[radboy]

I'm not going to say building new high density housing won't at some point affect prices in existing locations. It may. It may 5 years from now. It may 50 years from now. You want to badly to help those less fortunate? Build LOW income housing. Done. No waiting around for the free market to do its job (which by the way it has had a horrible time doing as of late).

Why not do both? Though vouchers work better than government building housing. As we have seen over and over. Even Alder Konkel was against the CDA building low income housing in the Allied area. Offering incentives to build low income housing usually works the best.

[TAsunder]

Well that's true that the basket of goods can be manipulated, but the general consensus of economics is that inflation is overstated by government. The reason has to do with quality increases. For example, the average computer costs about the same as it did five years ago... but how can you possible account for the vast increases in quality? How do you account for the fact that everybody can now go and buy cellphones and get the internet? You can't.

Electronics are not a good example. They advance much faster than most other products. Ever heard of Moore's law?

Similarly, the price of the typical cartridge razor blades used by people today are a bad example. Those prices seem to increase much more than any rational person would attribute to inflation.

What would really help your argument would be to provide real figures from real cities that demonstrate how increasing housing supply led to affordable housing.

[TAsunder]

I'm not going to say building new high density housing won't at some point affect prices in existing locations. It may. It may 5 years from now. It may 50 years from now. You want to badly to help those less fortunate? Build LOW income housing. Done. No waiting around for the free market to do its job (which by the way it has had a horrible time doing as of late).

Are people even discussing high density? It seems like an 18 unit apartment building is being discussed. That is far from high density.

[AlternativeVoice]

What would really help your argument would be to provide real figures from real cities that demonstrate how increasing housing supply led to affordable housing.

First of all, I don't need to "help" my argument. I have thousands of years of economics behind it. You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Increased supply decreases prices, period.

Besides, the stats you want don't exist. How do you define "affordable housing". Name a place where one can find stats with the quantity of "affordable housing" in a city. If you find it we can analyze stats. But you won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Everybody has a different definition of "affordable" or "low income" housing, which is one of many reasons why government always fails so awfully. Just look at the current credit crisis we're in to see a really obvious example of why big government always fails. Anytime government tries to fix one problem, they always create five new ones (such as how the biggest "reform" after the Enron crisis was one of the driving forces behind the meltdown with investment banks).

It's why our Constitution tried to prevent big government. Too bad the Constitution means nothing anymore to the political party running our country, our state, our county and our city.

[TAsunder]

What would really help your argument would be to provide real figures from real cities that demonstrate how increasing housing supply led to affordable housing.

First of all, I don't need to "help" my argument. I have thousands of years of economics behind it. You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Increased supply decreases prices, period.

Are you really dense or something? The issue is not whether supply decreases prices, but to what degree. You seem incapable of grasping this important distinction.

Find me someone with an economics degree who can decisively state that approving an 18 unit apartment complex would have any noticeable affect on the affordability of housing in a city.

You know what else is common sense? If I pick up a penny off the street, I have more money than If I didn't pick up the penny. However, picking up pennies off the street is not a viable way to save enough money for a ferrari.

[AlternativeVoice]

What would really help your argument would be to provide real figures from real cities that demonstrate how increasing housing supply led to affordable housing.

First of all, I don't need to "help" my argument. I have thousands of years of economics behind it. You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Increased supply decreases prices, period.

Are you really dense or something? The issue is not whether supply decreases prices, but to what degree. You seem incapable of grasping this important distinction.

Find me someone with an economics degree who can decisively state that approving an 18 unit apartment complex would have any noticeable affect on the affordability of housing in a city.

You know what else is common sense? If I pick up a penny off the street, I have more money than If I didn't pick up the penny. However, picking up pennies off the street is not a viable way to save enough money for a ferrari.

Define "noticeable affect" [sic].

Besides, the fact that any SINGLE HOME doesn't have a dramatic increase on prices is another silly and irrelevant argument. It would be like arguing that it's okay for police to randomly go around and shoot one person a day because, hey, it's only one person having their rights violated per day.

