> We could literally print nearly free wealth, inflation free, if we just opened up land for development. It's a win win win.
Doesn't neighboring real estate value decline as you put more capacity on the market? You can't print real estate wealth anymore than you can print dollars without consequence. At the end of the day, all of this "value" is trying to get dibs on the output of labor today (housing prices are usually tied to incomes, with some distorted market exceptions).
The more interesting question is: can you provide these basic necessities at such a low cost that you can drastically reduce the labor output required to enjoy them? What if you only had to work three days a week to meet your basic needs? What if healthcare inflation wasn't consuming wage increases as rapidly as it is?
True, but the total wealth increases. Money is just a proxy for the things we want. the things we want are the actual wealth. When you can buy 50" LCD screen for 200$ instead of 700$, you've got more wealth, same for land: that's Progress.
> When you can buy 50" LCD screen for 200$ instead of 700$, you've got more wealth, same for land: that's Progress.
Great example! More to the point, total wealth is useless, just as GDP is useless as a measure of citizen wellness and happiness (US GDP was 18.57 trillion USD in 2016). It's the distribution that matters and where we're utterly failing. Your example is not progress when necessities inflation (housing, food, education, and healthcare) races ahead of other consumer expenses and incomes in general, unless one is expected to watch that 50" TV in a van down by the river.
> Reuters reports that New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley was heckled at a speech in Queens today when he suggested that the rising cost of food is offset by how cheap iPads are. "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said referring to Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) latest handheld tablet computer hitting stories on Friday. "You have to look at the prices of all things," he said. This prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience, with one audience member calling the comment "tone deaf." "I can't eat an iPad," another quipped.
believe me, i find it equally frustrating that all the crap we don't need is getting cheaper and cheaper with more progress. And yet, the bare essentials of life which are so important, aren't making any progress at all: shelter and medical insurance, etc.
Food has become substantially cheaper over time. I don't think that can be discounted as a bare essential.
Shelter and medical services have ballooned due to ever increasing regulation. That regulation may be necessary, but it unquestionably comes with a cost.
I disagree. Shelter is only bound by what it costs to build a new shelter. This is where regulation has had a dramatic impact over time. Nobody would ever allow you to build a pioneer log cabin as a primary dwelling these days, even though the costs would be minimal to erect such a structure. There are very strict standards that must be adhered to in order to build shelter now.
Land is also necessary on which to build said shelter, but vacant lots in rural areas can be had quite cheaply. Lots of places where an acre, which is more than plenty to build shelter on, won't fetch much of anything dollar wise. That is, where regulation allows you to actually buy a small lot in a rural area from the surrounding landowner. Regulation often makes doing that very difficult.
The problem, at least not in a huge country like the USA, isn't population. There is incredible amounts of unused space ripe for housing someone. The problem is being able to build shelters for those people without getting caught up in red tape.
Log cabins are perfectly legal as residences in many areas provided they're up to code. Drive around any ski area and see. You can even buy them in kit form.
Hardly anyone wants to live in rural areas where land is cheap because there are no good jobs or services nearby. In desirable areas, land acquisition costs are far higher than construction costs. Regulation has little to do with it, although in some areas zoning laws that limit density are a factor.
There is a pretty large chasm between a log cabin that is up to code and a pioneer home. And the cost to build reflects that.
Desirable areas are expensive because regulation has allowed some people to make vast fortunes, allowing them to spend almost limitlessly on living in those desirable area.
Tech is the prime example of that. Without regulation like that which surrounds intellectual property, software would be quite literally worthless.
Doesn't neighboring real estate value decline as you put more capacity on the market? You can't print real estate wealth anymore than you can print dollars without consequence. At the end of the day, all of this "value" is trying to get dibs on the output of labor today (housing prices are usually tied to incomes, with some distorted market exceptions).
The more interesting question is: can you provide these basic necessities at such a low cost that you can drastically reduce the labor output required to enjoy them? What if you only had to work three days a week to meet your basic needs? What if healthcare inflation wasn't consuming wage increases as rapidly as it is?