[megaman8]

It's an excellent point. As for housing, where does the extra wealth go? Nowhere. No one benefits when you lock up land that can't be used by anyone. Now you might argue that existing land owners benefit: but they actually don't. Because they're not moving and selling, they haven't realized any gain at all. If they sold but stay in the same area, there's no gain. And in states without the reprehensible prop 13, those in expensive housing will pay even higher property taxes.

We could literally print nearly free wealth, inflation free, if we just opened up land for development. It's a win win win.

[toomuchtodo]

> We could literally print nearly free wealth, inflation free, if we just opened up land for development. It's a win win win.

Doesn't neighboring real estate value decline as you put more capacity on the market? You can't print real estate wealth anymore than you can print dollars without consequence. At the end of the day, all of this "value" is trying to get dibs on the output of labor today (housing prices are usually tied to incomes, with some distorted market exceptions).

The more interesting question is: can you provide these basic necessities at such a low cost that you can drastically reduce the labor output required to enjoy them? What if you only had to work three days a week to meet your basic needs? What if healthcare inflation wasn't consuming wage increases as rapidly as it is?

[megaman8]

True, but the total wealth increases. Money is just a proxy for the things we want. the things we want are the actual wealth. When you can buy 50" LCD screen for 200$ instead of 700$, you've got more wealth, same for land: that's Progress.

[toomuchtodo]

> When you can buy 50" LCD screen for 200$ instead of 700$, you've got more wealth, same for land: that's Progress.

Great example! More to the point, total wealth is useless, just as GDP is useless as a measure of citizen wellness and happiness (US GDP was 18.57 trillion USD in 2016). It's the distribution that matters and where we're utterly failing. Your example is not progress when necessities inflation (housing, food, education, and healthcare) races ahead of other consumer expenses and incomes in general, unless one is expected to watch that 50" TV in a van down by the river.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/lookout/fed-official-heckle... (March 11, 2011)

> Reuters reports that New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley was heckled at a speech in Queens today when he suggested that the rising cost of food is offset by how cheap iPads are. "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said referring to Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) latest handheld tablet computer hitting stories on Friday. "You have to look at the prices of all things," he said. This prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience, with one audience member calling the comment "tone deaf." "I can't eat an iPad," another quipped.

[megaman8]

believe me, i find it equally frustrating that all the crap we don't need is getting cheaper and cheaper with more progress. And yet, the bare essentials of life which are so important, aren't making any progress at all: shelter and medical insurance, etc.

[randomdata]

Food has become substantially cheaper over time. I don't think that can be discounted as a bare essential.

Shelter and medical services have ballooned due to ever increasing regulation. That regulation may be necessary, but it unquestionably comes with a cost.

[nradov]

Shelter is more expensive because there are more people. Increased regulation is a minor factor.

[nradov]

Which land are you referring to? I certainly don't want our open spaces to be sold off to developers.