital firms Which doesn't really matter because they don't need to be "protected" in any capacity. Removing their ability to purchase those homes, and letting it get sorted between the people who are "outlawing building homes" and those who want to move there makes more sense.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Deciding who gets to buy what is known as central economic planning. It doesn't have a good track record. In this case, by restricting who can buy, you're reducing the demand for housing. Less demand means lower prices. Lower prices mean fewer homes will be built, meaning less supply. A better scheme would be to lower the costs of home construction by reducing regulations and taxes on them.
- xphos 1y ago
  Yeah I agree with this here. Its simply to hard to build housing and the number permits and zoning restrictions have lead to localized housing shortages where people want to live. Its simply a difficult poltical issue to solve because most of the time zoning is handled at the local level and old people who have houses attend town hall meetings where zoning is discussed (if seldomly ever). Homeowners who have treated housing as a speculative centeralized asset have little to gain in allowing the market fixing itself.

hooverd 1y ago

rent control is good actually combined with robust building

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Rent control has a tendency to kill robust building.

thrance 1y ago

So basically remove all regulations and everything will fix itself automatically? This kind of wishful thinking is ludicrous, and it's insane how common it is. Markets have issues that need to be addressed through regulations, unless we want a return to the Gilded Age.

WalterBright 1y ago
> So basically remove all regulations and everything will fix itself automatically? I didn't say that. I said "rent control". And yes, remove all regulations on rent. > unless we want a return to the Gilded Age The Gilded Age was a time of great prosperity in the US.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > The Gilded Age was a time of great prosperity in the US. In aggregate, sure. (At least compared to times prior.) How the prosperity was distributed, OTOH...
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Wealth isn't "distributed" in a free market. People work and invest to get money in exchange. Consider Jeff Bezos. He was roundly criticized for the profligacy of spending $80 million for his wedding. But look at it another way. He spread the wealth around by paying artisans, workers, craftsmen, photographers, travel agents, hotels, restaurateurs, etc.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Wealth isn't "distributed" in a free market. Wealth has a distribution in any economy, and the actual distribution is a consequence of the economic system which itself is the aggregate of specific policy decisions.
    - TFYS 1y ago
      Those people could have been doing something more useful with their time if Bezos hadn't bought them. Because Bezos has such an obscene amount of wealth, he can outpay any other cause that people would want to pay for. Those craftsmen and workers could have built a farm and a school, but because the people that need those don't have the kind of money Bezos does, they used their time to entertain Bezos and his friends for a couple of days instead.

anigbrowl 1y ago

“Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.” “As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” “A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.” “The sea in the neighbourhood of the islands of Shetland is more than commonly abundant in fish, which make a great part of the subsistence of the inhabitants. But in order to profit by the produce of the water, they must have a habitation upon the neighbouring land. The rent of the landlord is in proportion, not to what he can make by the land, but to what he can make both by the land and water. It is partly paid in sea-fish.” Karl MArx? No, Adam Smith.