I see what you're saying. Making the land in a neighborhood artificially cheap by not allowing more density helps to keep home prices low in that neighborhood in spite of pent-up demand. Keeping trendy businesses out of the neighborhood and keeping jobs as far away as possible also help to depress home prices.
Schools should be funded by the state so poor school districts don't suffer.
Libraries should be funded by the state so poor cities don't suffer.
Streets should be funded by the adjacent property owners because they are the ones who benefit.
Non-street roads should be funded 100% by the drivers instead of less than half. (Remember, streets are the places at the beginning and end of your journey, roads are the connections between places.)
This is one reason why property taxes should be replaced with a fee that covers only the property's actual burden on the city. For example, a property with a longer street frontage costs the city more in street and sidewalk amortization and maintenance, tree trimming, emergency response, etc. A property with more impermeable surface (roof, driveway) costs the city more in sewer amortization and maintenance. And so on.
The mortgage interest deduction incentivizes us to purchase rather than rent. It seemed like a good idea at the time to encourage people to invest in their homes, but we now know that's a very bad idea. Not just because it harms the economy by reducing mobility, but also because it encourages people to oppose new housing in order to protect their investment by restricting supply. They do this by protecting density limits which in turn limits property tax revenue and makes the land tax-inefficient (low tax revenue, high maintenance costs). This not only causes a housing crisis, but we also wonder why our cities keep running out of money!
The mortgage interest deduction benefits only the middle class and the wealthy, not poor people who don't itemize. One simple way to remove the incentive is to raise the standard deduction higher than most incomes. When you no longer need to collect your tax-advantaged receipts for the year, wouldn't tax time be a lot more pleasant?
What was achieved is that China has learned the value of a country throwing its economic weight around, just as Russia learned the value of nuclear weapons in 1945.
Are these really the lessons we want to be teaching the rest of the world?
Also, what driving infraction did he violate? Did he make an unsafe lane change? Forget to signal? Illegal U turn?
In many states, it's legal to ride a horse while drunk, because the horse is able to exercise its own judgement to keep everyone safe. It seems that Teslas are equipped with the same judgement.
Like it or not, climate change will force you to make those changes sooner or later. The American Dream says we should do them now so that our children and grandchildren will have better lives.
For example it takes less carbon to ship Apple from China to California then it does from New York to California. Mainly because cargo ships use less fuel per ton of goods then shipping via semi-truck.
Why are you shipping by semi-truck and not by train? Trains are 3x as fuel-efficient as trucks.
Let people bring in the water, ice, etc, and even let them make a healthy profit for doing so, but don't let them create a situation where only the rich can afford _necessities_!
I see, it's better that nobody get water! Like in Venezuela!
But seriously, I wouldn't worry. $99 gallons of water will attract other greedy sellers and then they will start undercutting each other until the prices are so low that it's no longer worthwhile to make another trip.
Meanwhile, if a poor person can't afford a $99 gallon of water, then 16 of them can pool their money and each take home a $6 cup of water. That's about what water costs at a ballgame!
You want laws against selling items at less than the maximum the market can bare?
I think retailers who advertise discounts or product specials should have enough products available to meet the expected demand or to provide a substitute product of comparable value at the advertised price.
In other words, I want laws against false advertising.
Instead of going after the bots that solve shortages, why aren't the lawmakers going after sellers who cause them by selling below market equilibrium?
Oh I know. It's because this is feel-good legislation designed to help those congressmen get re-elected by people who don't understand supply & demand (i.e. most people).
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying. Making the land in a neighborhood artificially cheap by not allowing more density helps to keep home prices low in that neighborhood in spite of pent-up demand. Keeping trendy businesses out of the neighborhood and keeping jobs as far away as possible also help to depress home prices.
Hmm, $43,219 vs. $41,786 after 30 years. I suppose you're right.
Schools should be funded by the state so poor school districts don't suffer.
Libraries should be funded by the state so poor cities don't suffer.
Streets should be funded by the adjacent property owners because they are the ones who benefit.
