Similarly even if you have a communist or socialist regime, if you can get strong competition (for example, in the export sector), you will end up with pretty good products regardless of whether you have private ownership of capital. Competition > policy.
-
-
Replying to @foggyanabasis @CovfefeAnon
But if you have private ownership of capital yet lots of monopolies, you will end up with bad products, given enough time. Competition is the key. That's why landlords in SF are idiots but landords in Phoenix are pretty sharp. One is not subject to competition, the other is.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @foggyanabasis
SF landlords have tons of competition - it's expensive to buy the property in the first place so they're on a razor's edge making it pay off. Only properties bought a generation ago were cheap and then you have the normal forces that push the weak to sell assets.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Compared to other cities they don't. Very little of the housing stock is professionally managed, most is inherited because of Prop 13 and run by absolute incompetents. Stuff like the daughter inheriting daddy's units and not bothering to water seal is the norm for SF landlords.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @foggyanabasis
You don't get instant adjustment but that example is someone on the way out of owning property in SF.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Unfortunately it hasn't happened, rents have gone up to insane levels for what is very bad housing. Most of those old creaky Victorians have windows that wont open or close properly, electrical work from the 20s, etc. But they can charge $2500 for a 1 bedroom.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @foggyanabasis
Now isn't the end of time. Markets work but various factors mean they can work slowly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
OK, maybe in 100 years, but if something only works on that timescale, I'm not ceding the point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @foggyanabasis
You think the woman who inherited the property and hasn't maintained it at all is passing it to her children? Is she even having children? Once the property changes hands under the new market conditions the new owners will be under the gun to make it pay as well as possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
Right, so prop 13 means if you have any kids at all, it's better to pass it on and keep the tax basis your grandfather had than sell it to a stranger and have it re-assessed. But if that's your notion of "markets", then it's not working, as that's a 200 year transition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's always better to pass property within the family. The adjustment doesn't take 200 years or 100 years. One generation at most and there's no other alternative that doesn't feed exactly the problem that Demilich pointed out. If descendants don't inherit, strivers do.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon
We are on the third generation now from the gold rush era, and the quality of the housing stock is getting worse each year here.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.