How is the US economy right now?

[Rob Battisti]

~75% of existing land in metro areas is zone for SFH only. its not just not viable to preserve this status quo while also being able to meet rising demand. In San Jose its 94% of residential land zoned exclusively for SFH, you really think all multifamily developments should be squeezed into 6% of the residential area?

To complain about housing affordability while advocating for the very policies that made homes unaffordable is contradictory and I think its fair to point that out. You can cope by saying that you support cheap credit for construction but you still want to limit property rights in a way that fundamentally makes housing less affordable.

In terms of the wider subject, my point is that housing affordability is as bad as it is now not because of the wider economic conditions but because of the onerous regulations which limit housing supply. States and cities are doing their best to undo this to make housing more affordable but you're against that it seems.

Well not everything, just housing.

I don’t believe that the solution is to put people in backyards in pods. That isn’t a solution to housing affordability and it’s a hack way to say you’ve lowered housing costs.

 

[Lucas1980]

Just got Gas... Three Bucks and 30 cents a gallon for regular ...It sucks

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is your argument that I’m not a Rand Libertarian?

It's just an observation that you're not any kind of libertarian. I don't think you're a serious enough thinker to even really have any ideological views.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well not everything, just housing.

And library content! Among many other things.

 

[Rob Battisti]

And library content! Among many other things.

Man, wanting the community to have a say in the community. I’m basically Hitler!

 

[Rob Battisti]

Everyone keeps avoiding the issue with this.

Tiny homes aren’t the solution to the housing issue.

Jack says “affordable housing is affordable housing”. That’s a ridiculous positon.

At least Islam has limits.

I think communities should have full say in what they want. If they want this, they should have it. If they don’t, then they shouldn’t.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Man, wanting the community to have a say in the community. I’m basically Hitler!

Well, your consistent support of central planning doesn't mean you're "basically Hitler" as Republicans are fond of saying, but it does mean that you're not a libertarian.

Everyone keeps avoiding the issue with this.

Tiny homes aren’t the solution to the housing issue.

Jack says “affordable housing is affordable housing”. That’s a ridiculous positon.

Why do you feel the need to lie about my views so often?

My view is that increasing the supply of housing (all sorts) would bring the costs down.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well, your consistent support of central planning doesn't mean you're "basically Hitler" as Republicans are fond of saying, but it does mean that you're not a libertarian.

Why do you feel the need to lie about my views so often?

My view is that increasing the supply of housing (all sorts) would bring the costs down.

If home affordability were better than ever, I would say it's better than ever.

An influx of tiny homes is not a solution to home affordability. If you think it is, then your position is that any type of shelter is housing and that it would make housing more affordable.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If certain neighborhoods and communities wish to allow AUDs, that’s their prerogative. I’ve said that multiple times.

It should be up to the community.

If you’re against RVs being included in this, I suppose we’d be on the same side of the voting block in Austin.

Personally I don't think it should be up to the community, that to me is a needless infringement on property rights. So I definitely support states upzoning big swathes of residential land.

As far as RVs I can see why people would be against them and I support keeping them outlawed but in practice I'd never snitch on my neighbor for pulling something like that.

I don’t believe that the solution is to put people in backyards in pods. That isn’t a solution to housing affordability and it’s a hack way to say you’ve lowered housing costs.

You keep saying "pods" here even though I never used that term myself to describe what I'm advocating for. It comes off as a dishonest way to invoke some cyberpunk dystopia when all I'm advocating for is something like this.

And library content! Among many other things.

Well we'd be getting a bit too off topic if we went there so let's not.

An influx of tiny homes is not a solution to home affordability. If you think it is, then your position is that any type of shelter is housing and that it would make housing more affordable.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I doubt anyone in the US is advocating for allowing the building of tin roof slums with limited plumbing and electricity the way you see in developing countries like Brazil or India. Rather we're advocating for a deregulation of the housing market so more land is zoned for more diverse property types rather than imposing SFHs on most residential land.

I know that harping on this point seems petty but I genuinely think that one of the few weaknesses of the US compared to other developed economies is its outdated urban planning which makes housing less affordable and maintenance costs higher. Its one of the few obvious things holding the US economy back.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I’m not a free for all libertarian.

I believe the farther away governments is from the individual, the less say it should have on the individual.

Government has its place in safety and social welfare, but should be as local as possible.

The community should have say on what happens in the community.

These are not unreasonable positions.

Generally, the government should stay out of the affairs of the individual so long as those affairs don’t impact the community.

That is a libertarian leaning position.

Libertarianism in its pure theoretical form is simply anarchy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

An influx of tiny homes is not a solution to home affordability. If you think it is, then your position is that any type of shelter is housing and that it would make housing more affordable.

Who are you arguing with?

I think that it should be legal to build homes that people want to build and buy, assuming they meet safety requirements. That doesn't mean that I think everything should be forced to live in tiny homes. I just think you're unable to wrap your head around support for freedom ("Durr, if he doesn't agree with my form of central planning, that must mean he wants another form of central planning!").

 

[Rob Battisti]

Personally I don't think it should be up to the community, that to me is a needless infringement on property rights. So I definitely support states upzoning big swathes of residential land.

