Subject:
|
Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:26:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
291 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> Again it would be patently unfair to change the rules.
If the rules are currently patently unfair, is it not patently unfair to leave
them as is?
> Moreover, there would be no economic incentive to build new housing
> units, so there will be no housing for growing populations.
That's silly. People will do whatever kind of work is needed as determined by
the market. If housing is needed the market will provide it.
I would reword your statement as: "There would be no opportunity to gather
wealth in wild disproportion to the work performed through investment in real
estate." And frankly, I don't see the down side.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) If they are, then yes, but if the losing side suddenly decides it doesn't like the rules and wants to change in mid-game, you can bet it won't sit well with the side that's ahead. And no one will take the new rules seriously if they are (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) And I'd HAVE to go back to work. :-( (...) I pretty much agree, although there is a danger of stereotyping-- many people who are not rich but have been playing by the rules for several years would be hurt. And if you suddenly change the rules (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
