The, now mostly unoccupied, space between not profitable enough and not profitable is where pretty much all the things we are missing should exist.
06.01.2026 02:43
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
The, now mostly unoccupied, space between not profitable enough and not profitable is where pretty much all the things we are missing should exist.
Many people seem to think that having 85% of bus service costs funded by taxes is fine and sensible, but that 100% would be crazy and wasteful. But I have yet to hear someone explain the principle that makes one number bad and the other good, or whether some other number might be better.
Definitely not the point.
the most fascinating aspect of 'China shock 2.0' is how China's industrial policy got American capital to transfer technology in exchange for short-run profits in Chinese markets, w benign approval of American political elites who thought they could bully China like they did w everyone else.
reposting a deleter more clearly: the parts of this ep where a guest makes assertions about abundance in SF are factually incorrect. abundists in SF defended Airbnb, opposed rent control, & were hostile to redlined communities facing displacement. Their electeds antagonize homeless ppl constantly
Self actualization sounds like the rich, self absorbed version of an income focused education logic. I think I agree that's a bad logic, but still think of it mostly as a social good, of which job training is one aspect.
The solution to the housing affordability crisis is simple.
Build the legal and financial infrastructure that supports building distributed, locally determined, non market social housing. Do this at the same scale we do so for market housing and we are able to solve our problem.
Disagree, public college should be free for all and serves social purpose independent of job training. It's a fine aspect of it, but it's not the sole reason it exists. Should be life long and more integrated into social life. Social goods are important, education is one of them.
👀👀 love this from @mayorwu.boston.gov
"Instead of just having investors be the only ones who could buy a triple decker and then rent it out, or 'condo-ize' it, now families will be able to own their piece of it," Mayor Michelle Wu
www.boston.gov/departments/...
It would be more accurate to say that our franchising of bank money creation nearly exclusively to private institutions allows for private investment to crowd out public spending and limit what options regular people have to provision themselves.
The opposite of what most claim.
How much of what we think of as success in society and the market was really just success at manipulating financial accounts and leveraging real estate values?
I think the answer to that question will tell you a lot about how we evaluate and elevate those in charge of society.
Did you know that at public housing authorities throughout the country there are differing opinions about how to do the job and some of them are agents of private real estate interests while other remain dedicated to non market solutions?
They often disagree with each other.
We still don't have any way to modulate financial resources to build non market housing for those who need/want it.
That means we don't have the required tools to solve the housing affordability crisis.
We need public banks and to end faircloth. Nothing else is enough.
10 foot tall Mallow plant starting flowering
Investment choices.
Regardless of who built it and the contracts involved, most people cannot afford a newly built home with the current costs of building and financing. That's not a good situation. We can fix that, but not by looking to supply and demand for the end product. It's about the development ecosystem.
It's ok. I responded overly harshly, my apologies for that.
I'm a proponent of non market social housing and the tool missing to accomplish it is a way to modulate financial resources (bank lending) in a non market logic (public banking) to develop non market housing.
He's a terrific resource to try and understand these things, which isn't easy. Glad you enjoyed it.
I'd suggest a temple economy that he describes included exchange but without markets at the center. It's a distinct relationship and money's origins in that are important.
Right, which is why we had financial tools that allowed them to do so, individually or by state and local governments.(fdr)Then we changed things. (Reagan/neolib) Now we have no access to do so.
We should fix that.
Do you not understand how condescending you were in replying to me?
If you insist all exchange is market exchange than the term market doesn't mean much.
michael-hudson.com/2018/04/pala...
Right now, there is a country called China. They are a pretty big deal. You might look into how they run their banking system. You'll have a lot to avidly read when you find out about it. Then you can read about American history and find out about how we used to do things.
We are at a place where most people can't afford to build things they can afford to live in. Is what I meant. Which is true.
There's a whole world out there where you can learn about more than you already know. You should try it sometime.
Read some history about how money and credit started. You're very confused. Non market financing does indeed exist and precedes your mental model by a few thousand years.
A slightly more elaborated version.
bsky.app/profile/sher...
We're already there.
The purpose of finance is to bridge that gap. We need non market financing for non market development for non market tenancy/ownership. We can then spread those with appropriate terms with speculation and monopoly driving the logics of said modulation.
🙄
Essentially nothing about tenants, no. If you think a market fundamentalist nod to the idea of reduced rent increases is about tenants then there's not much to discuss, is there?
The solution to the affordability crisis does not lie with homeowners wishes. As much as you pretend otherwise.