|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 00:34 Big J wrote:On September 21 2018 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 23:38 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 23:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 22:59 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 21:59 warding wrote:
What Big J described is the model that explains perfect competition in microeconomics. It's not news to anyone that not every market or industry behaves like that. It would be wrong to assume, however, that every market is imperfect and needs a nudge from regulation to make it right. How so? Especially, how do you even separate "a market" from all other markets? And how do you measure such an imperfection? The rental/real estate market is distinctly separate from market for food. Although related by the fact that they exist in the same planet, they both operate on completely different scales of time to such a degree that they have almost no impact on each other. The availability and cost of fresh fruits does not impact my mortgage payment. I disagree on a very personal level. I buy cheap food and clothing for the sole reason that I want to save as much as possible as fast as possible to be able to buy a flat someday. Fun story: one of the main reasons why I want a flat is to invest in a high tech kitchen (and keep it up to date) because I like cooking high quality food. But I am not going to sell my house based on influxes of the price of fruit for a given year, especially with my 30 year mortgage. I’ll just buy different food. But our personal preferences are irrelevant to the given discussion. The daily price of food and the rental market operate on different time scales. People rent months or years, but we eat 3 times or more in a day. For the rental market to be significantly impacted by the price of food would require a massive increase in costs or complete collapse of the food market. This is the problem when talking about “free markets” is that the discussion resolves around this one overriding, interconnected market that don’t not really exist. And the concept of the All Market also does precludes the idea that there can be the absence of an economy and market. The world is made up of smaller markets that influence each other in complex and unpredictable ways. Maybe you don't change your pricing due to food markets, but my landlords are sending me letters every 1-2 years telling me that my rent is going up because of inflation, i.e. other prices. The whole problem when talking about free markets is this scientific attitude towards them. Shit just happens because billions of people interact. Stop pretending there is some form of optimization going on beyond a personal level optimization with very limited information. Not for nothing, your landlord can be and is likely full of shit unless there are laws preventing them from lying in rent increase letters. As a guy who has worked for a lot of landlords, the reason they raise rent is because everyone else is, so they know they can. And then they lie to justify it because they don't like being seen as completely greed driven. I’ve worked for banks, investors and so many other forms of moneyed folks and not one is more entitled, petty and opportunistic than the landlord.
I fully agree with you that they are not doing it because of inflation (which contains 10% rent but no capital prices at all) or food. They are still doing it because of other markets, in this case due to the pricing on financial markets.
Also noted: You believe that the rent market has absolutely no perfect competition. Even looking past the argument of disposible income interacting with other markets, wouldn't high rents increase cost across the board for many other products that are produced from rented places?
|
On September 21 2018 00:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2018 00:34 Big J wrote:On September 21 2018 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 23:38 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 23:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 22:59 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 21:59 warding wrote:
What Big J described is the model that explains perfect competition in microeconomics. It's not news to anyone that not every market or industry behaves like that. It would be wrong to assume, however, that every market is imperfect and needs a nudge from regulation to make it right. How so? Especially, how do you even separate "a market" from all other markets? And how do you measure such an imperfection? The rental/real estate market is distinctly separate from market for food. Although related by the fact that they exist in the same planet, they both operate on completely different scales of time to such a degree that they have almost no impact on each other. The availability and cost of fresh fruits does not impact my mortgage payment. I disagree on a very personal level. I buy cheap food and clothing for the sole reason that I want to save as much as possible as fast as possible to be able to buy a flat someday. Fun story: one of the main reasons why I want a flat is to invest in a high tech kitchen (and keep it up to date) because I like cooking high quality food. But I am not going to sell my house based on influxes of the price of fruit for a given year, especially with my 30 year mortgage. I’ll just buy different food. But our personal preferences are irrelevant to the given discussion. The daily price of food and the rental market operate on different time scales. People rent months or years, but we eat 3 times or more in a day. For the rental market to be significantly impacted by the price of food would require a massive increase in costs or complete collapse of the food market. This is the problem when talking about “free markets” is that the discussion resolves around this one overriding, interconnected market that don’t not really exist. And the concept of the All Market also does precludes the idea that there can be the absence of an economy and market. The world is made up of smaller markets that influence each other in complex and unpredictable ways. Maybe you don't change your pricing due to food markets, but my landlords are sending me letters every 1-2 years telling me that my rent is going up because of inflation, i.e. other prices. The whole problem when talking about free markets is this scientific attitude towards them. Shit just happens because billions of people interact. Stop pretending there is some form of optimization going on beyond a personal level optimization with very limited information. Not for nothing, your landlord can be and is likely full of shit unless there are laws preventing them from lying in rent increase letters. As a guy who has worked for a lot of landlords, the reason they raise rent is because everyone else is, so they know they can. And then they lie to justify it because they don't like being seen as completely greed driven. I’ve worked for banks, investors and so many other forms of moneyed folks and not one is more entitled, petty and opportunistic than the landlord. I fully agree with you that they are not doing it because of inflation (which contains 10% rent but no capital prices at all) or food. They are still doing it because of other markets, in this case due to the pricing on financial markets. Also noted: You believe that the rent market has absolutely no perfect competition. Even looking past the argument of disposible income interacting with other markets, wouldn't high rents increase cost across the board for many other products that are produced from rented places?
