I would typically use “crosswalk” in preference to “pedestrian crossing”. The two terms are slightly different, but functionally equivalent. Is there something similar in German?
> IDK if it's a very socialist solution, provided that it aims to increase disposable income and savings
Socialism is a left-wing political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. [0]
Government ownership of housing, as opposed to private ownership, is unambiguously socialist policy, regardless of policy intentions.
> specially if you're smart enough to provide your tenants with supermarkets, bars, etc, which isn't difficult if you pack enough people and provide space for bussiness in the ground floors.
Here's the issue with central planning. How does the government know which services residents will find desirable? This difficulty is known as the local knowledge problem. I don't drink alcohol; why should I be forced to pay for a bar I don't use? And more importantly, why is the government encouraging an activity that causes the death of 140k Americans a year?
> Here's the issue with central planning. How does the government know which services residents will find desirable? I don't drink alcohol; why should my taxes pay for bars, which contribute to the death of >100k Americans a year? This difficulty is known as the local information problem.
I didn't say that government runs the bussiness. The public hoosuing buildings have space at ground level that is rented for businesses.
In many european contries you have supermarkets for the neighborhood in those spaces.
> I didn't say that government runs the bussiness. The public hoosuing buildings have space at ground level that is rented for businesses.
I misunderstood what you meant as to who would choose which services to provide. Completely agree with you about mixed zoning, it's really beneficial to have the businesses near residents.
If we're going to dismiss every quality and strategy of a country because of its moral crimes then everything about the US is worthless through the same path.
I don't think this is a useful way to approach any of these problems, and I'm sure neither do you, so why try to score cheap points this way.
> If we're going to dismiss every quality and strategy of a country because of its moral crimes
My primary intention wasn't to refer directly to the morality of the USSR. Economically speaking, the USSR was a disaster, so I'm skeptical that we should implement the policies that quite literally destroyed a nation.
But yes, the USSR was a murderous state led by men who were happy to kill tens of millions of people for personal gain. I find that morally reprehensible.
There’s a difference between being skeptical and being dismissive. You can be skeptical, but evaluate an idea by its merit Maybe it’s something that could be a good idea under the US economic conditions, maybe not.
> should be heavy state intervention on it, preferably by doing the same as Vienna, which is holding >40% of the renting stock and charging according to income
This is great policy if you want to make housing unaffordable. When supply is less than demand, prices go up. Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechanism from working, leaving a shortage of housing.
> Rent is the main detractor of disposable income which hurts the rest of the economy
I’m happy (perhaps not quite the right word…) to pay rent. I don’t want to own property. It’s a large, illiquid investment with high transaction fees, carry costs, and concentration risk. My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).
>Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices).
This is not reality though. Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.
The guardian today published an article showing:
>Average monthly rental payments were now 40% higher than they were 10 years ago, while typical mortgage payments for the same properties were up 13%.
Landlords and property owners are hiking the prices way beyond reasonable value, in some parts of the country rent is up by over 20% in the last year alone. By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
We do however have a situation where the average mortgage is about £900 per month, whereas the average rent has skyrocketed to £1600 per month (£1100 outside of London, £2200 in London). Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.
>My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).
Sure there is risk, but when you charge 30% more than you repay for the mortgage, while at the same time property prices rise 75% in 10 years, it's safe to say that the cash cow is being thoroughly milked for every last drop and as a result many people are suffering.
Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem. Homes are a fundamental, basic human need. Using them as an investment method, business model or means to hedge against inflation, is causing rampant speculation and quite honestly extorting people that have no other choice, exploiting vulnerable families that need a home. It should be an extremely tightly controlled market, with sufficient funding to ensure that quality & affordable housing is available for everyone.
> Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.
The housing in UK is in crisis because there have not been enough homes built. My rent has gone up too, but it's not because my landlord is greedy. The cost of maintaining the building has gone up thanks to inflation (plumbers/electricians/superintendent/etc.) all have to be paid higher wages. Replacing broken fixtures is more expensive. If the landlord has a floating rate mortgage, the cost of paying the mortgage went up. For commercial apartment rentals, those companies have debt that now needs to be rolled over at higher rates.
> By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
So is it a problem that they aren't building more or not? If we agree that more housing needs to be built, then the proper incentives must be in place. And a proper incentive may actually be as simple as eliminating a disincentive (e.g. 4 years of environmental review prior to the project's approval).
> Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.
It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US. That means the impact of rate hikes is more immediate on housing prices. And if available stock being down is a problem (which it is), the obvious solution is to produce more. Alternatively, I have a modest proposal [0] that would also solve the problem.
> Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem.
Risk is omnipresent. If I purchase property, I have all sorts of risk. My building may burn down. My neighborhood may become undesirable to live in. I might not be able to take a job in a new location. I tried to pick examples that aren't about investment. These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.
>The housing in UK is in crisis because there have not been enough homes built.
