I don't talk about your point because it's kinda irrelevant? Like it doesn't extend from "wealth is tied up in x" to "we should cartelize around x to push it above fundamental value."
All it takes to understand the relevance is the understanding that outcomes are coupled to incentives. You think it’s irrelevant to NIMBYism that people have incentives to protect their wealth? I…dont think many (any?) economists would agree with you.
To be generous so as not to think you just have a problem conceding a point, you seem hung up on the moral argument. I’m not making a moral argument. I’m explaining the how it is, and not making a claim about how it ought to be. FWIW I think it’s stupid that people have 70% of their wealth tied up in a non-liquid asset, but that’s the scenario we’re dealing with. People are incentivized to keep their wealth high, and especially home wealth because it gives them equity to borrow against. Likewise governments like having high property values because it gives them a larger tax base.
So there’s two salient aspects to the point: 1) people have a say in how they are governed in a democracy and 2) people/govts have economic incentives to protect their wealth/tax base. NIMBYism is the convergence of both. So which do you disagree with?
I agree that, insofar as local governments go, NIMBYism is the inevitable convergence of both, and if the story stops there, there's not too many scalable solutions. I guess my point is that NIMBYism need not be the convergence of both in the general case. In CA at least, forming a YIMBY coalition is (obviously) democratic and is formed in response to housing being 40% of CPI (so trying to increase aggregate wealth). The reforms need not cause nominal declines in housing prices! Merely stopping growth is enough to cause real declines.
