Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
So ownership confers knowledge; is there no end to the power of private property?
Louis MacNeice
Greens and Shelter get it all wrong on housing in london ..
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
So ownership confers knowledge; is there no end to the power of private property?
Louis MacNeice
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What you call them is immaterial. It's what they are that matters.
Local planning authorities do not implement regional plans, regional authorities. Priorities and policy feed upward, not downward.
Why is it "ludicrous"?
Does a random landowner have more knowledge of local geology (soil condition and composition, drainage, depth of water table etc) than a local geological surveyor?
You might have a point if all landowners were resident, but few of them are.
I believe that you are (in your attempt to argue a case for laissez faire) deliberately missing the point, which is that the minimum enforceable standard is so low as to incur little or no extra cost to developers. In fact I'd argue that the watering down or removal of extant regulation (on minimum room sizes, for example) has made development cheaper.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
even then, he wouldn't really have a point. Not even if we also ignored the likelihood of at least one party having a distinct interest in telling porkies.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The existence of a planning authority is central planning. If I want to build on land I have to get permission. This is planning, ok they're not running it past whitehall but it is still a third party in the way.
anyway, we're getting bogged down here. The point of the matter is this:
The government restricts land use. this drives up the price of housing.
In a free society if someone wants to buy land and develop it this should only be an agreement between buyer and seller. It shouldn't involve any third party, it certainly shouldn't need consent from some planning authority.
A description of planning policy can be found here:
http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/environment/land-economy-2007112096/
The stuff about there being no plan/only 'bottom up' plans is nonsense. See here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/regionallocal/
committees may well have access to information regarding local geology etc. but two things:
a) if they have it then the general public have it,
b) it's in the buyers best interest to find out what they're getting so there really isn't any need for some bureaucrat to intervene.
The government is keeping people out of houses in my view.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No it isn't.
Unless you don't understand the usage of the word "central", and as someone who claims to be doing a degree in economics, you really should.
Yes. It's "planning".
It's not "central planning".
It's "controlled development".
Legislation restricts land use, and does so for good reason. Are you acquainted with any of it?
"Restricted land use" is a minor mechanism in housing price. It's insignificant in comparison to the "build cheap, sell at a high price" short-termism of housing developers.
Interesting, but ideologically biased and pays little attention to the externalities of such a move.
Unsurprising, given that it's the Adam Smith Institute.
Mmm, yes, strategies, frameworks and guidance. Not governance, not centrally imposed diktat.
Because...?
It may, in some cases, serve the best interests of the buyer, in other cases it may not, and the seller may wish to conceal information, in which case what you term "bureaucratic intervention", and what a less ideologically-motivated person would call "regulation" or "policing of intentions" serves a purpose.
You may be willing to leave everything to the honesty of the individual seller or the corporation, but I don't see any grounds to do so.
Then, IMO, your view is simplistic, and wilfully so because you're ideologically-motivated.
Your contention that land use restrictions is a minor mechanism is just your opinion. If you've ever worked in commercial development of a site then you will realise that it's not.
The strategies and guidance are binding though aren't they? They are imposed by the authorities and people have to agree with them.
And building low and selling high is hardly short-termism. Imagine building low and selling low, how long would that last?
I don't believe everyone is honest far from it, I think bureaucrats are just as self interested as the rest of us.
The strategies and guidance are binding though aren't they? They are imposed by the authorities and people have to agree with them.
And building low and selling high is hardly short-termism. Imagine building low and selling low, how long would that last?
I don't believe everyone is honest far from it, I think bureaucrats are just as self interested as the rest of us.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Swivel-eyed spook thinktanker alert!
A "degree in economics" you say?
You've got all the answers, then. 
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Are you suggesting that economics is an ideologically neutral field of study?
You've got letters after your name, big deal.
Actually that's a pretty interesting question. Whether it could be or not I don't know but whether it is at the moment, no question it's not neutral. I mean look at me, I'm using economic arguments to ram libertarian ideology down your throat. Doesn't seem very neutral does it?