>So is it a problem that they aren't building more or not? If we agree that more housing needs to be built, then the proper incentives must be in place. And a proper incentive may actually be as simple as eliminating a disincentive (e.g. 4 years of environmental review prior to the project's approval).
And this is a part of why it should be administered by governments and not just let loose to market forces. Homes can't just be built wherever, whenever. It should be meticulously planned and integrated with various public services. There's no real financial incentive to build 100,000 houses in the middle of nowhere, it needs to have schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. A property developer would rather squash a bunch of apartments or buy some old stock, refit everything and charge a premium.
>It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US.
They actually suggested recently to offer multi-generational mortgages... That's how crazy the market is getting.
>These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.
Those are risks your landlord should have insurance for. In a world where property isn't such a commodity, those risks don't really have the same meaning or value.
We've largely left house building to the 'market forces' and it is failing us, that is the reality. What happened to the second largest construction firm in the UK? "The largest ever trading liquidation in the UK – which began in January 2018" - Carillion collapsed with £7 billion in liabilities.
"One of the UK's biggest landlords, owns over 1,000 properties, tried to ban 'coloured' people from renting because of the curry smell" - What happens to people that are 'undesirable' to landlords, they need a home too or should they simply be destitute or constantly bounced around the lowest standard of housing stock available?
Rent caps are probably not effective or radical enough to actually solve this crisis. I think if we really want to do something, it's going to hurt a lot of peoples 'net worth'.
> And this is a part of why it should be administered by governments and not just let loose to market forces... There's no real financial incentive to build 100,000 houses in the middle of nowhere
That's exactly what the Chinese government did, only at a larger scale. It hasn't worked out well.
> They actually suggested recently to offer multi-generational mortgages... That's how crazy the market is getting.
I saw that, it's absolutely wild.
> Those are risks your landlord should have insurance for. In a world where property isn't such a commodity, those risks don't really have the same meaning or value.
There are risks that can't be insured against. Suppose my employer relocates to another region, and I have the choice of following or finding a new job. If I own a house, I now have to sell it (incurring a 3-6% transaction cost and lots of headache). I can only sell it if there's a willing buyer, and there's no guarantee there will be any.
My rent is covering the building's mortgage, taxes, and maintenance, which I would be paying if I owned the property. It may be marginally higher than the cost of ownership, but I have a strong preference for flexibility. That flexibility is worth the liquidity premium to me.
> What happens to people that are 'undesirable' to landlords
In the US, there’s legislation that prohibits discrimination across a variety of protected classes (race, religion, sex, etc.) Does the UK have similar legislation? Putting aside ethics for a moment — discrimination is inefficient. It’s in everyone’s best interest to eliminate such behavior, whether through market forces or legislation.
You should have that flexibility. There should be enough housing stock that you can move to another city and not have to worry about struggling to find a place, arranging visits for them to be cancelled or leased before you can even view it. There are parts of the world where government rental housing schemes are extremely successful, it also typically caters for those that would be left with nothing if we didn't intervene with the market. Yes there are laws against discrimination, that landlord was overruled in high court. That does not stop it from happening, in many different forms - there is never ending prejudice and difficulty simply getting a home for young people, disabled, minority backgrounds, immigrants, welfare recipients. The landlords have all the power when it comes to deciding who they allow to rent, they do not have any obligation to tell you why you were refused. Even though the court says it's illegal for him not to rent to certain races, what is stopping him?
We live in a world where it is entirely feasible for every person to have good quality shelter, clean water, food and energy. For the most part, we allow market forces to control the access to goods and services. Wealth is being concentrated, property along with other vital services, are just another asset in the portfolio. It's missing humanity. We need homes, healthcare, water, food.. I think it's about time we prioritise this vs high profit, monetary gain, corporate excess and 'free markets' (they're never really free, always tipped in favour of the owners of capital).
It takes two parties to increase the price of a housing unit. If rents are up 20% that means people are willing to pay 20% more.
I don't know about the UK, but here in California, prices have skyrocketed, but so has the price of construction.
There are two reasons that has happened:
1) Shortage of construction workers. The ones that are here are either (well paid) first generation immigrants, make more than Silicon Valley windfall money because they speak fluent English and are competent, or are completely incompetent. We don't have enough of the first group, so be prepared to pay 2-3x the cost of materials to get anything done (with the second group acting as middle men, and the third group taking your money, only to have you pay someone else to fix it later).
2) Policies that discourage the building of new rental units:
2a) We have a vacant house on our property. A non-structural remodel for it would cost > $50K to get through permitting, and we're looking at >> $300 sq/ft for the actual remodel. If we did all that, we could either pay a special tax on vacation homes owned by individuals in unincorporated areas that the townies just passed (to help the housing crisis by somehow freeing up housing units in town, where the tax does not apply), or we could rent it out. If we rented it out to a problem tenant, we could literally never get rid of them (unless they decided to not pay rent, but even then, it's 5+ years of court battles). So the house stays vacant.
