They do but the cardinal directionality has been down and to the right.
> Japan has an aging, declining population with essentially no immigration. Of course their housing prices have been essentially flat, they're experiencing a decline in household formation.
Totally! What you're describing there is the equilibrium of supply and demand. In their case, demand went down. In our case, demand is going up and we're refusing to add supply. It's the same thing. Or at least, two sides of the same coin. We're both arguing that housing prices are fundamentally - primarily - driven by supply and demand of housing, not supply of money.
> I don't disagree about zoning playing a part, but again, this is something the US President has little control over. Yes, he should probably be using the bully pulpit to support building more affordable housing, but it's not something that's going to result in a quick reduction of inflation.
This is where we disagree! We should federalize zoning rules yesterday. The federal government has the right to do this, for instance Chicago residents ability to install satellite dishes is already governed by federal law. [1] Time to stop obstructionist city councils from the top and maximize the freedom of individuals to build housing as they see fit.
High inflation caused in large part by many years of increasing deficit spending does not make me think 'federalize zoning'. Land and building is local. People can be involved in local politics where they have some influence. One size does not fit all.
Removing house finance interest tax deduction would help reduce speculation and reduce prices.
Im sure it doesn't make you think that - but the deficit spending is a red herring, and the local zoning causing housing to go up exponentially is the real issue here. One of many. Deficit spending is an investment, you're looking at the liabilities without looking at the assets purchased. That's half the puzzle.
'... 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people. '
Western USA has large land tracts owned by federal forest service and BLM. Maybe you could advocate for feds changing their zoning to allow house building?
Not all investment is good, but finding a few bad investments doesn't make all investments bad, obviously.
I already advocate for zoning reform at all levels including federalizing the zoning rules to preclude obstinate city councils from banning the desperately needed development within towns.
Large tracts of forest are kind of useless if your job is in a city and the city council won't let you build a house to live near it lol. "If you want houses so bad why don't you build them in a forest well away from anything" is among the worst arguments I've ever heard.
> They do but the cardinal directionality has been down and to the right.
You expected that to last forever?
> driven by supply and demand of housing, not supply of money.
Yes, it's driven by supply and demand, but easy money means more demand than there would be with higher interest rates and tighter monetary policy.
> We should federalize zoning rules yesterday. The federal government has the right to do this, for instance Chicago residents ability to install satellite dishes
I suspect this Chicago instance has more to do with FCC than anything else. Federalizing zoning would likely be an uphill battle that would go to the SCOTUS and I'm going to guess with the current composition they won't look favorably on that.
Ok but more demand for housing plus more supply means an amazing economic growth opportunity right? Nerfing supply means keeping ourselves from it. This is why low interest rates are good - the stimulate development!
And yes I see little appetite for federalizing zoning however it’s both an option with precedent and would actually help unlikely raising interest rates :)
They do but the cardinal directionality has been down and to the right.
> Japan has an aging, declining population with essentially no immigration. Of course their housing prices have been essentially flat, they're experiencing a decline in household formation.
Totally! What you're describing there is the equilibrium of supply and demand. In their case, demand went down. In our case, demand is going up and we're refusing to add supply. It's the same thing. Or at least, two sides of the same coin. We're both arguing that housing prices are fundamentally - primarily - driven by supply and demand of housing, not supply of money.
> I don't disagree about zoning playing a part, but again, this is something the US President has little control over. Yes, he should probably be using the bully pulpit to support building more affordable housing, but it's not something that's going to result in a quick reduction of inflation.
This is where we disagree! We should federalize zoning rules yesterday. The federal government has the right to do this, for instance Chicago residents ability to install satellite dishes is already governed by federal law. [1] Time to stop obstructionist city councils from the top and maximize the freedom of individuals to build housing as they see fit.
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-03-06-050306...