7 ms·
What an inefficient idea. Better to give it to the person who values it the most, as signified by the price they are willing to pay.
by masterleep 13y ago
What an inefficient idea. Better to give it to the person who values it the most, as signified by the price they are willing to pay.
- rbanffy 13y agoIf you make someone pay more for the same thing that was worth less before, did you increase the value of the thing or decrease the value of money?
- masterleep 13y agoI don't think "you" did anything. It was the preferences and decisions of millions of cooperating parties that affected underlying value.
- raldi 13y agoYeah, Chapter One of any economics textbook makes clear that it takes two to tango. Actually, a lot more than two.
- nitrogen 13y agoScrew "efficiency." Why should rent in urban areas be $3500 for one person just because someone can afford it? People on HN love to talk about how suburbs are destroying the planet, then others turn around and claim that impossibly high rents in urban centers is "efficient"?
- raldi 13y agoRent is $3500 because special interests are artificially suppressing the supply of housing.
- natrius 13y agoCharging lower rent in urban areas wouldn't create more of them to live in. You'd have the exact same number of people living in suburbs.
- nitrogen 13y agoYes, but you'd have a more diverse mix in the urban center to run the place, more of the consumer surplus would be distributed more widely, and a strong pressure against class mobility, housing and transportation costs, would be reduced for those lucky enough to be selected for a high demand area.
- raldi 13y agoAnd then they'd sublet to the highest bidder.