It depends on how long the increase goes for. The residential market is not the commercial market. Most commercial leases last 3-5 years or longer, depending on the size and nature of the business. And for a super market, the cost of a lease is a small fraction of their overhead. The cost of labor makes up the majority of their costs. So if the cost of rent goes up for 10 years straight, it might change things. But it took decades upon decades for New York city to move from being a neglected land of poverty and crime to one of the most expensive places to live in the US.
|
On September 21 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 00:34 Big J wrote:On September 21 2018 00:05 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 23:38 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 23:06 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2018 22:59 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 21:59 warding wrote:
What Big J described is the model that explains perfect competition in microeconomics. It's not news to anyone that not every market or industry behaves like that. It would be wrong to assume, however, that every market is imperfect and needs a nudge from regulation to make it right. How so? Especially, how do you even separate "a market" from all other markets? And how do you measure such an imperfection? The rental/real estate market is distinctly separate from market for food. Although related by the fact that they exist in the same planet, they both operate on completely different scales of time to such a degree that they have almost no impact on each other. The availability and cost of fresh fruits does not impact my mortgage payment. I disagree on a very personal level. I buy cheap food and clothing for the sole reason that I want to save as much as possible as fast as possible to be able to buy a flat someday. Fun story: one of the main reasons why I want a flat is to invest in a high tech kitchen (and keep it up to date) because I like cooking high quality food. But I am not going to sell my house based on influxes of the price of fruit for a given year, especially with my 30 year mortgage. I’ll just buy different food. But our personal preferences are irrelevant to the given discussion. The daily price of food and the rental market operate on different time scales. People rent months or years, but we eat 3 times or more in a day. For the rental market to be significantly impacted by the price of food would require a massive increase in costs or complete collapse of the food market. This is the problem when talking about “free markets” is that the discussion resolves around this one overriding, interconnected market that don’t not really exist. And the concept of the All Market also does precludes the idea that there can be the absence of an economy and market. The world is made up of smaller markets that influence each other in complex and unpredictable ways. Maybe you don't change your pricing due to food markets, but my landlords are sending me letters every 1-2 years telling me that my rent is going up because of inflation, i.e. other prices. The whole problem when talking about free markets is this scientific attitude towards them. Shit just happens because billions of people interact. Stop pretending there is some form of optimization going on beyond a personal level optimization with very limited information. Not for nothing, your landlord can be and is likely full of shit unless there are laws preventing them from lying in rent increase letters. As a guy who has worked for a lot of landlords, the reason they raise rent is because everyone else is, so they know they can. And then they lie to justify it because they don't like being seen as completely greed driven. I’ve worked for banks, investors and so many other forms of moneyed folks and not one is more entitled, petty and opportunistic than the landlord. But on topic, I think you and I basically agree on markets. I think when Farva talked about markets being imperfect, he isn’t talking about efficiency. He is referencing when a market is clearly failed or excluding a specific group, or not fulfilling a need of a specific region. Like a shortage of low and middle income housing. Or a milk prices being so low that dairy farmers cannot afford to live. Those are things aberrations in a functioning market that the government needs to address. I forget the word Adam Smith used for it, but he specifically talks about how the government needs to iron out those aberrations to assure the market functions for the largest number of people.
warding used the word, and I answered to him. So I guess you mean this quote:
What Big J described is the model that explains perfect competition in microeconomics. It's not news to anyone that not every market or industry behaves like that. It would be wrong to assume, however, that every market is imperfect and needs a nudge from regulation to make it right.
And I think he means pretty clearly that for most products it is really the case that you buy the best things (for you personally) available for the cheapest prices (that you can afford), due to heavy competition.
In other news: Austrian social-democrats seem to be imploding. Former chancellor and party chief Christian Kern wants to candidate for the European elections and step back from Austrian politics after the European elections. It is said that he probably has the support from other S&E parties across europe and possibly Macron to back him has the S&E top candidate.
However, the information was leaked two days ago from a party insider before he could internally discuss it. Even moreso, only the part that he would step back was leaked forcing him to make it a shortterm announcment without party backing and without a regular succession.