The fact is that this city needs THOUSANDS of new homes. Our government needs to stop being an oppressive nanny state, and needs to actually let the market find more of an equilibrium.

Who should determine what a neighborhood should look like? Who should decide how an area of the city should be developed?? Too many people think the answer is a committee of unelected political officers. No, the answer is that THE PEOPLE should have final say. If they want something then should pay for it and get it. No man has the right to tell his neighbor what to do with his home.

[O.J.]

First of all, I don't need to "help" my argument. I have thousands of years of economics behind it. You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Decreased prices decrease supply, period.

That's what I'm sayin'

[TAsunder]

Are you really dense or something? The issue is not whether supply decreases prices, but to what degree. You seem incapable of grasping this important distinction.

Find me someone with an economics degree who can decisively state that approving an 18 unit apartment complex would have any noticeable affect on the affordability of housing in a city.

You know what else is common sense? If I pick up a penny off the street, I have more money than If I didn't pick up the penny. However, picking up pennies off the street is not a viable way to save enough money for a ferrari.

Define "noticeable affect" [sic].

Besides, the fact that any SINGLE HOME doesn't have a dramatic increase on prices is another silly and irrelevant argument. It would be like arguing that it's okay for police to randomly go around and shoot one person a day because, hey, it's only one person having their rights violated per day.

That "silly and irrelevant argument" is the entire purpose of this thread. You are about 8 steps away from finally realizing what's going on in this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dramatic increase on prices" either. I suspect that is an entirely wrong word, instead of [sic], but maybe you can clarify.

But I'll indulge you. A cop shooting someone affects the populace of Madison significantly more than one housing unit being put up, so let's make it 359 units instead of 18. Take the case of Lucky apartments. Are apartment prices in the area reduced enough that people who couldn't afford to live downtown now can solely because of Lucky apartments? Not even close. It's going to take a substantial volume of housing for prices to be seriously impacted. Thousands of units is not going to be enough.

The fact is that this city needs THOUSANDS of new homes. Our government needs to stop being an oppressive nanny state, and needs to actually let the market find more of an equilibrium.

It's not nanny state economic intervention to try to preserve the character of a neighborhood. Nor is it oppressive.

Who should determine what a neighborhood should look like? The people elected to government to decide such matters.
Who should decide how an area of the city should be developed?? Too many people think the answer is a committee of unelected political officers. No, the answer is that THE PEOPLE should have final say. If they want something then should pay for it and get it. No man has the right to tell his neighbor what to do with his home.

No one cares about the guy's home. At issue is what he's doing with his land, which is not actually his home as far as I can tell.

If the owner of land could construct an 18 unit apartment building without affecting any other property or city-owned street in any way, then maybe he would have a right to sole control over his land. When that happens, let me know, I'll be the first to sign your petition.

[AlternativeVoice]

Are you really dense or something? The issue is not whether supply decreases prices, but to what degree. You seem incapable of grasping this important distinction.

Find me someone with an economics degree who can decisively state that approving an 18 unit apartment complex would have any noticeable affect on the affordability of housing in a city.

You know what else is common sense? If I pick up a penny off the street, I have more money than If I didn't pick up the penny. However, picking up pennies off the street is not a viable way to save enough money for a ferrari.

Define "noticeable affect" [sic].

Besides, the fact that any SINGLE HOME doesn't have a dramatic increase on prices is another silly and irrelevant argument. It would be like arguing that it's okay for police to randomly go around and shoot one person a day because, hey, it's only one person having their rights violated per day.

That "silly and irrelevant argument" is the entire purpose of this thread. You are about 8 steps away from finally realizing what's going on in this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dramatic increase on prices" either. I suspect that is an entirely wrong word, instead of [sic], but maybe you can clarify.