2b) We just built a house. It took almost a year to clear permitting, and $100K's of wasted nonsense work. Many developable plots in this area are purchased, planning bankrupts the new owners, and then they're sold to the next saps. According to the neighbors, getting permits to build a house around here in under 3 years is unheard of. The result? We have a house, but we are way, way, under water in terms of money put in vs. current valuation. At the lower valuations, the houses around here are not "affordable" by any means. However, if you look at what it would have cost us to develop this land anywhere else in the country, we would have paid way under market value.
Problem (1) could be fixed by encouraging contractors from out of the state to fly in to work here. Apparently, the state has erected licensing barriers to make this hard. I think a lot of money ($1B) is waiting to be taken off the table via arbitrage.
Problem (2) is consistently worsened by voters that think that capping housing costs, "protecting tenants" and other things that further constrict housing supply will somehow lower prices.
The easiest way out of this problem is (1) allow out-of-state firms to build housing and (2) fast-track all new housing permits, including financial liability if the planning commission creates unnecessary delays, unnecessary work, or approves / passes inspection on substandard work.
They should also replace the state wide mandate to reduce commuter miles (which is basically a mandate to increase congestion by tearing out roads) with a mandate to reduce the total carbon emissions per capita spent on transit (which would be a mandate to invest in public transit, bike lanes, and in reducing congestion).
None of those things are politically tenable, so I guess the millennials will just live in RVs or 4-to-a-bedroom until the voting population turns over.
There's good and bad regulation. Bureaucracy in the wrong place is a pain, but without crucial regulations I feel that private capital would be even more ruthless and we'd be left with badly built homes, in badly planned communities, lacking services and infrastructure, without much care for the environmental impact..
It's really hard to see a way out of this for me without extreme interference by government..
In practice badly built, badly planned, lacking infrastructure, etc. are just code phrases for being different from status quo and accommodating too many people. And it's nonsense that an urban apartment building could have an "environmental impact" offsetting the sprawl and vehicle-mileage costs of not building in cities.
Yet it isn't working in most european cities. Price increases and capital holders always build behind the offer/demand curve so they get a better yield from it. Also, rent is always high enough to milk as much as possible from modal income, as demand is pretty inelastic.
Also, read carefully, I don't want price control directly onto the private sector but the adminsitration controlling a big chunk of the offer.
It doesn't work like that, because not all property nor customer is even. A luxury apartment is not competing with a 2 bedroom public housing apartment. And there will be floating population, there will people moving in, there will be people with special needs that public housing doesn't cover, etc etc
Maybe such situation would actually push investors to be innovative with housing for once. If regulations allow that, of course, which is important too.
Question though... why, exactly does that have to be the case? Especially with something like housing where say there is mostly a fixed supply at any point and you can't just turn a machine on/off to produce more.
The only reason the prices go up is because of greed basically- because people say "hey I can just charge more and people will pay more!". And there in lies the bullshit of the free market once again. It always benefits the people with money, who can afford to pay that amount more "just to get what they want".
The last few years in particular have made me so tired of hearing about people talk about supply & demand like it is some unarguable hard scientific fact. It's not even close to that. It just represents how much people like to price gouge because "they can"
>Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechanism from working, leaving a shortage of housing.
And the following part of this is also just more bullshit. I'm not saying you are "wrong", but you say it as if that is how things have to work and there is no other alternative.
Every word of what you said is based on greed and squeezing the most you possibly can from people. Please realize that.
I largely agree, but if there is a scarce good (where there is less of it available than people want -- i.e. supply is less than demand) then we have to ration it /somehow/. The American way is by bidding up the price, so whoever is willing to pay the most money gets it. The Soviet way was by queuing, so whoever gets in line first gets it. We could also do it by lottery. We can come up with any number of schemes and most of them are "fairer" than market pricing, but they do all involve the "price" going up in some sense. Either you pay more in money, or in time, or in luck, but the price has increased because there are more people chasing the stuff than there is stuff to chase.
> Question though... why, exactly does that have to be the case? Especially with something like housing where say there is mostly a fixed supply at any point and you can't just turn a machine on/off to produce more.
Supply/demand is a basic tenet of economics. You can visualize the model with supply/demand graphs [0], which help make the model more intuitive.
The issue of the fixed supply is known as 'stickiness'. Most things in the economy lag policy, and data that we use to observe the economy also tends to lag. This is why it's really bad to have poorly designed policy; course correction is difficult, and people are hurt in the meantime.
> Every word of what you said is based on greed and squeezing the most you possibly can from people. Please realize that.
It could be fun to channel Gordon Gecko, but I disagree that this is about greed. I care about well designed economic policy because I care about people's well-being.
Well demand rising is an abstraction for relative balance between buyers and sellers of a good.
