Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[Copelius]

I see what you did there.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I've bought 4 houses. I still couldn't explain to you what PMI is or how it works, and if I never have to learn it I'll die a happy man. So I am fairly economically illiterate.

But it's not like we're having a robust economics debate filled with experts here. It's a bunch of fairly intelligent people from varied walks of life. I'll share my opinions, just like every other non-economist here. If they're valid they'll survive the scrutiny.

Apologies if I've missed the presence of an economist here!

And me.

[Pelado]

You can pick up a nice house out in the countryside for as low as $30K.

Not sure they are still doing it, but recently they were paying high cash incentives for professionals to come to Japan to work (certain trades/specialties).

When you say "professionals" does that include certain professional musicians?

[tooblue]

Margins are driven by more than prices.

Sure: market demand, competition, materials and labour costs are all a factor which underly the point that reducing regulations does not result in homes magically being built and all supply needs being met. The state, or government, actually plays an arguably minor role in a very complex housing market. But I'm just a liberal arts grad so maybe that complexity is beyond me.

[Moliere]

I agree that narrowing wealth inequality isn't necessarily going to lead to increased production and more houses. I also don't necessarily believe that billionaires are a bad thing. And this isn't about scoring political points for the supposed economically illiterate

Simply removing government regulations won’t automatically result in more homes being built. Developers will only build if profit margins make it worthwhile. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that profit margins drive home construction If deregulation does not produce an increase in supply, property values remain high and largely out of reach for much of the population. Developers (billionaires for example) only build where and when profits are highest.

Margins are driven by more than prices.

[Shaka]

You can pick up a nice house out in the countryside for as low as $30K.

Not sure they are still doing it, but recently they were paying high cash incentives for professionals to come to Japan to work (certain trades/specialties).

I'm just a humble product/project manager with a tiny manufacturing company as a side hustle.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hmmm, maybe I'll have to figure out how to retire in Japan....

You can pick up a nice house out in the countryside for as low as $30K.

Not sure they are still doing it, but recently they were paying high cash incentives for professionals to come to Japan to work (certain trades/specialties).

[Shaka]

With the trajectory of the US birthrate, I guarantee you that the housing crisis will be solved in 1-2 decades. Just look at Japan if you want to see our future. Used to have the most expensive real estate in the world and now houses are dirt cheap and the second you buy one, it starts to depreciate.

Hmmm, maybe I'll have to figure out how to retire in Japan....

[Northwestcoug]

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

I see what you did there.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I've bought 4 houses. I still couldn't explain to you what PMI is or how it works, and if I never have to learn it I'll die a happy man. So I am fairly economically illiterate.

But it's not like we're having a robust economics debate filled with experts here. It's a bunch of fairly intelligent people from varied walks of life. I'll share my opinions, just like every other non-economist here. If they're valid they'll survive the scrutiny.

Apologies if I've missed the presence of an economist here!

[Jeff Lebowski]

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

With the trajectory of the US birthrate, I guarantee you that the housing crisis will be solved in 1-2 decades. Just look at Japan if you want to see our future. Used to have the most expensive real estate in the world and now houses are dirt cheap and the second you buy one, it starts to depreciate.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

We have a lot of billionaires in the USA because we have an efficient economic system and a lot of successful companies. Those companies create wealth and provide jobs for a lot of people.

This discussion me of people arguing that capitalism is bad for the environment. Really? Try traveling to a third-world country or any country with a history of authoritarian rule and let us know how that environment is doing. Economic vibrancy creates the conditions where you have the luxury to even think about preserving the environment.

[wally]

This reads pretty much like the countless articles on the economic anxiety of Trump voters in 2016. Both Mamdani and Trump are flawed, inadequate for the task, and representative of a desperate electorate looking for anything but a continuation of the status quo.

Agree. Also, if you look at the demographics and opinions of Gen Z, they are absolutely sick of the status quo and are willing to burn it all down and vote for fascism or communism as an alternative. Many aren't even loyal to one of those alternatives over the other, as long as the rich and powerful are simultaneously pulled down and summarily burned with the system.

[tooblue]

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

I agree that narrowing wealth inequality isn't necessarily going to lead to increased production and more houses. I also don't necessarily believe that billionaires are a bad thing. And this isn't about scoring political points for the supposed economically illiterate

Simply removing government regulations won’t automatically result in more homes being built. Developers will only build if profit margins make it worthwhile. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that profit margins drive home construction If deregulation does not produce an increase in supply, property values remain high and largely out of reach for much of the population. Developers (billionaires for example) only build where and when profits are highest.

[Moliere]

How much more condescending can you get? The dog whistle here is the word: envy. Good heavens ... it's purely a lack of supply! Well, who (or what) controls the supply. It's government regulation apparently!



It's interesting that in your entire response you failed to contend with the inconvenient truth that you can't have a Plutarch without Oligarchs. This is not a matter of branding. It's a matter of reality vs fantasy—the fantasy that if we just did away with the state and all its regulations we'd have all the supply we ever need. All while writing this on an internet message board that would not exist without ...

USUC is fairly correct though. Narrowing wealth inequality isn’t going to lead to increased production. You won’t magically have more new houses spring up that weren’t there before. Housing will just become more expensive as demand increases from the distributed wealth. It’s not like rich people are buying up all the Big Macs so that the poors can’t currently afford to eat.

Severe wealth inequality is a problem and the US isn’t trending in the best direction, but the presence of billionaires isn’t a bad thing and it’s not the main problem. But it’s an easy way to score political points and it is easy for people that are not economically literate to understand because it sounds right even though it’s wrong. This is why I’m never surprised when it’s people that are liberal arts majors, doctors, non-college-degrees hourly workers, etc. that push that narrative.

[tooblue]

You whine a lot.

I'm not the one whining about overreach lol

[tooblue]

“One of the problems when you become successful is that jealousy and envy inevitably follow. There are people—I categorize them as life’s losers—who get their sense of accomplishment and achievement from trying to stop others. As far as I’m concerned, if they had any real ability they wouldn’t be fighting me, they’d be doing something constructive themselves.”

—Donald J. Trump, "The Art of the Deal"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Says the person that bemoans overreach, despite the fact his ability to bemoan overreach in any form is in fact the result of ... what some could rightly consider "overreach."

You whine a lot.