> Wood is a renewable resource, it gets cut and replanted all_the_time. Pine is a 30 year cycle and our country is full of it. Can you tell me what restrictions you think are in place preventing tree farmers from growing and selling trees?
Young-growth, sustainably farmed pine is a very different product than the thick growth pine that older generations used for their furniture. I'm confident that sustainable pine is being grown anywhere someone thinks they can turn a profit buying the land and then growing pine. After all, MDF and OSB are originally made from the scraps of these young pine anyway. Sustainably grown pine is hard to grow and mostly comes from the Southern US these days. I urge you to try to grow your own sustainable pine farm if you disagree.
> You keep saying ideology. What ideology are you talking about specifically?
The ideology that it's profits/progress/some conspiracy which drives change causes inequitable distribution of resource.
> Trees are a crop just like any crop, they just have a much longer grow cycle.
Crops are complicated. They grow in certain climates, under certain growing conditions, at certain rates, in certain soils. There's physical realities we have to contend with with crops. They aren't an unlimited resource we plant and reap. Get too greedy and you get the Dust Bowl. They're even hard to regulate and subsidize without ill-effects, like America's glut of cheap corn thanks to farm subsidies.
> Chasing profits at the cost of quality is obvious everywhere you look, if you think it's not been happening I don't know what to tell you.
That's what I mean: ideology. It's "obvious everywhere you look". The flat-earthers say the same thing, along with the QAnon folks. "Trust your eyes not what the politicians say." These ideologies are seductively simple answers to complex questions. Whenever you dislike the quality of something, it's "chasing profits at the cost of quality." The explanation does not need to contend with different input goods, resource types, markets, or anything. No observations, other than personal dissatisfaction, are needed to make the conclusion stick.
> You contradict yourself. You said if you want quality wood furniture, buy antique.
In the past many people couldn't afford quality _new_ wooden furniture. They would buy used furniture. You can still do this now at Goodwill or any local thrift store or used furniture store. The difference now is that poorer folk can afford to buy low-quality new furniture instead of used furniture. The middle-class would save a bit and buy what we call "antique" today, restored pieces of old wooden furniture. The wealthier and some of the middle-class would save up to buy a few nice pieces and have a few heirlooms to lean on. I'm confident that if you spend a few years saving up, you can save up for antique furniture. If you're a highly-paid SV tech worker, I expect a few years of savings could let you pay for a cabinetmaker to make you furniture. The wealthiest, then as now, could commission what they want when they want it. If you're annoyed at progress, you can make the _same choices_ people used to make before progress. It's just that people don't make those choices anymore because other choices are available.
For most people Ikea furniture delivers what they need at a price they are comfortable with. It lasts long enough. If you don't move homes and are careful not to bump your furniture too often Ikea furniture can last decades. It took me decades to get rid of my Ikea furniture from college and I just sold it to someone else. But don't blame profits when the reality is differing market conditions resulting in different preferences.