Say there’s one free apartment in NYC and two marginal buyers submit bids: Alice and Bob. If Alice offers $1000/month and Bob offers $1200/month, then Bob gets the lease. The marginal rent is $1200.
If another apartment is built then Alice leases it and the marginal rent is $1000. Similarly, if a new buyer Charlie enters the market and bids $1500 then $1500 is the marginal rent.
The number of people with apartments depends only on the number of apartments built. Which buyers get apartments depends on their relative ability to pay. The price depends on what the marginal apartment-buyer will pay. That is the lowest amount offered that still gets an apartment.
Scarcity really exists. Markets are one way of contending with scarcity; you could also use a lottery or a queue. But people who lose the lottery or get stuck in the queue are just as deprived as people who can't pay the market price. And there are exactly as many of them. Probably more, since there is no mechanism to bring more supply online when the queue is deep, while the market mechanism works to some extent, choked off as it is by government limits.
Fundamentally, the only way that more people can be satisfied with the housing they have access to is to produce more of the housing people want.
There is a machine... Of thousands of workers. If those people can't make more money, they have less incentive to recruit more and build more housing stock faster...
Such price signals are a basic element of the efficiency of the free market.
Activity guided by rational self-interest causes rapid improvement to the things that people value (_exchange_ value, not some other value for which people don't trade scarce things).
> Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock
Ahh yes, walking around in NY seeing building projects to increase the supply of housing in the 4th dimension where land is plentiful and the rivers are clean /s
There was just a pretty huge rezoning (with much NIMBY protest) of the Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn, close to Manhattan, which is currently mostly composed of empty lots and single-story warehouses/light manufacturing around the corner from desirable neighborhoods of $4m brownstones. Now developers will be allowed to build residential buildings up to 30 stories there. I live nearby and walking around in just the last few months the number of new projects starting has been kind of extraordinary. https://www.curbed.com/2021/11/brooklyn-gowanus-rezoning-dev...
> Ahh yes, walking around in NY seeing building projects to increase the supply of housing in the 4th dimension where land is plentiful and the rivers are clean /s
Have you tried obtaining building permits in NYC? My understanding is that it’s not easy. If you don’t allow builders to construct new housing then you won’t get new housing, regardless of price level.
Free market advocates always find the next culprit why the market can't deliver.
I can only speak of Berlin where land prices and construction prices have increased by demand so much, that new construction is coming in at 4x than 10 years ago (from 2k per sqm to 8k). I don't see how the market is really solving anything here.
> Free market advocates always find the next culprit why the market can't deliver.
I advocate for the free market because it's been the most reliable way of elevating humans from subsistence levels of consumption and improving their quality of life. It's been the driving force in elevating billions of people from poverty over recent decades. I'd wager that most people, free market advocates or otherwise, would consider that a good thing.
To be clear, there are cases where markets fail. In those cases, government intervention can actually produce more efficient outcomes. Consider the case of basic research. Private enterprises would have be foolish to pay for glowing worms and shrimp treadmills; there's just no clear payoff. But this seemingly silly research is critical to progress. For example, the research on glowing worms (GFP added to C. Elegans) ended up winning the Nobel Prize and is crucial for observing biological processes in living organisms.
> new construction is coming in at 4x than 10 years ago... I don't see how the market is really solving anything here.
It sounds like high prices incentivized builders to increase construction by 400% over 10 years? That seems like the price mechanism is driving an increase in housing supply, exactly as one would want when there's a shortage of housing.
As someone who once did basic research, I don't buy the government-funded basic research argument anymore. If we had negligible taxes, the hyper-rich would fund some basic research, and there would be some private research as well. It would not go away completely. People can cooperate without government. Why would anyone fund a church tithe voluntarily, since the market wouldn't predict such a thing? Yet people freely pay.
More importantly, try arguing that it is morally correct that a hard-working laborer ought to fund a Webb telescope by non-optional taxes, when he sees no direct value in it. Why even 1 penny? Because his betters in a grant agency know better what to do with the fruits of his labor than he does?
It was disgusting to witness Biden take a victory lap for the Webb telescope. It wasn't his money nor engineering and scientific effort, that's for certain.
Please, no utilitarian defenses of funding basic research by taxes. We need a moral defense. I don't see it at all. You can only defend it if you think people are too stupid to know their own interests.
> More importantly, try arguing that it is morally correct that a hard-working laborer ought to fund a Webb telescope by non-optional taxes, when he sees no direct value in it. Why even 1 penny? Because his betters in a grant agency know better what to do with the fruits of his labor than he does?
There is an optimal level of spending on basic research for society, and it's not 0. Was it a bad idea to launch unproven satellites into space in the 1970s? Your laborer didn't see the immediate benefit, but now that worker has GPS, which almost certainly improved the worker's life. In fact, the technologies enabled by GPS were unimaginable at the onset of the project. Should the project have been scrapped entirely?
