[cyberax]

> ... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.

That perhaps you shouldn't assume that kindergarten-level theories always correctly describe complex markets?

> In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium.

So go on, do continue this line of thinking. You built more houses.... then what?

Feel free to refer to my explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47433743 - as usual, downvoted by people who can't face the truth.

[simianwords]

Your previous comment is misleading and incorrect.

Even then, I’m curious as to what point you were trying to make with the building roads thing.

Isn’t it a good thing that more roads are built even if induced demand is observed? More people are able to use the roads.

[cyberax]

Come on, think about it.

You got more people into the place. Now more employers move in, as they have access to a bigger pool of employees. What's next?

Put yourself into the shoes of a real estate developer.

[simianwords]

Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.

The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily. But the goal is to not reduce is permanently. The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.

[cyberax]

> Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.

No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.

That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble, while beautiful traditional houses decay into dust just 3-4 hours away.

> The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily.

Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).

Again, this is simple observable truth.

> The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.

Yeah. The goal is social engineering to force people into shoebox-sized apartments, to be ruled by their benevolent masters.

That's also why we're getting a global pushback against it.

[simianwords]

> No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.

This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.

>Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).

They did temporarily in Austin - 19% after accounting for inflation.

Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country. Even if the prices are really high, it reflects the economic activity of that city. Why would a house cost ~$800k if the person living there won't make multiples of it with their wages?

[cyberax]

> This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.

Forced (by economy) in-migration into cities is a net negative for the country with stable or shrinking populations. It leads to objectively worse quality of life for people (less living area per person and more financial stress).

> Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country.

Nope. Making a city like NYC is a recipe for disaster. Europe and the US are living through it right now. How do you think we got that kind of polarization?

When it's a zero-sum (since population is stable/declining) game, the losers are not going to take it lightly. They become an easy target for all kinds of populists.

[zozbot234]

> That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble

Are you really making an argument that rents in a place like Tokyo are not supported by real value creation? Are we supposed to all live in "beautiful, traditional" heritage houses? Those houses are often a luxury, and favored by the wealthy who can live with the resulting inconveniences. They're not a sustainable solution for the masses.