[jsnk]

I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism.

I think people with capital would love to develop housing in SF which would ease the housing problem in SF. In fact, people with capital really are the only people that may be able to solve the housing problem in SF. And the reason why they can't do this is the local government. How is this some sort of problem with capitalism?

[lostgame]

>> I fail to see how the housing issue in SF and the issue you mentioned in Orlando is related to capitalism.

Then I can only logically concede that you are either blind, or intentionally ignorant of the blindingly obvious correlation.

Whether it’s Disney and projects across the highway or something like skid row in a state with the largest collection of wealth in the country, it all boils down to the same ‘I’m comfortable and I don’t want to have to think about not being comfortable’ attitude that allows this country to have billionaires and do absolutely nothing to help these people.

Communism isn’t a perfect system, but fundamentally; it’s supposed to care about the individual in a way capitalism has shown it is fundamentally incapable of.

It seems we currently have no political system that seems to balance progress with the needs of the people - but this preposterous 1%-bullshit capitalist system is so destined to collapse that if it wasn’t for said 1% so desperately clinging onto it so they can maintain wealth and power, it would have long ago.

It’s only greed and selfishness that powers the current American political and economic system.

To say it’s ‘disturbing’ would be an extremely shameful understatement.

[loudmax]

People do what they can to prop up the value of the properties into which they've invested their capital. The last thing they want is competition in the property market, hence their support for local government rules to hinder development. This is capitalism shutting down the free market.

[dmix]

Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money?

Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism. If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy, because there will be more people excluded than benefit. The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.

[jjoonathan]

> Capitalism is when you exploit government policy to exclude others people from a market, in order to make more money?

Yes. Markets incentivize anticompetitive behavior.

Government policy is far from the only way to exclude others from the market, so you'll want to pursue other strategies as well: dumping to destroy small competitors, merging to incorporate them, deals with peers to avoid competing head-on, etc. In theory these are all illegal, but in practice they are commonplace, so don't neglect them.

> Being incentivized to make money is not all it takes to make it capitalism.

No, but strong property rights and perpetual private ownership of land are very much capitalism things, as is tilting the power equation away from "people" and towards "owners." In theory this incentivizes good stewardship and investment, but in practice it also incentivizes cornering the market.

> If the policy is a net-negative for the market as a whole then the market will work to get rid of the policy

Why on earth would you think that? "Monopolize resource, drive up scarcity, profit" is a quintessential capitalist hustle. It leverages the same machinery used to incentivize types of investment that are actually productive, but it's a lot easier than being actually productive. You just have to get in early.

> The only reason it would stick around is if there are motivations excluding capital/market aspects, such as equity, altruism, and social good.

Lol, so homeowners who don't want to see their property values tank have nothing to do with the problem? NIMBYs are just a bunch of misguided altruistic do-gooders who need to be persuaded of the merits in free market capitalism?

My sides.

[MichaelZuo]

Certain markets in the US may incentivize anticompetitive behaviour to a sufficient degree to cause such problems.

Though that’s only for dynamics in the domestic market. In the global market such behaviour simply weakens the position of the US overall and thus the global market self corrects, eventually. Typically this is done by the global markets via boosting another rising country or bloc to displace the position of the countries with less competitive markets.

Of course this is a very long term process that could take centuries, but there was never a guarantee that market forces would resolve itself within a single human lifespan.

[peyton]

Capitalism concerns who owns the means of production. I think you’re confused.

[wizofaus]

Its textbook definition and how it actually manifests itself in reality are never going to be the same thing. The GP had an issue with a particular "breed of capitalism". Capitalism is an ideal just as much as socialism, and humans aren't great at living up to ideals. "Particular breeds" are all we are ever going to have - our best bet is likely to fix the "breed" rather than attempt to replace the system entirely. Social democracies that can harness the wealth-growing capabilities of capitalism tempered with a degree of socialism so everyone gets to enjoy the benefits seem to work pretty well in much of the developed world.

[erik_seaberg]

Capitalism rewards effective producers by routing capital for them to expand. When consumers conspire to force producer shutdowns, the problem is politics rather than capitalism.

[wizofaus]

Except that those consumers are doing so because they believe it's the best way to expand (or at least protect) their capital. Such a position wouldn't make any sense in a non-capitalist economy, so at least part of the problem is how to actually ensure capitalism works effectively given human nature.

[jjoonathan]

Every single land owner in SF, big and small, knows that a huge chunk of their net worth is directly due to the housing crisis and will do anything to avoid seeing that wealth evaporate.

That's what it has to do with capitalism.