When I talk about "rent control" I'm talking about it in the form of "general price controls" that keep the price of things from meeting supply on the demand curve. The controls in the party platform have everything to do with already subsidized housing that isn't actually on the demand curve anyway. The distinction is subtle but matters.
Similarly, a price-shock dampener that allows the underlying good to return to market rates in a reasonable amount of time is not messing with the demand curve, it's just a generalized safety measure, no different than a circuit breaker on a trading floor.
Again, rent controls and restrictive zoning laws both fall on the small-c conservative side of the spectrum, because both see stasis as a kind of natural order. The populists on the left are generally more aligned with small-c conservatives on the political spectrum, but again, the single-pole, right-left spectrum doesn't capture that distinction.
I don’t know about Washington State, but Oregon’s rent control is capped at 7% increases after inflation per year, which isn’t exactly stopping market forces.
Now, I agree with you that rent controls are bad, generally, but a system simply reasonably dampens real price increases, rather than eliminating them altogether is effectively a different kind of law. I don’t support it, but I think it’s reasonable.
That from one of the most progressive states in the nation. It’s not socialism.
Suffices to say, if we look at politics through a two party, first past the post framework, I still think small letter conservatism vs liberalism is the best frame, simply because it is vague enough to be used generally.
Again, "the left" is not a homogeneous entity. When talking about "the left" we should look at the left's coalition. We don't really have significant party platforms anymore, but I can assure you "rent control" would not get passed by the Democratic Party coalition in the House of Representatives right now, much less the Senate.
Associating a political coalition with their most extreme or noisy members is counterproductive. When looking for what a coalition stands for, it's better to look at the coalition member who are most productive with legislation in places they have control.
“Left” doesn’t mean socialism. In the long run, it comes out of the enlightenment period, quite literally.
Traditionally, the left is associated with small “L” liberalism, and the right is associated with small “C” conservatism.
Generally speaking, it has been a historic debate between whether the “natural” way things are is good and prudent (e.g., monarchs, religion, castes, roles, and norms), or if the way things are should be challenged to try something that seems better (e.g., liberté, égalité, fraternité).
When one of these ideas is successfully, it is often adopted by the right, when one fails, it is often abandoned by the left. Whether or not socialism is part of the left depends on whether folks on the left think it’s an idea worth trying. In America, right now, the vast majority are still quite hesitant to include it in their platform.
I mean, I understand what you're saying. I guess the main way I can explain it isn't in any idealized case, but in the transitional case.
I completely agree that people might not be looking for a solution in a discussion. My point is that transitioning from a place where there are plenty of people, having plenty of discussions, and ideas flow freely back and forth is normal and welcome. And then moving to a place where people have plenty of discussions, but more often than not, ideas flowing back and forth are treated with outright hostility...
I mean, for me, it was very obviously a completely jarring transition. It's not that there are times when solutions aren't welcome. It's that the vast majority of the time, with the vast majority of people, alternative paradigms aren't welcome.
People are allowed to care about what they care about, I think you're right there.
My only point is that, for me, if I'm discussing a subject where I'm exasperated and am complaining in a questioning way, say (to take a random example):
>Why are my local supervisors are advocating and incentivizing return to office!?! Having to go into the office is pointless and terrible!
Suppose this policy seems insane to me, and I can only suggest that it is happening because my local politicians are corrupt jerks who only care about corporate interests.
But, now, suppose that someone in the conversation is a municipal finance nerd and believes that since dangerous local budget deficits are being driven by work from home policies, that city finances and looming cuts to important services might be what is pushing the return to office mandates, not is something the politicians want, but as a kind of compromise.
So, for me personally, I very much want this person to suggest new paradigm as an alternative explanation. I many not be satisfied with the explanation, but it has more explanatory power than "the politicians are crazy" theory that I currently hold.
I have found, however, that a huge number of folks that would pose these questions aren't actually looking for an explanation, they are just trying to express their frustration, and seek reassurance that they are in good company and are being heard. If that's what people want, I'm now happy to oblige them. I just don't understand why they would want that from the conversation, but to each their own.
This article really resonates with me. During college and graduate school studying philosophy, picking apart someone's argument and pointing out the esoteric and nuanced ways which made it wrong was celebrated. The general attitude in my cohort was:
"I want to be wrong, because when I realize I'm wrong, I've become smarter."
This was probably the most intellectually fulfilling period of my life.
(Note here: some of the greatest moments were realizing when I was wrong in my criticism of an argument. It wasn’t about me “winning.” It was about collaboration)
After graduate school, I literally had to re-learn how to interact with people. No conversation was good faith. Everyone cared much more about the vibe of the conversation -- even when discussing highly nuanced political opinions suggesting they were genuinely curious for feedback -- more than they cared about having a coherent view on the topic.
I slowly realize that the best way forward was to have three interaction profiles with people. Generally there is the "I don't know you" profile, with all Dale Carnegie's rules fully in place. After that, there is the "we know each other" profile, where I would occasionally offer some probing questions on more or less uncontroversial topics to see whether or not good faith disagreement is allowed. And lastly there is the "we know and trust each other" profile, where I can actually have the open and honest real discussions with people that were so trivially normal in the philosophy department lounge.
Learning to do this was honestly one of the saddest and most disheartening things I've gone through in my life. It's genuinely stupid that we can't just talk to each other like adults.
If you think AI is built on copyright infringement, that's fine, and I somewhat agree with you. That's immaterial to the argument.
My point is that investment here -- "the outlay of money usually for income or profit" -- isn't just giving people stuff altruistically. Investors, here investing in AI, are trying to get a return on their investment.
Localized growth has nothing to do with total population.
These urban housing crises in every major western country have nothing to do with population growth and everything to do with population concentration.
We should expect this problem to accelerate during periods of population decline, because there will be even stronger economic incentives to move into concentrated population centers.
> It takes an awful lot of incentives to knock down a "usable" structure.
Yes, that’s the point. The policy only really changes things when prices become extreme, and the cost per unit of housing becomes completely detached from the cost of building that same unit.
This is trivially happening in much of San Francisco and New York City.
It’s self reinforcing. When demand is highest, building will be highest, and median unit size will increase more rapidly, allowing more building, allowing more units.
The pace is limited, but the URBAN output increases exponentially, which is exactly what we want.
Growth has to happen in the long run. We have the same zoning as we did before the people looking for housing were born.
We can have incremental changes, or we can have sudden change. It's going to happen predictably or with a ton of political conflict. The better solution is always to allow a self-reinforcing pressure release on housing. I've long said that everyone should be allow, by right, to expand their housing by 2x the median building unit within a half mile radius, by units, sqft, and height.
Suburban neighborhoods then slowly turn into duplexes over one generation, then row houses over another, then finally start building up after a third generation. Predictable, fair, and sustainable.
The idea that you need to be familiar with Hegel as a prerequisite means you’re looking at graduate level classes if we’re taking it seriously.