Tweet
Hack: This is why negative interest rates existed during the Obama administration, and is an example of the waterboarding I deal with every single day. This is about CA.
http://news.stamfordglobal.com/daily...sand-hill-road (trying my best to avoid a paywall)
The core of the article is summarized:
If you stroll down Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif., you will find yourself among America’s leading venture capitalists. The companies on this street helped bring the world Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Lyft and other transformative businesses that have created millions of jobs.
Sand Hill Road also offers some of the most expensive commercial property in the U.S., rivaling even Midtown Manhattan. But despite the enormous cost of real estate, you won’t find any high-rise buildings. What passes for a Sand Hill skyscraper tops out at two stories. Even stranger, near the end of Sand Hill Road you can find cows grazing happily on the most expensive grass in the country.
Why do parts of this area look more like a gentleman’s farm than a leading financial center? Land regulations. In a free market, there would be enormous economic pressure to develop the property, to move its cute cows to far less valuable pastures and to construct much taller buildings. But this kind of development is largely prohibited Land regulations have run amok, and not only in Menlo Park. In addition to governing how private property can be used, these rules implicitly dictate which special-interest groups have a say in commercial and residential development. Building proposals bring dozens of vested interests out of the woodwork, ranging from environmentalists, to “not in my backyard” homeowners, to affordable-housing lobbyists.
The question is what this costs the larger economy. Many theories have been raised to explain why the U.S. has been plagued by weak growth, which began even before the 2008 financial crisis. But as much as 40% of the slowdown may be due to increasingly severe land regulations, according to our research, conducted with economist Kyle Herkenhoff at the University of Minnesota.
Land regulations add friction to the economy in that they impede the flow of workers and capital from regions with poor job opportunities to places with good ones. Interstate migration rates used to be high. Between 1950 and 1980, California’s population increased from a little over 10 million to nearly 24 million, and its share of the national population rose from about 7% to 10%. This growth reflected a bounty of new economic opportunities that created millions of high-wage jobs in industries ranging from technology and aerospace to high-skilled manufacturing and financial services.
California’s boom was facilitated by exceptionally good state and local economic policies, which in turn reflected a bipartisan understanding that the public’s interest was served by government that helped, not hindered, development. In the 1950s and 1960s, capital spending accounted for as much as 20% of the state budget. California built schools, roads and water systems to support its population growth. These public-private synergies made California into the most populous state in the country, and the second most productive, behind only New York.
Despite rapid growth, housing remained relatively affordable. In 1970 California’s home prices were about 36% higher than the national average. But that changed as tightening land regulations began to constrain development. By 1990 California housing was 147% more expensive than the nation overall.
These regulations have damaged California and the national economy. Stratospheric home prices have redirected millions of workers away from the Golden State’s highly productive industries to states with more permissive land regulations and lower housing costs, but also with fewer high-paying jobs.
Relaxing land regulations could substantially improve America’s economic performance by making housing and commercial development more affordable. If California rolled back its land rules to where they stood in 1980, our research estimates that the state’s population could ultimately grow to 18% of the country. U.S. gross domestic product could permanently increase by about 2%, or $375 billion. If every state rolled back land regulations to 1980 levels, GDP could rise by as much as $1.8 trillion.
What socialists and bureaucrats (like your wife) don't comprehend is that these foolish regulations, always enacted to avoid anyone becoming a "victim", hurt everyone except those with political power.
Speaking of which, Trump is in Utah trying to undo the enormous scam that was the Grand Escalante National Monument. I'll leave it to you to look up, the that Monument was a Bill Clinton payoff to an Indonesian "donor". It took the US's hard coal reserves off the global market, and the Indonesian donor then had a virtual monopoly.
When I said "cattle futures", and you said basically "what?", I don't blame you because you are young. Grand Escalante has many great formations, and those should be protected. But the other 98% should be opened to the public (it is still owned by the US) for normal uses.
