[kanbara]

is it so insane, in a world of disparity and outsized influence of CEOs and billionaires, where people cannot afford houses? maybe the insane thing was how for hundreds of years we let the rich dictate the rules as if they knew better for having taken advantage of others.

[talldatethrow]

People can absolutely afford houses. They can so easily afford houses that they buy them quickly, often for over asking.

If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford. Luckily so many people can afford houses in most areas they don't have to do that.

[sofixa]

You're confusing some entities, often private equity or similar corporations buying assets, often to rent, sometimes just to park, being able to buy, and the general public being able to afford to buy. In many desirable metro areas, you need two high incomes (two people in tech or lawyers or finance) to be able to afford to buy anything. What about everyone else?

[ffgjgf1]

> often private equity or similar corporations buying assets

What proportion of housing do they own? I would assume it’s pretty small if still significant.

[mjamesaustin]

Huge percentage nowadays. Lately private equity is making 30-40% of all single family home purchases in the US.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...

[throwaway4pp24]

Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? That sounds infeasible with so few of them. If there was more desirable metro areas, the prices of those few wouldn't be so high.

[timschmidt]

> Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area?

Jobs, mostly. Along with increased access to all the things people like, like food, other people, activities, etc.

[sofixa]

> Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area

Because if nothing else (and there is a lot of else) the tech/lawyer/finance folks want to have restaurants, shops, cinemas, street cleaners, utilities etc etc etc etc

[blackhawkC17]

Then they should be ready to pay higher rents for it, because everyone else also wants the same thing.

[makeitshine]

It has become out of reach for an increasing number of people all around the world. Look at the ratios of price to annual salaries and many have risen a lot.

US: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/home-price-income-ratio-re...

> If people couldn't afford houses, they would sit unsold until sellers lowered the price to a price someone could afford.

This is fundamentally not the case in much of China and Taiwan where the wealthy sit on empty homes for years or decades. The housing price in Taipei continues to climb while a large number of units sit vacant.

[superb_dev]

Some people, and a lot of private investment.

[talldatethrow]

Apparently there are more people with money than there are houses. So don't tell me people cant afford houses. Tell me that there are so few houses that they are overpriced or something, and only the top 25% can buy them.

[germandiago]

I see. And you keep looking at billionaires instead of regulations or the things that make it possible, like housing regulations (talking Europe now, Idk America well enough).

If you really set the market more free, you will automatically have more reasonably wealthy people bc of competition. When thede few billionaires exist due to governments favors we should think what is wrong with some people selling favors to others without providing services to others.

If you start regulation after regulation you create an elite of people and normal people suffering those regulations.

The elites are basically, in this setup, a collusion of sellers of favors (politicians favoring employers) and people who buy those to avoid competition and favor their business.

This is not possible by definition if you see that with bad eyes and watch out permanently.

However, people want more and more regulation bc there are always things that are "wrong" and eventually those things take you exactly to the outcomes you complain about right now. But you want more of it. Guess what you are going to have if you ask more of it: more of that.

There is a sentence from Javier Milei that I think is very correct regarding this matter: "the politician cannot sell you a favor he does not have for selling".

Think of it. We cannot reduce all problems to that sentece but there is a very big part of truth in it.

I recommend you to take a look at the profiles of billionaires there are around the world. Some are very different to others. But the more regulations you have in a country, especially the ones that did not develop first, the less wealth transfer you have and the more money stay in the same people's hands. This is something to think about very seriously: the path to derregulation is a better choice to keep things balanced.

If you choose the other way, no matter how good it looks to you, you will get what you are asking for. Basically, "The great taking". Look for that book if you do not know it yet.

[ffgjgf1]

Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation.

Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable.

And it’s not so much less vs more regulation, there are two axis and yes corrupt and inefficient governments tend to produce regulation that decrease competitiveness, productivity, fairness etc.

And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).

[AnthonyMouse]

> Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation.

There is no such thing as "without regulation". Nobody is suggesting a system in which murder is legal and the most powerful warlord gets a monopoly.

But there is a difference between "the government enforces contracts and anti-trust laws and prices major externalities" and "the government micromanages the economy and is captured by the incumbents".

