The human population of this planet is set to have big drops in the next 100 years, yet there will still be complaints like yours because the stock of housing will never far outstrip the stock of humans, as unoccupied housing will simply be demolished. We could have only 100 million humans and you'd still have this complaint. I just don't see how you can be made happy on this. Governments building housing doesn't change anything you said about the cost of building it. The market is building enough housing.
> No, that's not what I mean. I would recommend taking a basic econ course to understand jargon like "free good," "scarce good," and "rent." I won't fix that in a web post.
Terms you did not even use. Where is the misunderstanding? Or are you simply trying to be superior?
> I gave one link, which you clearly didn't bother to even click through.
To the Wealth of Nations. The paragraph you quoted applies to ownership via mortgages just as well as to rent (since having a mortgage is renting capital), but also it does not address supply at all. Nor do you address the assertion that we need a non-private provider.
But did Smith say anything like:
> And I think the government should provide very basic, minimal, Soviet-grade housing free to everyone.
or
> Personally, I think we should have all rent-extracting industries nationalized.
which you did?
Does basic economics -Adam Smith's no less!- say anything like this? What basic economics treatises other than socialist or communist ones say anything like this?
Certainly you should not respond, nor should I, any further since it bothers you so much. But I do wonder if telling people they're wrong and then taking your ball home works well for you.
The human population of this planet is set to have big drops in the next 100 years, yet there will still be complaints like yours because the stock of housing will never far outstrip the stock of humans, as unoccupied housing will simply be demolished. We could have only 100 million humans and you'd still have this complaint. I just don't see how you can be made happy on this. Governments building housing doesn't change anything you said about the cost of building it. The market is building enough housing.
> No, that's not what I mean. I would recommend taking a basic econ course to understand jargon like "free good," "scarce good," and "rent." I won't fix that in a web post.
Terms you did not even use. Where is the misunderstanding? Or are you simply trying to be superior?
> I gave one link, which you clearly didn't bother to even click through.
To the Wealth of Nations. The paragraph you quoted applies to ownership via mortgages just as well as to rent (since having a mortgage is renting capital), but also it does not address supply at all. Nor do you address the assertion that we need a non-private provider.
But did Smith say anything like:
> And I think the government should provide very basic, minimal, Soviet-grade housing free to everyone.
or
> Personally, I think we should have all rent-extracting industries nationalized.
which you did?
Does basic economics -Adam Smith's no less!- say anything like this? What basic economics treatises other than socialist or communist ones say anything like this?
> https://xkcd.com/386/
Certainly you should not respond, nor should I, any further since it bothers you so much. But I do wonder if telling people they're wrong and then taking your ball home works well for you.