Personally, I'd love to see the Federal government auction the immense land holdings they have, not all, but most. That would easily pay off the national debt.
http://news.stamfordglobal.com/daily...sand-hill-road (trying my best to avoid a paywall)
The core of the article is summarized:
If you stroll down Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, Calif., you will find yourself among America’s leading venture capitalists. The companies on this street helped bring the world Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Tesla, Lyft and other transformative businesses that have created millions of jobs.
Sand Hill Road also offers some of the most expensive commercial property in the U.S., rivaling even Midtown Manhattan. But despite the enormous cost of real estate, you won’t find any high-rise buildings. What passes for a Sand Hill skyscraper tops out at two stories. Even stranger, near the end of Sand Hill Road you can find cows grazing happily on the most expensive grass in the country.
Why do parts of this area look more like a gentleman’s farm than a leading financial center? Land regulations. In a free market, there would be enormous economic pressure to develop the property, to move its cute cows to far less valuable pastures and to construct much taller buildings. But this kind of development is largely prohibited Land regulations have run amok, and not only in Menlo Park. In addition to governing how private property can be used, these rules implicitly dictate which special-interest groups have a say in commercial and residential development. Building proposals bring dozens of vested interests out of the woodwork, ranging from environmentalists, to “not in my backyard” homeowners, to affordable-housing lobbyists.
The question is what this costs the larger economy. Many theories have been raised to explain why the U.S. has been plagued by weak growth, which began even before the 2008 financial crisis. But as much as 40% of the slowdown may be due to increasingly severe land regulations, according to our research, conducted with economist Kyle Herkenhoff at the University of Minnesota.
Land regulations add friction to the economy in that they impede the flow of workers and capital from regions with poor job opportunities to places with good ones. Interstate migration rates used to be high. Between 1950 and 1980, California’s population increased from a little over 10 million to nearly 24 million, and its share of the national population rose from about 7% to 10%. This growth reflected a bounty of new economic opportunities that created millions of high-wage jobs in industries ranging from technology and aerospace to high-skilled manufacturing and financial services.
California’s boom was facilitated by exceptionally good state and local economic policies, which in turn reflected a bipartisan understanding that the public’s interest was served by government that helped, not hindered, development. In the 1950s and 1960s, capital spending accounted for as much as 20% of the state budget. California built schools, roads and water systems to support its population growth. These public-private synergies made California into the most populous state in the country, and the second most productive, behind only New York.
Despite rapid growth, housing remained relatively affordable. In 1970 California’s home prices were about 36% higher than the national average. But that changed as tightening land regulations began to constrain development. By 1990 California housing was 147% more expensive than the nation overall.
These regulations have damaged California and the national economy. Stratospheric home prices have redirected millions of workers away from the Golden State’s highly productive industries to states with more permissive land regulations and lower housing costs, but also with fewer high-paying jobs.
Relaxing land regulations could substantially improve America’s economic performance by making housing and commercial development more affordable. If California rolled back its land rules to where they stood in 1980, our research estimates that the state’s population could ultimately grow to 18% of the country. U.S. gross domestic product could permanently increase by about 2%, or $375 billion. If every state rolled back land regulations to 1980 levels, GDP could rise by as much as $1.8 trillion.
What socialists and bureaucrats (like your wife) don't comprehend is that these foolish regulations, always enacted to avoid anyone becoming a "victim", hurt everyone except those with political power.
Speaking of which, Trump is in Utah trying to undo the enormous scam that was the Grand Escalante National Monument. I'll leave it to you to look up, the that Monument was a Bill Clinton payoff to an Indonesian "donor". It took the US's hard coal reserves off the global market, and the Indonesian donor then had a virtual monopoly.
When I said "cattle futures", and you said basically "what?", I don't blame you because you are young. Grand Escalante has many great formations, and those should be protected. But the other 98% should be opened to the public (it is still owned by the US) for normal uses.
Personally, I'd love to see the Federal government auction the immense land holdings they have, not all, but most. That would easily pay off the national debt.
Comment