It's impossible to say whether research will produce valuable results a priori. But it's not true that your laborer doesn't see benefit. The price we pay to live in organized society is taxation. Should that same laborer argue that he shouldn't pay taxes for highways built 400 miles away? Is it possible that this laborer may not know what's best 100% of the time?
It's obvious that in the absence of state funding there would be non-state funding. It won't be the same and it won't be zero. Why does the committee's judgement take precedent?
Also, some poorer people would pay to fund research in the absence of gov't funding. They actually already do, for disease research.
You can use utilitarian arguments to force people to do things that they otherwise would refuse. Isn't that a kissing cousin to indentured servitude?
Also, do you knot think I understand the riskiness of research? As if I haven't endured a few decades of poverty as a result?
> It's obvious that in the absence of state funding there would be non-state funding. It won't be the same and it won't be zero.
From an economic perspective, it's likely the level of funding would be less than the optimal level of funding. If the goal is to maximize public welfare, government funding is necessary.
> Why does the committee's judgement take precedent?
Ultimately someone needs to make decisions on resource allocation. Is a committee necessarily the best way? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not qualified to tell NIH how to operate.
> You can use utilitarian arguments to force people to do things that they otherwise would refuse
Agreed entirely, it's a very difficult issue to grapple with.
I'm a HUGE believer in reducing barriers to competition. I agree that high prices should lead to entrepreneurial increase of supply. However, I think it's massively, massively important to realize the successes of some planned economies. I'm not trying to use empty rhetoric in the following paragraph, I'm trying to identify the "free market"-iness of many of the most impactful "ways of elevating humans" in the past 500 years:
The "free market" did not establish the US interstate highway system and power grid, or lift 1.4 billion people in China out of poverty in a single generation. The free market did not establish railroads in the US (monopolistic robber-baron markets are not free markets). Free markets did not elevate Europeans from 1500-1950 (colonial slavery). Free markets did not sustain American agriculture for one hundred years after slavery was abolished (prison labor).
--------
The real point of this is: Maybe it's okay if we have a China-style or 1930-1950's USA-style planned economy to spark a domestic renaissance via:
- Massive housing initiative, starting with the base (bringing more people into trades, greatly expanding domestic material supply, and a fierce fight against NIMBY-ism). This will have to first cause a glut of material and labor, while keeping the excess labor happy (paid) and future material supply expanding (subsidies). Free market isn't great at pushing through local optimums...but cheaper supply should lead to increased utilization eventually!
- All new housing should be luxury. High efficiency, high comfort -- these will be what everyone is living in 20 years from now. It doesn't cost that much more to build but it makes a massive difference in QoL. Personally I dream of mid-rises and high-rises where people can practice tuba/piano/drums without bothering the surrounding units, or lift weights, or run a small woodshop. Have access to spaces where larger projects can be undertaken: DIY car repair, for example. This should greatly improve entrepreneurialism.
- Import/export/sales tax reform (regulatory compliance is incredibly hard and expensive, sales tax is super regressive and anti-entrepreneurial because it encourages vertical integration to avoid "sales" being taxed, VAT would be much more friendly to a true free market for niche value-adds to gain foothold).
- Massive education reform (pay teachers enough ($120k+) to have a surplus of expert labor migrate in from engineering / management / trades / science careers.
- Migrate manufacturing out of China and into disparate continents (South America, Africa, greater Asia). Domestic manufacturing would obviously be amazing but I think USA is too economically fragile to handle the increased costs of safety and environmental controls which the US people would rightly demand.
People are worried that if the housing market experiences a glut that people who saved all their money into their home as an investment will lose their retirement. However, I believe that as additional high-density units are built, the land those homeowners can sell will increase greatly in value -- because the house can be torn down and a mid-rise or skyscraper can be placed there instead, turning it from an unaffordable single-family "value" to a very affordable 10-50 family "value". That land would be worth way more if a midrise or highrise could be built on it.
The free market of WW2 paid for the interstate highway system? Every heavy industry was commandeered by the US government and strict salary controls were implemented by the government. Households had strict quotas for what they were allowed to purchase.
Or before that? When the civilian conservation corps employed huge amounts of Americans to build Mount Rushmore and the Hoover Dam?
The decades immediately leading up to the construction of the interstate highway USA was one of the least free our market has ever been.
That was a free market where the US was the last industrial power producing goods to be consumed by a completely destroyed world. If those are the circumstances you can provide as evidence the free market works as intended you may need something else
even in a "free" speech country like the USA. you would've been arrested for WrongThink / ThoughtCrime for putting out thoughts like this if this was 70 years ago.
