0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
broadly true, but there's some counterintuitive reason this happens.
small cities are functional, but only aspirational to the immobile. metropolises will remain costly, because the capital looking for that kind of home can only increase as the economy/nation grows.
inversely, the revealed preference of pretty much everyone is shy away from any degradation to their immediate needs already being met. everyone expects more FEMA response and insurance to compensate for ever-growing property values, not many will go full Tyler Durden or Robinson Crusoe.
or rather, not enough. ultimately, the solution depends on price and ROI, so the incentive at scale for construction and retrofit is plausible where subsidies are plausible. does this mean GFC precursor? who knows. but eventually there needs to be an end buyer at scale and immune to property depreciation.
which brings up public education, or what remains of it in this age. if the most competitive form is entirely digital, self-sovereign, and location-agnostic, neighborhood value swings back to culture. which is significantly dependent on scenius and...socioeconomic status.
time is a flat circle. your congress critter will pick pork barrel according to districts as they're currently drawn, and lobbies as they currently network. does anything stop this train besides the political equivalent of CVE-2025-1727? 0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
