3 ms·
Two more notes: 1) In addition to there being many non-monetary factors in a housing market, as hollerith mentioned, housing markets are also generally not ver
by pbh101 12y ago
Two more notes:
1) In addition to there being many non-monetary factors in a housing market, as hollerith mentioned, housing markets are also generally not very efficient compared to others.
2) Any bet that land prices will plummet for this reason (this is something a hedge fund would do) would have to calculate the 'risk' of massive intervention when/if the problem gets to the unignorable/still-fixable-even-at-enormous-cost stage. If presented with the choice of "evacuate south florida" v. "here's a very costly plan to save Miami," I think America would choose the latter.
I live in Amsterdam, and I've (apocryphally, quick googling didn't reveal the number) heard that over the centuries the Netherlands has spent ~1 trillion inflation-adjusted dollars on its water management system. "Rationally"—and very simplistically—speaking, these people "could" all go live somewhere else, but that's not how the world works. (Nor should it, IMO, but off-topic)
- mikeash 12y ago$1 trillion over centuries isn't really a lot. What's the total worth of Amsterdam? Seems like a sound investment.
- zmanian 12y agoMy understanding of the situation is no one has even proposed a "very costly plan to save Miami." This is Venice on an accelerated time scale. Miami pales in comparisons proportionate wealth and power when Venice started sinking in earnest. I'd be very reluctant to short Manhattan real estate because protecting Manhattan from higher sea levels is merely an engineering challenge and affordable relative to NYC economic output. Manhattan is basically made out of granite. South Florida on porous limestone. Miami seems f'd to me.