Industrialization, constitutional democracy, science, regulation, and unions have raised standards of living for the majority of people. You forget history if you don't remember things like the Battle of Blair Mountain (first aerial bombardment on US soil) or the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, not to mention the incredible death and misery inflicted by that first capitalistic country Britain. The free market does not feel very free to the vast majority of people who have to deal with incredibly oppressive companies and plutocrats, and when laws and police are geared to oppressing the poor and the jobless.
Do not take me to advocate for centralized planning, but we do have to have democratic governmental intervention to prevent the free market from chewing us all up and spitting us out.
There’s plenty of land in nyc. There are areas of Manhattan that are entirely sub-5 story buildings. There are areas of queens that are mostly low density warehouses. Long Island City, which is more or less 2 stops on the train out of Manhattan, is extremely sparse.
Been this way in Vienna for many many decades and still it’s a very affordable city. So I dunno, I do believe this can go wrong if implemented incorrectly and has done in some cities, but it hasn’t here yet and looks fairly stable for the foreseeable too.
I think that’s more due to the relative attractiveness of the cities. London, NYC, Paris etc have become extremely expensive because they’re world cities, attracting huge amounts of people and jobs. That’s not really the case for Vienna, or Glasgow, or Riga etc
100 years ago there were 4 families in the now single apartment I live in. There was an extreme housing crisis and the current system started then as a direct response to that extreme overcrowding.
Bay Area could learn a lot from Vienna. Especially about building up.
Not sure exactly but the population has grown from 1.5 million in 2001 to 1.9 million in 2021
Some of that growth fit into existing stock but since the late 90s there has been a lot of new neighbourhoods built.
The city generally plans ahead, even building public transport like metro out before it is completely needed.
> Of course this does not work if building new housing is illegal, in which case you might as well have the rent control.
Or make it possible to build new housing. Rent control is a subsidy to existing residents to the detriment of people who would otherwise move to the area.
Why would housing become unaffordable if the state intervenes? The purpose is precisely to control affordability. Prices are controlled for social housing, and flexing supply allows you to influence the free market prices.
Supply is always less than demand in dense cities/countries, leaving it for the 'invisible hand' only ensures that the whole market is unaffordable and/or gentrified. Like what we are seeing in this news piece.
I don't know exactly how it works here in the Netherlands, but as far as I understand the government leases land to the constructors at its own pace, with strict quotas on social housing, to let vs to buy ratio, and free-market properties. It isn't perfect (massive bubble on the free market right now) but seems to work well enough.
>It isn't perfect (massive bubble on the free market right now) but seems to work well enough.
No it doesn't. We have massive wait lists for social housing, and being middle class arguably leaves you in a worse state due to social housing eligibility only applying to very low incomes, and anyone with an office job close to the city will easily earn too much for social housing, but not enough for private norms. Meanwhile those with social housing are incentivized to stay as the costs are far lower than private, and the repercussions are lacking.
The problem has been obvious for decades, yet the government felt zero incentive to do anything when it was possible. To top it off, there's a general reluctance to build due to emission limits. And our government is actively bending over to the farmers making things even worse.
The Netherlands is the perfect example of what not to do when trying to intervene.
This is what I remember when I lived in Utrecht a decade ago. It would only work for a subset of people. People who would get on the list for public housing once they moved there for college. And in some cases delay getting married so that their combined income wouldn't go over the threshold...
Utrecht is probably the worst offender of all. Huge demand, but most notably huge demand from people willing to work for low wages. I've noticed employers in Utrecht being extreme cheapskates despite the way higher CoL compared to even its immediate surroundings, and being a hub city in the heart of the country, far more pushing for hybrid.
I don't expect it to change either. Too many students still under the impression earning 2.5k-3.5k gross out of college is "great", despite that exact salary putting them in the uncanny valley of renting (no social housing, not enough too entice landlords). Unless you left your student time with a partner to share, which has become increasingly more rare.
> Supply is always less than demand in dense cities/countries, leaving it for the 'invisible hand' only ensures that the whole market is unaffordable and/or gentrified
Is that the case in Detroit? I’d wager there’s substantially more supply than demand.
> It isn't perfect (massive bubble right now) but seems to work well enough.
If there’s a massive bubble then it seems like that system didn’t control prices.
> If there’s a massive bubble then it seems like that system didn’t control prices.
The bubble mostly affects new home buyers, which are the ones who need the least protection.
Rent is inflation-adjusted and can't be raised at will, so there is a very long delay between market prices increasing and most tenants actually bearing the cost. Everyone living in social housing still has a home, and won't be evicted so that another person can come in to pay 2x the rent. Seems pretty good to me.
I don't know much about Detroit but it seems to demonstrate that the simple supply-demand model does not reflect reality. Prices should have dropped significantly, but instead it followed the same curve as the rest of the USA, with those $500 properties being a localized phenomenon.
> The bubble mostly affects new home buyers, which are the ones who need the least protection.
So now you (or more generally the government) get to decide who is more deserving of appropriately priced housing? Why do new home buyers need less protection?
