>maybe what you consider an ideal world or even positive outcomes or even onerous regulations are not what others have in mind, what with your "dark views of humanity" and all?

Many people (dare I say the overwhelming majority) on HN agrees that real estate needs a heck of a lot less regulation so supply can do better meeting demand and costs can drop.

We may argue about the minutia but pretty much everyone on HN also agrees that medical (in the US) is nowhere near a free market and substantial de-regulation (so the "race to the bottom" can control costs) and/or (but probably "and") a government option (to provide a cost and quality controlled baseline of care) could/would improve the situation.

"Ideal" or not a heck of a lot of people believe that deregulation (within reason) of some/all of the things you listed as free market failures would result in a large improvement from the status quo.

>hmmm you elsewhere, on a topic about the harrowing conditions of FB moderators, claim that "there's a lot of variance between individuals ... I'm not the kind of person that's particularly bothered by graphic violence. My opinion of humanity is dark enough to accommodate it"

How is my opinion of a particular workplace at all relevant to a macroeconomic discussion?

If you think you can "win" an argument by saying "hurr durr, this guy I'm arguing with has opinions other people don't like" then you are sorely wrong. That is how Reddit works but thankfully HN has still not stopped that low and FYI the comment below the one you linked where I expanded on and clarified my point is highly up-voted. ;)

>cause it sounds to me like you deeply believe in naturalistic hierarchies

I'm not sure I'd say that. It greatly depends on the issue but regardless, what is wrong with that?

Real estate is most efficient when it's managed in the public sector. The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes.

Free markets tend towards a land-owning aristocracy and peasant renters being charged what the market will bear.

I'm not suggesting any particular course of action. I know of no way to move real estate into the public sector without the short-term transient driving the economy into the stone age. But if one were starting form scratch, that's definitely the way to go. It's more economically efficient and more equitable.

It's actually less about the houses on the land as about the land itself, but it's hard to decouple the two. Rent-collecting resources work best as a public good.

Private sector+heavy regulation isn't a mid-point between private and public. In many cases, including real estate and medicine, it's less efficient than either extreme.

>The government owns all or most of the land, and provides everyone with free housing from taxes.

I for one don't enjoy soviet apartment blocks.

Have you ever lived in one? The architecture wasn't pretty, but thy have a lot of upsides too: Everyone has enough space for a family. There's a real sense of community. There's plenty of green space and playgrounds. They're also super-sturdy.

I have to admit that I really prefer soviet apartment blocks to, for example:

* massive cramming of housemates in London, New York, San Francisco, or similar areas with rent going to a landed gentry

* to being saddled with mortgage debt which takes half of my post-tax income, with that going to a financial system

* to living outside of economically-viable areas, where cheap housing might be found, but where I have a lousy job

or many of the other pathologies of the current market. The capitalist model works just fine when land is cheap or free, as it was for most of America's history. Once it's about inherited land ownership and collecting rents, it breaks down.

However, in a democracy with public housing, you'd likely end up with something much nicer than soviet-style apartment blocks. Compare British health care to soviet health care.

Interestingly, I've come to the opposite conclusion. More regulation is the only answer to many of these problems.

It would help if there wasn't a party trying to self-destruct our country every time they get power.

A hint as to how that happened: Regulation isn't about more or less, so much as about good regulation versus bad regulation.

True, good regulation is what is necessary. We need to get rid of the notion that the government never does anything right. It's simply not true and it's harmful.

Well, we have two notions:

1) Government can't do anything right, and we need no regulation.

2) Capitalism will f-k people over without regulation, and we need maximum regulation.

Neither is true. Markets work pretty well where they work, and regulations work pretty well when they're well-designed. Both work pretty badly when they're corrupted, gamed, or poorly-designed. I see very few discussions of what works well, versus a left-right push-pull.