So for example, a free market doesn't need zoning density restrictions. Their absence has no apparent mechanism that would lead to a monopoly. Therefore, a freer market in which the government has no power to impose zoning density restrictions is better than the current one in which that is possible and is consequently making housing unaffordable. Depriving the government of the authority to do that is a viable mechanism by which that form of corruption/inefficiency is avoided.

> And then you have industries which simply can’t be allowed to be privately owned unless there is extensive regulation (because free competition is almost impossible in those sectors): utilities, banking, transportation etc. sometimes even telecom (e.g. roaming fees in the EU).

But even in these industries the necessary regulation is narrow and should be directed to isolating the natural monopoly from any other offering, e.g. roads are a natural monopoly but vehicle manufacturing isn't, so the government provides roads but the private market provides cars.

Conversely, the US has last mile ISPs providing phone and TV service, which isn't adequately isolating the last mile and then we get regulatory capture and corruption. It's not obvious they should even be providing transit, rather than having an entity that narrowly maintains the fiber in the street and does nothing else.

You're certainly right that it isn't just a matter of "more regulation" or "less regulation", but it is a matter of removing many of the existing regulations because they specifically are the source of the high costs and market concentration.

[jltsiren]

"The government" is a fictional entity. In reality, it's just a bunch of people.

I think the real issue is that free markets and free speech are not really compatible. If people are allowed to express political opinions, some opinions will inevitably become popular. Sometimes that happens because people don't like the outcomes of the market. Then they try to change things by regulating the market. Repeat that often enough, and you get more and more regulations over time.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If people are allowed to express political opinions, some opinions will inevitably become popular. Sometimes that happens because people don't like the outcomes of the market. Then they try to change things by regulating the market. Repeat that often enough, and you get more and more regulations over time.

This is not caused by free speech, it's caused by an error in the way our system was designed.

The premise was that something should not become law unless it has widespread buy-in. So the federal government had limited, specifically enumerated powers and passing a law required a majority of the House, a majority (or filibuster-proof majority) in the Senate (which was meant to represent the states) and the signature of the President (or a veto-proof majority in the legislature).

But we de facto interpreted out the enumerated powers by reading the commerce clause so expansively, and Senators are no longer appointed by state legislators so the states have no representation at the federal level anymore, which took the brakes off what legislation could be passed. Which severely exacerbated the main defect:

We made it just as hard to repeal a law as to pass it. So we keep accumulating laws there is no longer widespread consensus to keep, because the corrupt influences who want the law only need to control all three bodies once and then the law is stuck for as long as they can maintain control of even one.

It should be easier to repeal a law than to pass it.

[jltsiren]

You are missing the point.

Free speech is also the freedom to change the rules. If something becomes popular in the marketplace for ideas, there is always a way of turning it into a law. The exact procedures and thresholds may vary, but the possibility always exists. Because laws and constitutions don't enforce themselves. People enforce them, and those people (or their replacements) may choose to enforce them in a different way.

You say that repealing laws should be easier than passing them. But maybe the opposite idea wins in the market. Then it will be easier to pass a new law than to repeal an existing law. Under free speech, all laws, constitutions, and rights are ultimately temporary opinions subject to the whims of the market.

[defrost]

Some would argue that the freest markets are regulated to prevent collusion, to ensure free and equal access to all relevant infomation, to penalise deliberate falsehoods, etc.

Certainly the OG Free Markets that inspired the first order Invisible Hand model were.

'free market' is such a nebulous term, bandied about en masse in forums where rarely is it questioned what specific type of free market a specific person might mean.

[germandiago]

It is not nebulous actually. We are just playing with ideas, and ideas lead to simplification. The idea of free market, in principle is lasseiz faire.

Of course most people do not propose that. My idea is that, as one spanish philosopher said (taken from Hume), that all law (derecho in spanish, not sure if it is exactly equivalent for the meaning in english, since the law tradition in Spain comes from Roman law), so take my translation with a warning. All law can be summarized in two premises:

    1. "property is not acquired or lost by violence or fraud"
    2. "Deals must be fullfilled. Whoever does not fullfill their deals shall compensate to the side fullfilling it."

