If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I’ll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I’m also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I’m all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it’s arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
I absolutely know what I’m talking about, and it isn’t “trickle down” b cause it doesn’t involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You don’t think that an increase in supply only for the wealthiest under the assumption that it will result in an increase in supply for those less wealthy is comparable to trickle down? It sounds pretty similar…
Also the expectation that even if it worked such an increase in housing stock at the very top wouldn’t result in an increase in the price of rentals seems naive. As much as rents the market will bear are dictated by what the owners charge their floor is dictated by the total cost of their expenses. Adding a new building with a new, expensive mortgage into the rental pool can’t push rents down unless it’s expenses are below some median or mean rent and that’s not true for rental units at the top.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of “trickle down economics” just means you shouldn’t use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.
If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I’ll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I’m also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I’m all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it’s arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
And I agree! Nice conversation
That’s just trickle down with housing. Except it doesn’t account for rent seeking.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I absolutely know what I’m talking about, and it isn’t “trickle down” b cause it doesn’t involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn’t mean what you think it means.
You don’t think that an increase in supply only for the wealthiest under the assumption that it will result in an increase in supply for those less wealthy is comparable to trickle down? It sounds pretty similar…
Also the expectation that even if it worked such an increase in housing stock at the very top wouldn’t result in an increase in the price of rentals seems naive. As much as rents the market will bear are dictated by what the owners charge their floor is dictated by the total cost of their expenses. Adding a new building with a new, expensive mortgage into the rental pool can’t push rents down unless it’s expenses are below some median or mean rent and that’s not true for rental units at the top.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of “trickle down economics” just means you shouldn’t use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.