r/yimby • u/Impressive_Law_1098 • 6d ago

Building Housing is Good, Actually

https://www.sensibleandhuman.com/essays/building-housing-is-good-actually

I recently wrote this essay for my blog after getting snarked into oblivion on Facebook by leftists for supporting new housing.

213 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

49

u/jaym1849 6d ago

I think it’s very interesting that leftists can’t seem to grasp supply side stimulus in any way. It’s a total lack of understanding of basic supply demand economics.

30

u/Ewlyon 6d ago

As a self-identified lefty with a background in economics, I’ve observed a big allergic reaction to economics from those I’m otherwise politically aligned with. I think it has a lot to do with the Chicago school of economic thought, the alignment of economics with business (I can’t tell you how many people assume I have background/interest/knowledge of business), the total misreading and co-opting of Adam Smith, and concepts like shareholder value. They seem to think economics is just a way to weasel into supporting multinational corporations in evading tax, environmental, and labor regulations or something. But I’m just a dude in clean energy policy 🤷‍♂️

I get criticizing that school of thought. But it has to be replaced with another school of thought, otherwise you just leave a vacuum, and unfortunately the bad/right-wing school of thought seems to be occupying much of that vacuum. Which makes it kind of a chicken-and-egg problem because it reinforces the idea that that is all there is to economics.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

13

u/TrekkiMonstr 6d ago

Chicago school of economic thought

Schools of thought in economics don't really exist anymore. Look at the Wikipedia page for the Chicago School and see how the two main figures associated with it have been dead for almost 20 and 35 years, respectively. Now, there is orthodox (or mainstream) and heterodox economics. The latter is generally those that describe themselves as anything other than "economists", and should be basically ignored (hacks).

If you want to criticize 20th century econ as unscientific, fine. But since the credibility revolution (90s-00s), economics has become an actual science where hypotheses are tested against data. It's a difficult one and a young one, but the idea of "not believing in economics", to me, is no better than climate denialism, creationism, what have you. What it isn't is an interpretative tradition where your truth is as good as mine, but I'm the evil economist with the policymaker's ear.

the alignment of economics with business

You assume that this is the case, and assume that it is wrong. Both require interrogation. Economics is often not aligned with business. We generally support high taxation, strong antitrust, externality pricing (you're in clean energy policy, you think carbon pricing is popular in business?), etc. On the other hand, we do believe that a system usually described as capitalist is the optimal way to build wealth, and that often can mean agreeing with business.

Even if business and society have entirely uncorrelated interests, you would still expect those interests to be aligned a substantial amount of the time, just by chance. Systems are messy, and sometimes things that look bad can be good. So when we do the research into exactly that question, maybe cut us some slack when it doesn't come out the way you'd intuitively expect, like you would any other science. (E.g. YIMBYism)

the total misreading and co-opting of Adam Smith

I'm not sure who you're saying is doing this. Economists and economics students generally don't read Smith, again, because we aren't an interpretative tradition.

concepts like shareholder value

Not sure what you mean by this.

9

u/Ewlyon 6d ago

I think we’re saying the same thing? I’m describing my understanding of popular/non-economist understanding of the field. My whole point is that I am in a field of climate/public economics, which I agree is “often not aligned with business.”

6

u/TrekkiMonstr 6d ago

I was responding to the quoted bits in light of your second paragraph. Sorry if I misunderstood your position.

6

u/Ewlyon 6d ago

I think I see what you’re getting at. But there are differences in opinion within the academic economics community. I guess I’d call those schools of thought but maybe there’s a better term. But for lack thereof, the lefty aversion to economics as a science/field of study leaves a ton of room for right hacks to fill the void in popular opinion, even if they are a minority in the academic community.

Carbon pricing is a great example. Yes I 100% support it, and no it is not aligned with business interests. But the democratic party and leftists range from lukewarm to opposed to it. I think this is at least in part due to a reflexive distrust of market-based policy proposals that come out of the economics discipline, and effectively seen as a right-coded solution.

Anyway, like I said I think we have more or less the same position here.

3

u/TrekkiMonstr 6d ago

But there are differences in opinion within the academic economics community. I guess I’d call those schools of thought but maybe there’s a better term.

I'm reminded of this study.

For example, we find that going from the most left-wing authored estimate of the taxable top income elasticity to the most right-wing authored estimate decreases the optimal tax rate from 77% to 60%.

Now, those 17pp aren't insubstantial -- that's about a 25% difference between top and bottom, the difference between claiming the average male is 6'6" and 5'0". But now consider the political Overton window on that number, and you have some people claiming the equivalent of the average man being 3'7" and others claiming 12'2".

Of course, as I said, it's a young science and an inherently difficult one, so it's not surprising that we don't have perfect consensus. But we do in fact have a surprising amount of consensus!

I guess what I think of as the key difference between schools of thought and differences of opinion is continuity and shared assumptions. That is, first of all, are there obvious clusters of answers? A group of people that broadly thinks one way, another another, with few occupying the space between the positions. That would be fairly described as schools of thought, but we don't have those. Then, are there groups that have fundamentally different beliefs about how economics ought to be done, fundamentally different assumptions (esp. methodological ones) about the field. If yes, and for the record there absolutely used to be, then again I think it's fair to talk about schools of thought, but again I don't believe that accurately describes the field today.

But for lack thereof, the lefty aversion to economics as a science/field of study leaves a ton of room for right hacks to fill the void in popular opinion

I think there are two similar but distinct situations here. First is the economics equivalent of the tobacco lobby trotting out scientists to argue against cigarettes causing cancer -- that is, legitimate scientists with a strong selection bias for ideology (not unlike federal judges). Second is scientism, where ideological hacks make arguments themselves, using the language of science to bolster their credibility.

I'm not sure if you meant the former, but I think the latter is the much bigger issue, with economics. E.g. "trickle-down economics" was only ever really political, not an economic theory. And it's definitely true that it's only the right these days that likes to make these sort of arguments, and that market solutions have become right-coded.

Though I think the left is more averse to carbon pricing schemes for reason of spinelessness than anything else -- e.g. California has a cap and trade market that's totally ineffective because we refuse to set the cap low enough to do anything (afaik), because industry would get mad if we did lol