Hacker News Reader

Comment by underseacables | Hacker News Reader

So what's the answer, less federal intervention in the housing market, or more?

The answer is less but at the local level in the form of loosening zoning and other regulations in order to allow for the building of more and denser housing.

We have a housing shortage[0] plain and simple and NIMBY is holding back progress on the issue.

[0] https://econofact.org/the-housing-shortage-and-the-policies-...

Most housing market intervention is at the local level (where there needs to be much less). Federal government has several levers through which they can subsidize supply creation which they should use. At the local level people wll have to fight one by one to get things built

The answer is the former[1], but the policy will tend toward the latter.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Thomas Sowell[2]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Optional-Essays-Institution-P...

It’s possible for governments to lower housing costs in many ways. They just don’t want to.

If SF prevented any new office building from being constructed 20 years ago there would be less demand for housing locally. But the incentives didn’t line up that way. Cities need to provide schools when they build housing but office space is free of that obligation.

Similarly transport infrastructure is expensive and reduces the property taxes you collect locally.

Government is a load, never a driver.

To the extent the cart can spoof the horse, look for a downhill slope. Which will not go on forever. Once the potential energy is spent, the friction kicks in. QED all about you.

Building a bridge without tolls is more efficient than one with tolls. That’s one case where governments beat private enterprises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass

By which I mean: confuse not implementation with principle.

Fees discourage use when the costs are almost independent of use. E-ZPass also requires you to build and maintain infrastructure, do customer service, and enforce people who skip it etc.

A bridge without that overheard is unquestionably more efficient.

Governance is always a brake pedal, not an accelerator.

Friction stabilizes a system--at no point am I advocating anarchy--at the cost of gain.

When engineering, never lose sight of the trade-offs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com