The rest is not "law" as such. It is ruling, administration, and other things, but not "law". It is arbitrary in many ways, and I agree this is true for a lot of what we see. For example: there are regulations for safety that will make people die waiting a medication or someone not able to get some transport vehicle for short distances, just because it is forbidden. But you can always find a reason to regulate. OTOH, you regulate the choices and lives of others, do we really have the right to decide for others? I think that is a very paternalistic view of things. But not only that, it often promotes irresponsibility in action: since they regulate, they can be blamed, I do not need to decide. I have seen lots of that attitude at least in my country.

It also promotes more scarcity and leads towards oligopolistic setups. It is a complex topic, but I favor freedom and responsibility over regulation clearly, as long as you do not damage others. In fact, regulations do damage others but people often take them for their intentions and not for their results ... something that is a big shocking to me. It is like it gives them peace of mind even if the reality has nothing to do with the effect they are expecting or imagining.

The translation could be pretty bad, so I apologize for that. I just hope it is understandable.

[germandiago]

As such we must be very aware of your first sentence. It is really important that people understand that those who manage us are people like us with their own set of interests.

Some people think it is something like an overlord that takes the perfect, most fair decision and, on top of that, without room for mistakes.

Looking at the results I would say it does not respond to that premise at all.

[germandiago]

As such we must be very aware of your first sentence. It is really important that people understand that those who manage us are people like us with their own set of interests.

Some people think it is something like an overload that takes the perfect, most fair decision and, on top of that, without room for mistakes.

Looking at the results I would say it does not respond to that premise at all.

[germandiago]

> There is no such thing as "without regulation"

No need to take my words literally. I you will, favor natural right and yes, put a bit of something on top. But this is not happening clearly. There is a lot of subsidizing and regulation. They are giving, literally, prizes to people that do nothing and punishments to people that kill themselves working. On the way, they have been swapping incentives from working hard to not work.

This in itself is a problem. Currently I see democracies as giant clientele systems. I am not far from the truth at all I think, at least in the case of my country (Spain).

[germandiago]

> So for example, a free market doesn't need zoning density restrictions. Their absence has no apparent mechanism that would lead to a monopoly. Therefore, a freer market in which the government has no power to impose zoning density restrictions is better than the current one in which that is possible and is consequently making housing unaffordable. Depriving the government of the authority to do that is a viable mechanism by which that form of corruption/inefficiency is avoided.

This is so well expressed. I take it for the future. Concise and clear. This is exactly the kind of things that come to my mind.

[germandiago]

I jsut know that compare to 30-40 years ago we have been following this path of increasing regulations and the results are starting to be harmful.

However, some people ask for more of this, instead of less. It is curious when the solution to a problem is throwing more of the problem at it. If it was a transition period of some kind where the effects of some policies cannot be seen yet... but it is years and years and years. The result is high debt and collusion, or that is more of what I see around me, in all Europe. It is a chain of favors and they regulate more and more aspects of our lives, yet we are not better. We pay more, the services are not better either.

I think something is broken here and I am very aware that the result is not giving more control to regulators to even smash us more. It is quite the opposite: leave people alone. At least, this is my experience right now. I can assure that 25 years ago my country had much more balance in most areas and people were more free. I am almost 41 FWIW.

[sofixa]

Your whole premise is wrong. Billionaires (equivalent, obscenely rich people) predate regulations. As a matter of fact, both initial regulations on business and socialism, communism, syndicalism directly came as a result and backlash of abuse of rich owners.

Also, you're under the naive assumption that lacking regulations, companies will want to compete. Why wouldn't they just form oligopolies/monopolies? Either due to natural restrictions (e.g. competing in infrastructure is way too expensive, usually), or the richest company/private equity buying up all the competitors to have a free hand at abusing the market.

[daedrdev]

The housing crisis is caused by government policy voted in by locals who dont want their neibhorhoods ti change so block new housing that would lower prices. Which can just as easily happen in a Socialist country since I assume there is still democracy and people havent somehow changed to not be NIMBYS