And the letters...letter after one's name make a person.
And the letters...letter after one's name make a person.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You're not "ramming" anything down my throat, so let's get that clear. 
This is hilarious.
Do they? Tell that to Dubya.
This is hilarious.
Do they? Tell that to Dubya.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I love it when people make assumptions!
I notice that you've elided the degree of latitude such guidance has.
Would hardly suit your argument to acknowledge it though, would it?
I'm doubting your claim to be studying economics (except perhaps "home economics" more with every post you make, unless you're only three months into your degree and haven't actually read anything except "The Milton Friedman Pop-up Book of Why All Other Economic Theories Except Mine Are Wrong".
But they're bound.
By rules and regulations.
Therefore their self-interest is mediated.
Jesus H. Christ on a skateboard, wearing a Walkman, listening to Lustmord!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Very dull, if it's all they have to measure themselves by (and I say that as someone with a reasonable-sized blob of Alphabetti Spaghetti after my own name).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're not "ramming" anything down my throat, so let's get that clear.
This is hilarious.
Do they? Tell that to Dubya.
But, but...Dubya's a Harvard MBA. He must be a genius, surely?
I love it when people make assumptions!
I notice that you've elided the degree of latitude such guidance has.
Would hardly suit your argument to acknowledge it though, would it?
I'm doubting your claim to be studying economics (except perhaps "home economics" more with every post you make, unless you're only three months into your degree and haven't actually read anything except "The Milton Friedman Pop-up Book of Why All Other Economic Theories Except Mine Are Wrong".
But they're bound.
By rules and regulations.
Therefore their self-interest is mediated.
Jesus H. Christ on a skateboard, wearing a Walkman, listening to Lustmord!
Me making assumptions? hahah, mate, you just said, with no justification that land use restrictions are a minor part of the price mechanism. Care to justify that? Or are you doing exactly what you just accused me of: making a giant pulsating phallus of an assumption?
yeah, land use regs have lattitude, but less latitude than no regs at all which is my point.
So basically I'm still right aren't I? Government (through their legislation and planning) restrict land which can only have an upward effect on prices.
Tell me I'm wrong, show me how without these restrictions the price would rise even further please do.
Keep trying pedro.
You're not "ramming" anything down my throat, so let's get that clear.
This is hilarious.
Do they? Tell that to Dubya.
Without letters after your name you're just a nobody, a nobody I tell you!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
But, but...Dubya's a Harvard MBA. He must be a genius, surely?
Harvard, Yale, MBA....aye, it all adds up to genius!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
dennisr
the acceptable face
von hayek - got to be a wind-up surely? this von hayek does not really believe the trollop he's spouting surely??
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
well, he's gone & started a TV Licence thread in the wrong forum, so that may say something?
With regards the letters...you know what I don't think i actually do. i thought that would be obvious.
With regards the land use stuff sure. I didn't really think it was that controversial to be honest!
I used to work (briefly) in the power industry and they were always complaining about planning permission etc.
And the green belt around london, I thought that was common knowledge as a factor in london house prices.
Even if you think it's right that we have a plan for land use you must admit it will raise the price of land surely?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I can justify it easily.
Make a list of the factors that influence price, then quantify the mean effect of land use restrictions.
If you attempt to make such an assessment as neutrally as possible then you'll discover that land use restrictions are subsidiary to factors such as infrastructure installation/extension (especially so in rural settings).
So your argument is "no rules is a better way to operate a rational development policy than having any form of regulation"?
Only in La-la-land.
Cartelisation, for example.
I'm sure a bright chap such as yourself knows what that is, don't you?
Don't call me Pedro, Pete.
I mean, just stating it doesn't matter is just pure logical dynamite. I'm gonna take an exam now, and when they ask me what type of inflection point I got going on, I'll just say 'well actually mate, just list the type of inflections it could be and you'll see it's definitely non-stationary'.
Similar threads
