Go to CONSERVATISM -- A DINOSAUR THAT SHOULD BE EXTINCT
- Add a comment
- Go to Progressives believe the way they do for good reason.
Where I would differ from the progressives of today
- --67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.
- Let's look at the present situation: development gone wild. Part of the present economic crisis is that people owe more on their mortgages than their home is worth -- and why? Because developers sell for much more than the property is worth -- and people don't know enough not to insist on a lower price. Rampant, uncontrolled development is allowing housing prices to be much higher than the actual worth of property and profits are outrageously above the actual cost of building a home.
So progressives believe people are rubes who are easily taken in by the slick developers? Really, now, consider what the market is: college-educated professionals as buyers and high school dropouts as sellers.
Seriously, though, a competitive market exists in most home sales. In an up market, those who insist on the low price lose their bid to those who do not insist. In a down market, they win because no credible better offer is made.
The problem is that mortgage loans are highly leveraged and thus produces speculative bubbles in real estate. This means lots of up markets until it comes crashing down when the bubble bursts. So the bogeyman here is the conventional, no frills added, garden variety MORTGAGE. See my article on the subject discussing my alternative, the AEM.
- --51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn't increase the cost of professional services.
- I guess doctors shouldn't be licensed, real estate agents, drivers, nurses, bus drivers, dentists. There are times when I think licensing is must a means of collecting fees and restricting free commerce; but it is a means of protection against the unscrupulous in certain professions.
This is another instance of the Populist/Progressive debate about regulation. The Populists preferred government ownership and operation, the Progressives preferred regulation in handling the railroads. The Progressive policy of regulation was followed and led to the wreck of the Penn Central and the continued decline of the small farmer. As a Populist, I would therefore advocate an entirely public (federal, state, county,municipal) transportation system and Municipal Medical Departments staffed through a merit civil service system rather than the regulatory approach of licensing of drivers, doctors and other transportation and medical professionals.
- --Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.
- We refer to the first section here. But housing shortages lead to higher rents -- unscrupulous owners inflate rents -- called "supply and demand" -- but in this case, gross profits can be made. rent control is a means of protecting the consumer
And I refer to my response to the first section, while noting the long-standing Populist position against "alien ownership of land", i.e. absentee landlords.
One question though, apropos AEMs and the current regime of licensing, do any of you know whether real estate appraisers offer reduced fees for annual appraisals of the same property? Believe it or not, this is relevant to the rental problem.
Thanks,
Carl Peter
posted by
cpklapper
on May 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM
| link to this | reply