Non-street roads should be funded 100% by the drivers instead of less than half. (Remember, streets are the places at the beginning and end of your journey, roads are the connections between places.)
That's if you took the $19k in energy savings and hid it in your mattress. I think you should invest it.
This is one reason why property taxes should be replaced with a fee that covers only the property's actual burden on the city. For example, a property with a longer street frontage costs the city more in street and sidewalk amortization and maintenance, tree trimming, emergency response, etc. A property with more impermeable surface (roof, driveway) costs the city more in sewer amortization and maintenance. And so on.
The way property taxes are normally assessed transfers wealth from poor neighborhoods to affluent ones, and then we wonder why few people are able to pull themselves out of poverty!
Also thanks to Prop 13, if the value of your property goes down, your taxes (usually) still go up!
The mortgage interest deduction incentivizes us to purchase rather than rent. It seemed like a good idea at the time to encourage people to invest in their homes, but we now know that's a very bad idea. Not just because it harms the economy by reducing mobility, but also because it encourages people to oppose new housing in order to protect their investment by restricting supply. They do this by protecting density limits which in turn limits property tax revenue and makes the land tax-inefficient (low tax revenue, high maintenance costs). This not only causes a housing crisis, but we also wonder why our cities keep running out of money!
The mortgage interest deduction benefits only the middle class and the wealthy, not poor people who don't itemize. One simple way to remove the incentive is to raise the standard deduction higher than most incomes. When you no longer need to collect your tax-advantaged receipts for the year, wouldn't tax time be a lot more pleasant?
Yes, and it's a good thing the home you are selling is also worth 50% more!
Having to go to a gas station to fill up is a problem for me.
You can replace any failed battery cells.
What was achieved is that China has learned the value of a country throwing its economic weight around, just as Russia learned the value of nuclear weapons in 1945.
Are these really the lessons we want to be teaching the rest of the world?
Also, what driving infraction did he violate? Did he make an unsafe lane change? Forget to signal? Illegal U turn?
In many states, it's legal to ride a horse while drunk, because the horse is able to exercise its own judgement to keep everyone safe. It seems that Teslas are equipped with the same judgement.
Let's fix that instead of using it as an excuse to make things worse.
"Nobody lives in California anymore. There's too much traffic." --Yogi Berra
That's exactly what King George III said about those pesky colonial revolutionaries!
1. Electrical demand isn't static. Why must supply be?
2. How much of total electrical demand is perfectly price-inelastic?
We don't ship fresh food from China to California, and so this isn't about about shipping fresh food.
Like it or not, climate change will force you to make those changes sooner or later. The American Dream says we should do them now so that our children and grandchildren will have better lives.
Do you have children, or plan to?
Why are you shipping by semi-truck and not by train? Trains are 3x as fuel-efficient as trucks.
How would you write an anti-price-gouging law that does not violate the Zero-One-Infinity Rule?
I see, it's better that nobody get water! Like in Venezuela!
But seriously, I wouldn't worry. $99 gallons of water will attract other greedy sellers and then they will start undercutting each other until the prices are so low that it's no longer worthwhile to make another trip.
Meanwhile, if a poor person can't afford a $99 gallon of water, then 16 of them can pool their money and each take home a $6 cup of water. That's about what water costs at a ballgame!
I think retailers who advertise discounts or product specials should have enough products available to meet the expected demand or to provide a substitute product of comparable value at the advertised price.
In other words, I want laws against false advertising.
If buyers and sellers negotiate a price of $99 per gallon, why should that transaction be illegal?
Instead of going after the bots that solve shortages, why aren't the lawmakers going after sellers who cause them by selling below market equilibrium?
Oh I know. It's because this is feel-good legislation designed to help those congressmen get re-elected by people who don't understand supply & demand (i.e. most people).
Libertarianism wants to privatize profits and socialize negative externalities. We can do better.
Does your editor not have a "View White Space" setting?
How many spaces: zero, one, or infinity?