It seems like he is now a lame duck and the party has no good leader to replace him.
|
On September 20 2018 23:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2018 22:59 Big J wrote:On September 20 2018 21:59 warding wrote:
What Big J described is the model that explains perfect competition in microeconomics. It's not news to anyone that not every market or industry behaves like that. It would be wrong to assume, however, that every market is imperfect and needs a nudge from regulation to make it right. How so? Especially, how do you even separate "a market" from all other markets? And how do you measure such an imperfection? The rental/real estate market is distinctly separate from market for food. Although related by the fact that they exist in the same planet, they both operate on completely different scales of time to such a degree that they have almost no impact on each other. The availability and cost of fresh fruits does not impact my mortgage payment. As for imperfection, markets only have merit if they serve the majority of the population. A real estate market that doesn’t provide housing for the labor in the region is failing in its purpose.
Not really. To grow food you need land. The more real estate prices in a region go up, the more lucrative it is to use the land to build real estate instead of using it to farm crops. If this were not regulated (e.g. zoning), then farmland would disappear. The reverse is a lot harder, because once people are living on land, it is very hard to get them off and turn it back into farmland (even if farming product X would be more lucrative than whatever is built there now). Therefore the food market could be affected by the real estate market.
EDIT: hilarious. 90% of the replies are examples of the various ways in which the markets are indeed connected. Some of them ways I hadn't actually thought about. Showing that the economy is indeed entirely entangled.
|
Yes Big J, that is more or less what I mean. Jockmcplop is also right in that I worded it confusingly. Obviously there is no perfect competition in reality, I mean to say that I believe that the competition mechanism is working in most markets and that we should generally avoid the inclination to intervene unless blatantly obvious.
|
Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the city
Relax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well.
|
On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well.
I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse.
Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height.
|
On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height.
Yet nobody but the rich have the money to live there. Pretty much all young people have trouble buying a place to live. Have you seen the prices in Amsterdam? It's near impossible to buy something and I'm not just talking about the city center. We're basically locking out 1000s of people from living in the most productive parts of the country because some people can't stomach some more houses built next to theirs.
|
On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldn't be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height.
You can probably make an exception for landmarks of national significance but I have absolutely no problem to build high to serve the needs of people who need cheap, central living space over sentimental values about historic buildings. Building low means urban sprawl, more infrastructure costs, more reliance on cars, and essentially everything that's bad, and it locks poor people out of the city.
|
On September 21 2018 15:47 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height. Yet nobody but the rich have the money to live there. Pretty much all young people have trouble buying a place to live. Have you seen the prices in Amsterdam? It's near impossible to buy something and I'm not just talking about the city center. We're basically locking out 1000s of people from living in the most productive parts of the country because some people can't stomach some more houses built next to theirs.
Conservative regulations to keep things looking like they did 5000 years ago, because some urban bourgeoise hoteliers might lose some profit, must be some of the worst capitalist deformities ever.
We have a recent case like this in Vienna. The ruling red-green coalition, in particular the Green authority is allowing an investor to build a high building - not even a skyscraper - in the central district of the city. Now the conservatives, far-right and neoliberals are panicking because UNESCO might revoke the inner city's landmark status.
|
Apparently a French court ordered Marine Le Pen to undergo psychiatric tests in a case about her posting ISIS related images on social media.
wtf
|
On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height. I agree, lets not build high-rises right next to the Eiffel tower but Paris is a big metropolis (over 17k km2) Plenty of room to build high-rises without blocking the Eiffel tower.
|
On September 21 2018 18:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height. I agree, lets not build high-rises right next to the Eiffel tower but Paris is a big metropolis (over 17k km2) Plenty of room to build high-rises without blocking the Eiffel tower.
And they have highrises. The problem with Paris is not really the lack of highrises. It's that nobody wants to live in them. And everybody wants to live in the quartier latin or the montmartre or some other romantic neighbourhood in the city center... where those highrises would be awfully out of place.