As far as RVs I can see why people would be against them and I support keeping them outlawed but in practice I'd never snitch on my neighbor for pulling something like that.

You keep saying "pods" here even though I never used that term myself to describe what I'm advocating for. It comes off as a dishonest way to invoke some cyberpunk dystopia when all I'm advocating for is something like this.

Well we'd be getting a bit too off topic if we went there so let's not.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I doubt anyone in the US is advocating for allowing the building of tin roof slums with limited plumbing and electricity the way you see in developing countries like Brazil or India. Rather we're advocating for a deregulation of the housing market so more land is zoned for more diverse property types rather than imposing SFHs on most residential land.

I know that harping on this point seems petty but I genuinely think that one of the few weaknesses of the US compared to other developed economies is its outdated urban planning which makes housing less affordable and maintenance costs higher. Its one of the few obvious things holding the US economy back.

I appreciate you and your position and I respectfully disagree. Thank you for not hurling insults like that other jackass.

I like you and your contributions. I often agree with many things you post here.

On this, we disagree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I appreciate you and your position and I respectfully disagree. Thank you for not hurling insults like that other jackass.

I like you and your contributions. I often agree with many things you post here.

On this, we disagree.

Bruh, if you want to play nice, maybe try not to misrepresent views you disagree with?

 

[brothir]

I’m not a free for all libertarian.
I believe the farther away governments is from the individual, the less say it should have on the individual.
Government has its place in safety and social welfare, but should be as local as possible.
The community should have say on what happens in the community.
These are not unreasonable positions.
Generally, the government should stay out of the affairs of the individual so long as those affairs don’t impact the community.
That is a libertarian leaning position.
Libertarianism in its pure theoretical form is simply anarchy.

Sounds like you're no kind of libertarian. Libertarians consider all kinds of government restrictive on the individual, and the distinction between local, regional and national shouldn't matter much. Obsessing over making things as local as possible is realistically in service of racism and slavery, which historically has been contentious on the national scale but enthusiastically supported regionally and locally.

"You get to do what you want, as long as it doesn't offend us" is conventionally conservative repressive philosophy, combined with the desire to police your local community. It's George Zimmerman Republicanism.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Obsessing over making things as local as possible is realistically in service of racism and slavery

Those slavery loving racist school board members LMAO.

Of course Hack liked your post JFC

 

[brothir]

Those slavery loving racist school board members LMAO.

Of course Hack liked your post JFC

I'm sorry that you were offended.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Well everything is looking Up....Grocery prices..Gas Prices...Rent...Heating Costs..Home and Car Insurance..Credit Debt..Streaming services.... Yep they're all Up.

The question is. Are people getting back or will they get back what they are putting into their nation.

I am not gonna stay in Canada much longer for example cause the city that im in, Vancouver is literally robbing people with taxes and is expensive as all hell. The problem is, once you hit retirement age, they dont give a shit about you and the return on your investment is trash. Meds you need usually arent covered and cost a fortune and the pension you get is garbage. Im still 20 plus years away from retirement age so theres no way im gonna continue to feed into this place. They keep shovelling money away to other nations anyway.

 

[Blayt7hh]

It's Core PCE that is targeted at 2%, actually. 2.9% for the year, and 1.9% annualized over the past six months. Also, FYI, you'd want to use bps rather than percentage of percentage for this.

We didn't have years of super high inflation, though. We did have years of super low inflation. I would say it is fine, and you can't pretend it's a big problem.

Why would I want to use bips? I have no idea where you’re getting those numbers because none of the sites are bringing that up

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why would I want to use bips? I have no idea where you’re getting those numbers because none of the sites are bringing that up

You'd ethically use bps because you're talking about a percentage of a percentage, and people pay the whole price. So, for example, if there inflation were 0.01% one year and then 0.02% the next year, we'd see the cost of something priced at $100 go up to $100.02. The price paid wouldn't go from $0.01 to $0.02 (100%); it would go from $100.00 to $100.02. That generalizes beyond just this issue.

I have a hard time seeing that. Just Google "last six months core pce annualized." You should see several results that give you the answer. This is a good one (a good one to bookmark if you have a real interest in the topic): https://en.macromicro.me/collections/5/us-price-relative/93782/us-core-pce-annual-rate-change

It's 1.5% annualized over the past three months.

That's what the Fed uses for targeting (and you can find discussion of the reason for that if you're interested). You want to look at other metrics to get a sense of what's going on too, but that's a good big-picture one, and you brought up targeting.

My observation, though, is that people don't tend to be really interested in understanding how stuff works as much as just trying to advance a narrative.

 

[AGEZ909]

Now and then, I read Mayberry.
I've noticed that several people here complained about the finances on some threads.
All of them Americans.
"Because nearly the whole damn country is broke?"
"The economy is shit"
The inflation, the inflation, the inflation

So, is it true?
Are people doing worse than before?
Are you optimist about the future?
What do US people understand by poverty?

Always optimistic about the future in the long run. Definitely see troubles in the medium run. the amount of world debt is unpayable. USA running every increasing deficits with debt/gdp at something like 120%. That debt WILL need to be monetized through elevated inflation. If you are the sucker holding dollers/bonds as the government/fed keep real yields negative, prepare to see your purchasing power melt away.

economy is shit and i expect it to get worse before it gets better.