chat

7976 readers

57 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. (hexbear.net)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Opportunity costs," "wage-price spiral," "thinking at the margin," "gun and butter," "negative externality"... terms dreamt up by the utterly deranged. A fanatical cult of "economists" bribing puppet politicians into considering their religious orthodoxy a science. "Tell me how price controls would cause less people to be housed" YOU TELL ME. More people can afford housing so there would be more people with houses right? Is there an equation I have to write with an inverse of negative one? DEATH TO ECONOMICS.

In other news I have a C in Economics.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"Tell me how price controls would cause less people to be housed"

Bourgeois economics will tell you that setting a price ceiling below market value means it's less worthwhile to build new housing so there's less investment in it, which means demand doesn't keep up with supply.

Now, the issue with this in the reality we live in here in the USA, at least, is that, if given free license, real estate developers will build high-end luxury condos because they're the most profitable. YIMBYists will tell you this is fine because the wealthiest people will move into those condos, and less wealthy people will move into the newly vacated housing. Everyone "inherits" the housing a rung up, and everyone's living conditions are a little better. In reality, this process takes ages, and since demand is so high, it means that the new stock is snapped up by wealthy out-of-towners anyway, and a lot of the middle and lower tier is just straight out bought up by investment firms who would rent it out and suck up all the real estate capital for themselves.

This can be circumvented by public ownership. Here's a good write-up of Vienna's public housing situation. By owning the bulk of the housing and leaving it open to residents at a low cost, you can force developers to either match your prices, or cater to other niches like the wealthy, which, in a bourgeois economy, is honestly fine.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Does economics explain why we can’t just kill the developers and the rich people then have an abundance of housing?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

If you kill your employer you no longer have a job. And good luck finding someone who will hire you after that!