|
On September 21 2018 18:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2018 18:36 Gorsameth wrote:On September 21 2018 15:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 21 2018 14:10 Nyxisto wrote:Markets do fine in most domains, and especially in housing, we could do without non-working approaches like rent control. I think I might have posted this before but the FT has a good article on why Tokyo sees falling rent and home prices despite a rush to the cityRelax zoning, higher building height, and also importantly make all laws at the national level so that municipalities or neighborhoods can't stop people from the building. The last part seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe but we do seem to have our fair share of it as well. I dunno. I like our European inner cities without high-rises and 10sqm apartments. Tokyo may have finally reached the top of their housing boom, but at what cost? And Hong Kong is even worse. Most European centers have many historic buildings. Let's face it: the Eiffel tower wouldnt be nearly as iconic if it were hemmed in by glass towers 3x its height. I agree, lets not build high-rises right next to the Eiffel tower but Paris is a big metropolis (over 17k km2) Plenty of room to build high-rises without blocking the Eiffel tower. And they have highrises. The problem with Paris is not really the lack of highrises. It's that nobody wants to live in them. And everybody wants to live in the quartier latin or the montmartre or some other romantic neighbourhood in the city center... where those highrises would be awfully out of place. Yeah, we Europeans like our single houses to much :p
|
On September 15 2018 00:19 Big J wrote:
@TheDwf: Austrian media reported that Macron is now focusing on programs for poorer people. Anything good in there like education etc. or just a bunch of goodies that transfers money from the working people to the non-working people until all the working people vote for right-wingers against the poor?
Oh don't worry, King Macron only likes redistribution when it goes from us peasants to our overlords. The plan is "only" 2 billions per year for 9 millions of poor, i.e. 222€ per poor people per year. Half of it was already scheduled, Macron will rise the prime d'activité, a bonus the State pays for low wages. It widens the gap between social aids and what you earn when you work again, which according to liberal theories is supposed to prompt more people to go back to work...
The real purpose of this is to merge many social aids and force people to take whatever bullshit job they're offered (otherwise they're denied the money). He called this "universal income" for some extra smoke and mirrors. Except it's neither universal nor inconditional of course...
Not much about education from memory, except cheaper meals for poor pupils (?).
You know the funny thing? Castaner, who's both a minister and the godfather of the macronist party, suggested that there should be modifications to heritage. He merely said that there should be no taboo in opening the debate. A few days later, Macron sharply shut the door, saying there would be no changes. Gotta preserve the big feudalities!
On September 21 2018 17:12 Sent. wrote:
Apparently a French court ordered Marine Le Pen to undergo psychiatric tests in a case about her posting ISIS related images on social media.
wtf
It's stupid but it's just the standard, legal procedure. Nothing particular. Of course she jumped at this to victimize herself, saying that the "regime" was persecuting her and that this was reminiscent of totalitarian methods, etc.
Fun fact, I read that one far-right parliamentary who denounced this actually voted for the law which stipulates that such tests have to be made... LOL
She won't go and nothing particular will happen.
|
On September 21 2018 20:30 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 00:19 Big J wrote:
@TheDwf: Austrian media reported that Macron is now focusing on programs for poorer people. Anything good in there like education etc. or just a bunch of goodies that transfers money from the working people to the non-working people until all the working people vote for right-wingers against the poor? Oh don't worry, King Macron only likes redistribution when it goes from us peasants to our overlords. The plan is "only" 2 billions per year for 9 millions of poor, i.e. 222€ per poor people per year. Half of it was already scheduled, Macron will rise the prime d'activité, a bonus the State pays for low wages. It widens the gap between social aids and what you earn when you work again, which according to liberal theories is supposed to prompt more people to go back to work... The real purpose of this is to merge many social aids and force people to take whatever bullshit job they're offered (otherwise they're denied the money). He called this "universal income" for some extra smoke and mirrors. Except it's neither universal nor inconditional of course...
This sounds exactly like Universal Credit in the UK. Its a system that they have just started rolling out across the UK which is 'controversial' according to the media, and in reality is leading to mass poverty, exacerbating the mental health, homelessness and street drugs crises as well as being constantly challenged and defeated in court.
The neoliberal propaganda behind it is strong. It claims to get people into work while ignoring that those it gets into work are still in horrible poverty when they are working.
|
On September 21 2018 17:12 Sent. wrote:
Apparently a French court ordered Marine Le Pen to undergo psychiatric tests in a case about her posting ISIS related images on social media.
wtf
sight.
It is a compulsory procedure for the offense she is accused of (relaying terrorist propaganda). No court “ordered” that, it’s just the law.
Of course she is milking it and lying around, repeating, well, what you just said.
|
Strange. I would had assumed that ordering people who distribute ISIS propaganda to undergo a mental health evaluation would be something that Marine Le Pen would support.
|
Yes, funnily enough given all the complaining about Islamic immigration their Catholic revanchism fits right in. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad how the National Front continously pivots between pretending to be some secular nationalist party while also conjuring up the Catholic identitarianism at every chance
|
On September 25 2018 02:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Yes, funnily enough given all the complaining about Islamic immigration their Catholic revanchism fits right in. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad how the National Front continously pivots between pretending to be some secular nationalist party while also conjuring up the Catholic identitarianism at every chance
What? Why are you talking about catholic stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
