Economically, it's absolutely still just "supply and demand."

'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.

But if we're going to get a picture of the situation and possibly solve it, we have to go beyond economics. We have to go beyond treating anyone who doesn't reduce the complexity of the situation to 'econ 101' as someone who just 'doesn't get it'. That's plainly disingenuous and makes the discussion downright boring.

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.

> 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.

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.

It's not that allowing development is then reason that prices go up and cause people to be forced from their homes. It's that the developments themselves won't sufficiently increase the supply to the point that it would prevent the rise in housing costs, so they'd rather that development not get built at all because they have other, aesthetic or cultural objections in addition to that.

Again, complex interlocking factors. Not denial of economics.

You will find plenty of people who insist that replacing an old house with a new 8-story apartment building will somehow increase the price of housing.

>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.

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.

That's still supply and demand though. You're simply giving a reason that isn't government regulation for more buildings that aren't going up.

I'm confused.

> 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?