It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked.
This is not about supply and demand. The politicians who deal with land-use regulation didn't "fail econ 101" as the assertion usually goes.
The fact is, we are dealing with many different groups of people whose interests cannot be sufficiently explained by economics. It's more abstract than that.
So let's please stop repeat "it's just simple supply and demand" like it somehow illuminates the issue to a degree not previously seen.
'narrator provides a solid explanation of why there's not political interest in balancing supply and demand at a lower price. Even if the politics is complicated, it's still a textbook case of government regulation limiting supply.
There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price.
Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
Look in this very thread and you will find people who insist that allowing development would somehow cause prices to rise and for people to be forced out of their homes.
Again, complex interlocking factors. Not denial of economics.
Based on your previous comment, you seemed to be doing exactly what you say nobody on this board does.
>Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
And narrator went into those political/human conditions, yet you reduced his comment to a "supply demand checkbox." Though you found his comment disingenuous, it seems that you are not bothering to read his comment; and the only thing you've provided to the conversation is: it's supply/demand plus other interlocking conditions.
> It's the person who refuses to let the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme go unchecked.
So the parent poster wants to debunk the 'it's simple supply and demand' meme?
> This is not about supply and demand.
So you're disagreeing with the parent poster, and saying that it's not about supply and demand, and thus implying that the parent poster said it's about supply and demand?
Well, which one is it?
http://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-...
This is exactly what "drawbridge mentality" means.
Then they can do something that will make everyone happy: tax the crap out of the companies that bring in the flood of money, and make them leave. Limited development and lower prices. Everyone wins!
with climate change, oregon and colorado will be just like california in 10 years anyway! as for texas and its droughts and carpetbaggers... well, it'll be even more california than california.
The thing about California is that people who live in the nicer parts of California are not trying to get anywhere. They are not trying to get richer, they are not trying to work hard to get somewhere else, they've made it. They don't need opportunity that comes with growth. They like their lifestyle, their open spaces and their prop 13 and they're going to keep it that way. Right now, there are huge amounts of very valuable land that are owned by open space trusts that will never be developed even though they are collectively worth billions. The point I'm trying to make is that, especially for people who live well in Northern and Southern California, there are some things that are more important than making another hundred million dollars and limiting development is one of them.