The real housing crisis is one of quantity

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

>> Housing is the house

>> and it is the only part that has "replacement cost". The land does not

>> have "replacement" costs. The claim seems bogus. And BTW, the limiting

>> of sprawl decreases the fuel costs. If you were "forced" to buy a home

>> closer to your place of work due to the "sprawl laws" then you should

>> probably be smiling right now.

> If I was forced to do any such thing, I'd smash the thugs face in with a

> baseball bat.

A poor choice of words on my part. Let us say "encouraged" by your own
desire to maximize utility.

>> We need MUCH BETTER condos and apartments where you cannot hear your next

>> door neighbor no matter how hard you try.

> Well, get busy building them...or is it easier to just shoot your stupid

> mouth off?

At present the construction of more housing is not warranted but in very
unique situations. The title of this thread is just plain erroneous. The
trade price of homes is not going down because of a supply problem. Most
rational persons are able to understand that axiomatic principle.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

Posted by george conklin on May 6, 2008, 2:47 pm

> On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:19:10 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which

>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times

>>>>> replacment

>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

>>>>

>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is

>>>> restricted

>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to

>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In

>>>> this

>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have

>>>> nothing

>>>> to do with it.

>>>

>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that

>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

>> Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less

>> supply

>> during a static or increasing demand.

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any

> deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

>> Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary

>> school

>> (Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're

>> so

>> busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public

>> policy).

> The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be

> pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the

> land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired

> goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial

> aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the

> problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in

> rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value

> of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of

> population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

Posted by Matt W. Barrow on May 6, 2008, 4:52 pm

>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:19:10 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which

>>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times

>>>>>> replacment

>>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is

>>>>> restricted

>>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to

>>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.

>>>>> In

>>>>> this

>>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have

>>>>> nothing

>>>>> to do with it.

>>>>

>>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that

>>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

>>>

>>> Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less

>>> supply

>>> during a static or increasing demand.

>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any

>> deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

>>> Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary

>>> school

>>> (Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as

>>> they're so

>>> busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public

>>> policy).

>> The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

Nope.

> and it normally must be

>> pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the

>> land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired

>> goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial

>> aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the

>> problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost

>> in

>> rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the

>> value

>> of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of

>> population.

> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"

> law.

He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a
clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

Posted by george conklin on May 6, 2008, 6:56 pm

>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:19:10 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules

>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times

>>>>>>> replacment

>>>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is

>>>>>> restricted

>>>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to

>>>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.

>>>>>> In

>>>>>> this

>>>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have

>>>>>> nothing

>>>>>> to do with it.

>>>>>

>>>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules

>>>>> that

>>>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

>>>>

>>>> Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less

>>>> supply

>>>> during a static or increasing demand.

>>>

>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any

>>> deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

> You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

>>>

>>>> Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary

>>>> school

>>>> (Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as

>>>> they're so

>>>> busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public

>>>> policy).

>>>

>>> The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

> Nope.

>> and it normally must be

>>> pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the

>>> land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and

>>> desired

>>> goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial

>>> aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of

>>> the

>>> problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost

>>> in

>>> rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the

>>> value

>>> of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers

>>> of

>>> population.

>> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any

>> "natural" law.

> He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a

> clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

I am not sure what land rent meant, but I did comment on the fact that
populations are concentrating is the result of social policy, such as Smart
Growth, which encourages increasing density using such terms as "infill."

Posted by The Trucker on May 6, 2008, 9:12 pm

On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:52:42 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:19:10 -0700, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>>>

>>>>>>> Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which

>>>>>>> limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times

>>>>>>> replacment

>>>>>>> costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is

>>>>>> restricted

>>>>>> and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to

>>>>>> alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.

>>>>>> In

>>>>>> this

>>>>>> case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have

>>>>>> nothing

>>>>>> to do with it.

>>>>>

>>>>> These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that

>>>>> limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

>>>>

>>>> Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less

>>>> supply

>>>> during a static or increasing demand.

>>>

>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any

>>> deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

> You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

>>>

>>>> Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary

>>>> school

>>>> (Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as

>>>> they're so

>>>> busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public

>>>> policy).

>>>

>>> The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

> Nope.

>> and it normally must be

>>> pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the

>>> land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired

>>> goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial

>>> aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the

>>> problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost

>>> in

>>> rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the

>>> value

>>> of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of

>>> population.

>> Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"

>> law.

> He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a

> clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

I am well aware of what land rent is. I have written quite a bit on the
subject here and in various other forums. I wonder why you would think
that someone is a "statist" because they are aware of land rent. Could it
be that you are a typical Republican rightard?

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

Page 8 of 14 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
The REAL housing crisis: TOO MANY PEOPLE	August 16, 2007, 11:30 pm
Real Estate Europe	June 2, 2007, 3:48 am
looking for real estate developments in need of funding	December 10, 2006, 1:38 am
Invest in Real Estate or Stocks???	July 22, 2008, 6:27 am
FA: Carleton Sheets complete real estate course	October 12, 2006, 11:41 am
FREE