Landlord stans havent read Smith after a 200 year head start, what makes you think they will read anything?
Given that you claim schools of economic theory no longer exist, hypotheticals should prove useful (this is a silly thing to say).
Let's say you do ascribe to the theory that UBI under democratic socialism is an effective means of decreasing human suffering. What would stop landlords from simply increasing rents in proportion to incomes, as they are seen to do in places like SF, LA, and Seattle for example?
A policy reccomendation like a land value tax is something I think may possibly enable said ideological position, but you don't appear to be advocating for that.
Also, claiming that critics of rent control universally "feel" bad for the people they are rent seeking from is a strange position.
Opponents of rent control include the most dastardly machinations of corporate rent seeking. Opponents of rent control include real estate speculators who benefit from ever increasing property values due to artificial scarcity. Opponents of rent control include bloodthirsty businessmen who seek to pay unlivable wages lest the poorest worker be made homeless by the reserve army of labor.
Rent control makes it such that the only way a developer may increase their profits is to build more housing, a thing I believe you want to have happen.
You claim to talk about economic orthodoxy, yet you haven't even read Adam Smith?
There is a real difference between classical economics and neoclassical economics, and the disagreements between Smith and modern economists is one of the best examples of this contradiction.
So what gives? Where's the piss?
To quote the economist J.W mason from this article (its not dense like the smith quote, I swear) from 2019... In direct response to articles like the ones you quoted from the 70s and the 90s.
https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/
Among economists, rent regulation seems be in similar situation as the minimum wage was 20 years ago. At that time, most economists took it for granted that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment. Textbooks said that it was simple supply and demand — if you raise the price of something, people will buy less of it. But as more state and local governments raised minimum wages, it turned out to be very hard to find any negative effect on employment. This was confirmed by more and more careful empirical studies. Today, it is clear that minimum wages do not reduce employment. And as economists have worked to understand why not, this has improved our theories of the labor market. Rent regulation may be going through a similar evolution today. You may still see textbooks saying that as a price control, rent regulation will reduce the supply of housing. But as the share of Americans renting their homes has increased, more and more jurisdictions are considering or implementing rent regulation. This has brought new attention from economists, and as with the minimum wage, we are finding that the simple supply-and-demand story doesn’t capture what happens in the real world. A number of recent studies have looked at the effects of rent regulations on housing supply, focusing on changes in rent regulations in New Jersey and California and the elimination of rent control in Massachusetts. Contrary to the predictions of the simple supply-and-demand model, none of these studies have found evidence that introducing or strengthening rent regulations reduces new housing construction, or that eliminating rent regulation increases construction. Most of these studies do, however, find that rent control is effective at holding down rents.
EDIT_01: also, the hostility is because not everybody is a bystander in arguments like this. Some people are forced to live a grusome and crushing existence under our system of landlords rights to profit over peoples right to live.
EDIT_02: typos, apologies
Straw man go brrr.
Inb4 neoliberal pissdrinking "economists" start claiming a lack of theoretical foundation for opposing the interests of the rent seeking class.
Read Smith, you charlatans.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
Wear is nonlinearly dependant on number of cycles, materials, and load. I've not seen anything in the litterature that indicates rubbers can maintain safety while decreasing their amount of particulate pollution. In fact, ive seen that they are a direct trade with one another.
Lighter cars being forced to drive slower, would do something about it. Also, simply restricting the number of cars in a city the same way we restricted the density of coal burning power plants in a city would also solve the problem in the exact same way.
Non-rubber materials such as steel do not have this problem, which is why trains are good.
Ah yes, Big Bicycle.
A very real thing that has lobbiests and a department you have to go to. You know, the DPV, the department of pedalled vehicles, its where you are forced to do basically everything from register to vote to get a death certificate. It's CRAZY how much influence Big Bicycle has over our society.
I mean did you know that ~40,000 americans per year are killed by traffic violence every year. I bet 99% of those are from extremely fat men riding osmium bicycles at 50 mph, running people over!
And did you know that bicycles use alchemy to create almost all of the pollution that coats our cities, adversely affecting the health of everybody who doesn't bike?
I mean hell, can you imagine bulldozing empoverished minority neighborhoods in every city in the US for 50 years to build these federally funded 12 land elevated bike lanes that totally exist? The nerve of those cyclists advocacy groups!
Damn bicycles, who the heck do they think they are?!
Edit 01: typo
As long as you dont drive a deathmachine through a populated city, nonconsentually transfering risk from yourself onto others, nobody ought care my friend. We all need farmers and miners and whatnot. Y'all could drive a turbo boosted afterburning steamroller with JATO assist as an emergency break for all we care, as long as its not harming others.
Most of the buddies I have who are both bike commuters and motorheads have their fun at the track or on the mountain roads. I'd take a 3000$ beat up Miata over these land yachts any day. I don't understand the kind of people who roll coal to the whole foods parking lot in their spotless F690-compensator-edition. It seems as antisocial as it is unfun.
But thats my personal frustration you see. I can't drive fun cars like that anymore because selfish pricks have made the roads less safe for everyone other than themselves.
bdazman
joined 1 year ago
Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.
You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I've seen no specific citations. Are there any you'd reccomend?