My Debate with Cameron Murray
Here is my 2-hour debate with Cameron Murray on the question, “What should come first, if at all: Market Liberalization or Investments in Public Housing?"
Murray is an economist in Australia. He generally has NIMBY-friendly points of view. He says that builders working through the marketplace will not build enough to bring down costs in expensive cities, and places like New York City have become inherently expensive for reasons that upzoning and allowing more market rate housing supply can’t counter.
He has a plan, similar to, say, Singapore, where cities develop a subsidized stock of homes that remain inexpensive, while a second set of homes continue to trade at market values.
I counter that it is necessary to get enough market-rate housing to pull down costs in order for public housing supports to be effective.
Two very different points of view about how to proceed.
Thanks to Econoboi and ThreeWonks for hosting.
Such a great discussion, well done to both of you
Kevin, I really enjoyed your debate with Cameron and you should be commended for participating.
Can I ask you: I found your model of housing very specific to the US and to recent years, but in fact, housing has been said to be affordable around the world and over time (decades, if not hundreds of years).
To the extent your explanation of the current malaise in US housing seems to focus on regulation, it seems poorly suited to explain the wide scope and temporal persistence of this issue. Am I missing something?
I know you've done a lot of work on this issue, so please feel free to point me towards something you've written around this in the past. Again, for participating in that debate and thanks for all your work on housing!