[travmatt]

You’re completely missing the point, the market pressures are broken by restrictive zoning laws which artificially restrict supply.

That’s why you have 6,580 people who are bidding on 95 affordably priced homes.

The fact that you have 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand, the problem preventing more supply coming on line to meet that demand is the zoning laws, again.

[xref]

> 70 people applying per home is what we’d call a signal that those homes are in demand

uh, well sure I mean there is probably a ton of demand for $100 4Runners too

[travmatt]

Car companies frequently introduce smaller and more affordable options when they notice strong sales in baseline models - Honda introduced the HRV because people wanted a cheaper CRV. The tone of your comment suggests you disbelieve my remark but then you made an analogy that supports my comment so I’m not really what point your point is?

Unless your idea is that companies shouldn’t take steps to meet demand and instead try to artificially restrict supply?

[candiodari]

That's one business model (e.g. Ferrari, Porsche, Lambourgini, Wedgewood, Breitling, ...), actually increasing supply is another (too many brands to name). I would argue that the brands that increase supply while lowering costs are the ones that do far more good in the world. But if you want to make money, certainly restricting supply can work.

Of course pretending you're one of the restricting supply businesses while in fact increasing supply (ie. Apple) beats both business models by an incredible margin.

And then there is the business model of enforcing your own position by having government goons (rules or actual goons) drive out the competition, which certainly restricts supply (Verizon/AT&T, Suez, Electrabel, Atos Worldline, Total, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Glencore, Gazprom, ING, AXA, BNP Paribas, ... and then there's this tiny little thing called "China")

There's certainly a place for all of these.