> Rent is inflation-adjusted and can't be raised at will, so there is a very long delay between market prices increasing and most tenants actually bearing the cost.
This is precisely the problem with this policy. When price doesn’t feed through to the market, the market can’t adjust. People simultaneously argue that the free market doesn’t work while endorsing policies that prevent the market from working.
> it seems to demonstrate that the simple supply-demand model does not reflect reality
The population dropped from its peak by 1.2mm people. Prices subsequently fell so much that it was possible to buy houses for $500. That’s exactly what the supply/demand model would predict.
Those $500 homes are not inhabitable. As someone who was in Detroit less than 24 hours ago, I can tell you I was surprised at how expensive the housing was. Not that it was close to Bay Area prices, but I was expecting to see places I liked for 300-400k. The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.
> The reality is more like 600k for less than 2,000 square feet.
"In June 2022, Detroit home prices were up 32.3% compared to last year, selling for a median price of $99K. On average, homes in Detroit sell after 27 days on the market compared to 23 days last year. There were 463 homes sold in June this year, down from 512 last year."
You absolutely can get houses for 300-400K in Detroit. Where exactly were you looking at? Houses that you're describing are definitely possible in hot areas like Downtown and Downtown adjacent areas like Corktown, Indian Woods, and Midtown.
Agreed that you can find $300k houses (and cheaper). I was just surprised that the nicer areas were still pricy. I mean Indian Village, and the neighborhoods you mentioned, have some nice homes, but those neighborhoods feel like an oasis surrounded by areas that are dealing with very tough economic situations.
Again, I was just surprised at the price for places I liked. If I wanted to take a chance on a neighborhood that might turn around in the next few years I could find some deals (although a lot of those homes need a lot of work).
We're all very aware of how the economics should play out, but look around you, it's not working that way in a bunch of places. That's because houses are being used as investment vehicles, with rentals being thoroughly flogged because they know people have no choice but to pay. No amount of building will help if the value of the property is not intrinsically linked to the supply and demand of places to live for people who want to live there, but is instead linked or at least heavily influenced by what investors with increased buying capacity are willing to pay.
> No amount of building will help if the value of the property is not intrinsically linked to the supply and demand
Building new houses is intrinsically linked to supply. When you build a house, that increases the supply of housing. NIMBYs oppose new construction precisely to prevent the value of their properties from decreasing.
Sorry, of course that's correct. I was trying to articulate that the supply and demand, as a whole, is not currently a marketplace for people with housing to sell to those who want to be housed (in many places). It's a marketplace dominated by investors and landlords, and people who want to be housed are having to stretch their funds as far as they possibly can to keep up with the market currently being made by investors and landlords.
> people who want to be housed are having to stretch their funds as far as they possibly can to keep up with the market currently being made by investors and landlords.
I'm sympathetic to the difficulties people are facing right now, and I've seen the stories about housing being purchased by investors. The issue is that the data doesn't seem to indicate a structural change in ownership [0]. Home ownership appears to have peaked at 69.4% in 2004 and now sits at 65.4%, the same level as in 1980.
Unless of course your builders wise up and work together to produce the bare minimum of housing stock required in order to keep prices rising, as they don’t want to flood with stock and reduce demand.
Is housing unaffordable in Vienna? If so, your mechanism might explain it. If housing is not unaffordable in Vienna, your explanation seems likely to be missing something.
Housing is becoming unnafordable in Vienna again... because they didn't keep up with their program and now public offer is way behind of what should be.
Rents are already through the roof. If that hasn't incentivized builders to build enough housing to lower rents in places people want to live, why not go for the centralized solution?
CMV
The "let the free market take care of it; government intervention can only make it unaffordable" view is standing on extremely shaky legs today.
> The "let the free market take care of it; government intervention can only make it unaffordable" view is standing on extremely shaky legs today.
The term “NIMBY” is commonly used to describe people who prevent new construction of housing. They typically use legal maneuvers (like requiring years of environmental review) to do this. By allowing this to continue, government intervention supports unaffordable housing.
Yet somehow this doesn't seem to materialize in any meaningful way, the price of housing has only been going up exponentially and I'm sure builders are doing their best to build more but it's not getting any cheaper.
> Those price increases incentivize builders to increase the housing stock (which subsequently lowers prices). Capping prices prevents the price mechanism from working, leaving a shortage of housing.
The issue, empirically, is that (a) we don't see the right housing being built, and (b) we don't see quality housing being built. We see a lot of high-end luxury units being built, but what we need are more 1- and 2-bedroom units within 20 minutes (preferably, by affordable public transit) of where people work. We also see a lot of large (and therefore expensive) but cheaply built McMansions that'll be falling down in 20-40 years, so the long-term picture of the housing stock is not improved.
What we need is for the government to step in and build affordable housing as a floor at a controlled price ("commie blocks"). No one will be forced to live in one, of course, but they'll be an option; the rich can still buy property on the market if they're so inclined.
