You're viewing part of a thread.
You're joking right? https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/
From your own source. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/#:~:text=The oil and gas industry,slightly when adjusted for inflation.
And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues
A recent NAR study estimates that the U.S. has developed an "underbuilding gap" of at least 5.5 million housing units over the last 20 years. This translates into more than $4 trillion in underinvestment in housing. Even relatively modest steps taken now to reduce this gap will unleash tremendous economic activity and create millions of new jobs.
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don't listen to them because their constituents don't want them to
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn't make it correct
Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.
As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction "boom" as of articles published 6 days ago.
Here's a quote from MReport:
Further, almost two-thirds of the apartments build during the pandemic are clustered in just 20 high-growth metropolitan areas, which make up about 41% of the total renter population in the U.S. Therefore, for many other places, the new supply barely made a dent in the existing supply. What's more, around 89% of the apartments completed in the last three years are high-end and, thus, target upper-middle- and high-income buyers and renters.
So they are building "multi-family homes", but targeting, wait for it, people with lot's of money.
So you quit lying.
Come to think of it, you're singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?
It doesn't matter who they're targeting, because they're increasing supply
You're so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you're not thinking things through.
Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you'd like and are willing to learn.
I'm a climate lobbyist, for example.
Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I'm focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country's wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,
It doesn’t matter who they’re targeting, because they’re increasing supply.
shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says...a lot, but I don't want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you've piqued my interest.
Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.
I know tone doesn't translate via text very well, but I can assure you I'm not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I'm not angry without reason. I've seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I've seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn't worthy, but our lobbyists weren't as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.
It's a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).
Now don't ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it's the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.
Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.
If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I'll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I'm also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I'm all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it's arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
And I agree! Nice conversation
That’s just trickle down with housing. Except it doesn’t account for rent seeking.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I absolutely know what I'm talking about, and it isn't "trickle down" b cause it doesn't involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn't mean what you think it means.
You don’t think that an increase in supply only for the wealthiest under the assumption that it will result in an increase in supply for those less wealthy is comparable to trickle down? It sounds pretty similar…
Also the expectation that even if it worked such an increase in housing stock at the very top wouldn’t result in an increase in the price of rentals seems naive. As much as rents the market will bear are dictated by what the owners charge their floor is dictated by the total cost of their expenses. Adding a new building with a new, expensive mortgage into the rental pool can’t push rents down unless it’s expenses are below some median or mean rent and that’s not true for rental units at the top.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of "trickle down economics" just means you shouldn't use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.