The maximum it can increase the supply of housing is much less than 100%.
(Also, I realize now that’s not quite right because of the way percentages work: e.g. if the investor owned all the houses and left them vacant, then eliminating the investor and putting them back on the market would technically increase the supply ∞%. The more correct way would be to say it could increase back to 100% of what it was originally.)
The point is, the amount of housing that could be made available has an upper bound of the amount that the investors are keeping vacant, which is only some fraction of the total that currently exists. Meanwhile, allowing higher density could allow orders of magnitude more housing to be created.
I’m not! I keep explicitly telling you that your point is wrong: banning property hoarders changes more than just increasing the housing supply by the amount they’ve hoarded, it also reduces the price of housing - and your response to that is to repeat your point.
When presented with a counterargument you should respond to it, instead of just repeating your point over and over.
The effect on the price by banning property hoarders (which, as I’ve said multiple times in this thread, cannot exist in the long run anyway so the problem will eventually solve itself) is so much smaller than the effect of zoning reform increasing the supply as to be damn near negligible in comparison.
Y’all keep talking about marginal gains; I’m talking about transformative ones.
(which, as I’ve said multiple times in this thread, cannot exist in the long run anyway so the problem will eventually solve itself)
Sure, you’ve said it multiple times, but it’s still wrong. Unless you’re trying to argue that the law of supply and demand doesn’t hold for house prices (spoilers, it does!) it’s simply wrong.
The maximum it can increase the supply of housing is much less than 100%.
(Also, I realize now that’s not quite right because of the way percentages work: e.g. if the investor owned all the houses and left them vacant, then eliminating the investor and putting them back on the market would technically increase the supply ∞%. The more correct way would be to say it could increase back to 100% of what it was originally.)
The point is, the amount of housing that could be made available has an upper bound of the amount that the investors are keeping vacant, which is only some fraction of the total that currently exists. Meanwhile, allowing higher density could allow orders of magnitude more housing to be created.
Are you incapable of understanding that there is more to this discussion than just the supply of housing? Why do you keep ignoring my point?
Why do you keep ignoring mine?
I’m not! I keep explicitly telling you that your point is wrong: banning property hoarders changes more than just increasing the housing supply by the amount they’ve hoarded, it also reduces the price of housing - and your response to that is to repeat your point.
When presented with a counterargument you should respond to it, instead of just repeating your point over and over.
The effect on the price by banning property hoarders (which, as I’ve said multiple times in this thread, cannot exist in the long run anyway so the problem will eventually solve itself) is so much smaller than the effect of zoning reform increasing the supply as to be damn near negligible in comparison.
Y’all keep talking about marginal gains; I’m talking about transformative ones.
ooh boy… many of the issues of capitalism in the US stems from this outlook
Sure, you’ve said it multiple times, but it’s still wrong. Unless you’re trying to argue that the law of supply and demand doesn’t hold for house prices (spoilers, it does!) it’s simply wrong.