> My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).
If you own your house and control your geography (i.e., you'll never be forced to move due to economic inopportunity) then you have the truly risk-free position. Renters are at much higher risk (log transform, Kelly Criterion) than landlords, because real estate costs are such a high percentage of their
budgets.
The problem, of course, is that owning a house, while it gives you a zero beta to the housing market in theory, still does have the risks you described. For one thing, other people can do things that damage your house's value--both its subjective value as a place to live, and its objective market price--such as building highways and obstructing sun/view. The other issue is that, in today's hypercompetitive world where in decent employment every job search is national (and possibly international) it's impossible to control your geography... you could be laid off and forced to relocate to get your next position.
So, you're not wrong in general. I think it's a wise financial decision for a young person to keep renting one's place--as opposed to renting money to buy a place--but I also think it's inaccurate to imply that landlords are taking more risks than they really are. It really gets on my nerves when rich people and employers talk about how they're "taking all the risk" and therefore deserve more, when the truth is that the poor (involuntarily) take all the risk, because each $100 means so much more to them.
~ But luckily, a lot of suits on Wall Street are making tons of money forcing the global economy into this put-all-your-eggs-in-the-Chinese-manufacturing-basket strategy, so never mind any potential risks to the larger global economy outside Wall Street in the second or third decade of the twenty-first century; those suits on Wall Street are making tons of money and that's the main thing, so everything will be fine, right?
And sure, it was -- for a while. And for those suits on Wall Street, it probably still is: They've made their [m|b]illions. (Not sure what you mean by "risk assets", but I do know this: If they're really risks, you and I will probably be on the hook for them, rather than those suits on Wall Street.)
Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. -- Milton Friedman
> I doubt this is monetary inflation. It's price inflation due to a supply crunch brought on by the pandemic shutdowns
Take a look at M2 money supply [0]. Pumping huge amounts of fiscal stimulus into the global economy caused this. Inflation has been driven by poor policy decisions.
> Then throw in other factors like housing undersupply in developed countries
There has been a housing stock shortage for over a decade, that's not new, so it's hard to argue that's a proximate cause [1].
> continuing depletion of "easy" oil
There's plenty of oil available [2]. New technology (hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, etc.) allows for accessing reserves that were too expensive previously. There has been structural underinvestment in O&G thanks to misguided green/ESG policy.
> Chinese threats against Taiwan
How does this drive inflation? If anything, China has reduced inflationary pressures by decimating economic activity with Covid lockdowns.
> Gold tends to be (but is not guaranteed to be) a hedge against monetary inflation
Gold has been a great hedge against inflation in the long run. When measured in gold, a soldier today earns a similar salary to a Roman soldier 2000 years ago [3]. However, gold is not a good hedge against inflation in the short term. When inflation goes up, interest rates go up. When interest rates go up, the opportunity cost of owning gold increases. It should be noted that interest rates have steadily declined throughout history.
> However, much of this proposed capacity will not ultimately be built. Among a subset of queues for which data are available, only 23% of the projects seeking connection from 2000 to 2016 have subsequently been built. Completion percentages appear to be declining, and are even lower for wind and solar than other resources.
Projects not being built indicate the massive success of falling costs. Projects that fail to reduce cost enough to compete get cancelled, and the capital goes to others instead.
> You can say "x = 1 if expr else 2", but you cannot say "x = 1 if expr". You do a two line
This one liner works:
if expr: x = 1
> Or how about mutable default values in function paramters? That makes a lot of sense...
This can be helpful under certain circumstances (e.g. memoization) [1]. The linked article also points out that it can be useful for rebinding global names in optimized code.
But PEP8 and now the all-too-popular Black formatter disallow this. I think it's fine.
The momoization/optimization point is exactly the opposite of what should be a default use case for a beginner friendly language. And I highly doubt this mutable default design was intentional for these purposes. They are footguns.
Sorry I think I'm missing it, does that page explain somewhere how the 12 digits that are not set by the MII/IIN and check digit rules are not random ?
It says the first six digits are the IIN (and the first one of those is the MII).
So if you have fourteen digits, one of which is a check digit and up to six of which are non-random, that leaves only seven truly random digits per issuer, i.e. a pool of 10'000'000 (10^7) numbers rather than the 1'000'000'000'000 (10^12) possible numbers claimed elsewhere.
Of course the actual pool is different as the number of fixed digits seems to vary per issuer and for some it seems to be only one.
> It's a concept that fits nicely in the category of technical analysis, but not one that allows you to find any particular market insights.
It's useful for hedging risk
> The only broadly meaningful concept you can get out of anti correlation with the market would be bonds because interest rates increasing push down the estimated future cash flows of publicly traded companies, affecting their valuations.
This is wrong. Consider pair trading or long/short strategies, both of which rely on estimating correlations.