But I'll indulge you. A cop shooting someone affects the populace of Madison significantly more than one housing unit being put up, so let's make it 359 units instead of 18. Take the case of Lucky apartments. Are apartment prices in the area reduced enough that people who couldn't afford to live downtown now can solely because of Lucky apartments? Not even close. It's going to take a substantial volume of housing for prices to be seriously impacted. Thousands of units is not going to be enough.

The fact is that this city needs THOUSANDS of new homes. Our government needs to stop being an oppressive nanny state, and needs to actually let the market find more of an equilibrium.

It's not nanny state economic intervention to try to preserve the character of a neighborhood. Nor is it oppressive.

Who should determine what a neighborhood should look like? The people elected to government to decide such matters.
Who should decide how an area of the city should be developed?? Too many people think the answer is a committee of unelected political officers. No, the answer is that THE PEOPLE should have final say. If they want something then should pay for it and get it. No man has the right to tell his neighbor what to do with his home.

No one cares about the guy's home. At issue is what he's doing with his land, which is not actually his home as far as I can tell.

If the owner of land could construct an 18 unit apartment building without affecting any other property or city-owned street in any way, then maybe he would have a right to sole control over his land. When that happens, let me know, I'll be the first to sign your petition.

You're getting close here, you're only about three steps from finally grasping what is on with this thread.


Let's say that I employ somebody and need to cut costs and so I want to fire him. Firing him clearly hurts him in a number of ways. So should it be illegal for me to fire him? I mean, if something I do has a negative effect on somebody, should I not be allowed to do it??

You seem to be saying "yes." You are saying that anytime I do something that might affect somebody else that the government has the right to ban me from doing it?? You may not view that as "oppressive", because that's a subjective adjective, but most people who appreciate this nation find it appalling. It is antithetical to everything that this nation is supposed to be founded upon. If you want to live somewhere that people have no right to do anything that has consequences for anybody else, move to North Korea. Or Iran. Or keep voting the Dane Dems into power in Madison.


The fact is that the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution assures us the right to private property. If you have a government that can ban people from building on property that they paid for, then you have no private property. You have effectively repealed the Fourth Amendment.


The fact that increased supply lowers prices and helps the poorest among us is also true, of course. But that's what makes free markets great: If you want to follow our Constitution then you must support free markets. If you want to improve the economy you must support free markets. If you want to make things better for the poorest and least fortunate of us you must support the free market.

No matter what your motivation is, you must support free markets. Unless your main goal is political power, and focusing more power and wealth in the hands of a few well-connected elites. In which case the worst thing that can happen to you is for the people to force you to follow the Constitution. Freedom is anathema to Big Government.

[jjoyce]

Are you posting these from Davos, by any chance?

[AlternativeVoice]

Are you posting these from Davos, by any chance?

Yep.

[harrissimo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaeopola8eA

Jesus, does this guy ever shut up?

[harrissimo]

You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Decreased prices decrease supply, period.

You're a loud mouth moron. Haven't you ever heard of price elasticity of supply. Christ, not only are you a pain in the ass but you're just ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_supply

[AlternativeVoice]

You won't find anybody with an economics degree who would disagree. Decreased prices decrease supply, period.

You're a loud mouth moron. Haven't you ever heard of price elasticity of supply. Christ, not only are you a pain in the ass but you're just ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_supply

I think it's pretty funny how I constantly point out how you obsessively stalk me on these forums, and yet you still stalk me on all threads and launch petty personal attacks at me, even though it's never ever in response to anything I've said to you. It's really sad and pathetic. It's one thing to be stupid and closed minded. Heck, on these forums, people are a lot more pleasant to you if you're stupid and closed minded (assuming you're stupid and closed minded for the correct side, of course). But to combine those with this Single White Female obsession is... really pitiful.

I do feel bad for you. If there's some way I can help you, please don't hesitate to contact me.

[Brenda Konkel]

Here's the facts on the Dane County Housing Market for single family and condos - the supply and sales over the last few years. As well as the median prices. You can clearly see what the increase in supply is doing to the median price. Real. local. data.

http://brendakonkel.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... s-for.html