> Amazing how the carrying capacity of every location just happens to be exactly the number of people who live there at this moment in time
Not so surprising at all if you've studied game theory and equilibrium pricing.
Not so surprising at all if you've studied game theory and equilibrium pricing.
Markets find prices, yes, but that's not applicable to what we're discussing. Maybe in some Georgist utopia we might have housing prices being priced purely at their utility.
But that's not the NIMBY complaint. The NIMBY complaint is that wherever they live is at the perfect balance where any more development would only make things worse. Game theory and equilibrium pricing have nothing to do with that because in our current regulatory system, land owners can extract rents by blocking new development.
Every time I post in this Dunning-Kruger tar pit I'm reminded of why I usually abstain.
Yes, you can change the rules to get more people into a place, but you are just looking at a different equilibrium number to be reached. And then people like you will complain it is still too low, and nothing really changes.