We do build hospitals/housing/schools. Maybe if we imported slave labor like say, Dubai, it'd be cheaper to build things.
At least in places with housing shortages, like the Bay Area and NYC, it seems to me that the high costs comes from the government slowing down (or refusing to allow) new housing construction.
I think a similar problem is evident in healthcare, with certificate of need laws and AMA's restrictions on number of doctors.
Yes, and most of these were also built by slaves or people in slave-like conditions. It's incredibly easy to build things when you have nearly free labor.
I would like my representatives to have a say in what is a reckless investors or not.
And I'm not really interested in schooling or health becoming more profitable as a vessel for investment in free market.
I would rather have decent, cheap public education for my kids and something else than whatever we're having for health. That the goal.
Unfortunalty, I don't think it's a great fit for a friction-less market. We're not selling financial instrument, we're trying to give young citizen everywhere a decent education, and have access to health.
What if building in itself isn't the answer to increasing affordability and ensuring supply of things that matter? What if incentives are the key?
Things the author says drop rapidly in price:
- computers
- TVs
Things the author says skyrocket in price:
- housing
- schools
- hospitals
The former group includes small-ticket items that are often bought with "cash." These are also items with an inherently low regulatory burden.
The latter group includes big-ticket items bought on credit, or paid for by someone else (health insurer). Often, there's a government backstop involved. And these industries have a very heavy regulatory burden.
What if the key to making necessities like housing and education more affordable was to get the federal government out of the business of guaranteeing loans and backstopping reckless investors?