You're describing the "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" problem, though. Major urban areas are hard to get into becuse they're super crowded, and super crowded means a huge number of potential employees and amenities. Plenty of people can get into San Francisco every day. Evidence: San Francisco is chock full of people every day.

Sure, it would be easy for people who live in the exurbs to commute to a Google office in their particular exurb, but there just aren't enough potential Google employees to run a Google office living in a single exurb.

It's not 100% of the problem, but rent control is a major issue. Given a choice between selling or occupying your property and renting it out, rent control gives the owner a very strong disincentive to rent. So even with the same number of units, the split between "owner occupied" and "rental" shifts strongly in favor of owner occupied dwellings.

Nah. By downloading their web page to my computer they are accepting my EULA agreement.

It's perfect! Unsinkable? Unthinkable!
No Homer will ever be allowed, and all the regulators will be objective and unbowed!

The US president is a Spokesmodel.

The last vestiges of Presidential authority as actual executive were blown out of JFK's skull, 50 years ago. The real rulers have allowed the cosmetic changes of politics, without substantial challenge to policy or imperative.

That's why you can argue successfully to let fags into the imperial legions, but not if such legions should be withdrawn from the globe and disbanded.

False conservatism, false progressive/liberalism. Everybody in the US takes a hot shower and drives to the mall, on the burnt bodies and broken future of a million dead babies - hidden in Congo and Yemen and Indonesia and...

So when you say this:

In summary: Having some profit is acceptable. Horever, to want 900% profit as in the example is simply stupid, blind greed.

We're to understand that you mean that 900% doesn't actually happen, but if it did it would be bad. And while some profit is good, too much profit is bad. But for unspecified values of "some" and "too much." So realistically speaking, are we in a state where "too much" profit is being made? If so, how do we know that? And what amount would be appropriate?

We're talking about a very practical problem here, so some concrete answers would be useful. As far as I can tell, the profit in the home building business is not abnormal, so are we saying that businesses in general are making too much profit? If so, what would be a more appropriate profit margin and how do you decide what that is?

If you're going to complain about "unreasonable" profits and then back off when people actually ask whether the profits are really that unreasonable, you might want to consider the possibility that the profits aren't all that unreasonable and that your basic complaint is nonsense.

And it's not like building houses is a new high-tech endeavor that only a few companies have figured out how to do. There are *a lot* of people and companies in the home buidling business. They know what it costs and they know what the return is. If the return was far higher than the return on other investments, they'd be borrowing shittons of money and then using it to build houses like crazy. The fact that they're not doing so indicates that the return on that invested capital isn't all that much higher than the return on other investments.

You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/04/16/0221210/study-finds-us-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy

Your brain washing has been complete. You are now free to follow orders, citizen.

You have the same government that you started this century with.

They just changed spokesmodels - while you felt like you had a say in the matter... Your coup happened in many stages, over many decades - but defining moments happened with the Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy years - with a decisive event in Nov 1963...

Call us back, after you acquire a few more orbits on this rock... ;-)

The "people" who own Obama, own the media.

A lot of people consider both Mountain View and San Francisco as valid places to live. Some people would never live in suburbia and some people would never live in the city, but a lot of people are flexible and see costs and benefits to both. They make their decisions in the fuzzy gray areas based on commute time, living environment preferences, and price. Shifing the price of either will cause some percentage of those people to alter their decisions.

And your Honda/Lexus analogy is spot on in many ways, but it doesn't illustrate what you think it does. Many buyers consider both a Honda and a Lexus when they're buying. They may prefer the Lexus but choose the Honda because it's a better deal overall. A $2K bump in the Honda price is very likely to sell more Lexuses. It's not like we're comparing driving Hondas to riding zebras. The two goods are real substitutes, if not perfect ones.

I'm still wondering where you're getting 900% profit from. If there as 900% profit to be made on the dollar, I guarantee you that smart companies like Google and Apple that are sitting on billions of dollars in cash would get into the home building business before the end of the business day. The reality is that once you account for all of the costs involved, different business sectors tend to have fairly similar yields for exactly this reason: if somebody is making outsized profits, everybody pulls their money out of what they're doing and gets into that business.

My grandparents home in Los Angeles County took 35 years to grow 10x in value.

But it eventually happens, and if you limit tax increases to 2% per year, homeowners get a tax cut in real terms most every year.

Anyways, why the need to sell your house?

Are you saying that people should never move? I can think of a few reasons: To change jobs. The kids have moved out, so you don't need a big place (especially useful as it vacates a big place for new families with kids). You're too old to go up and down stairs. You need cash for retirement so you want to downsize from your suburban home and move into a small one story condo. This system breaks the normal lifecycle of home ownership.

Why not target the federal government for supporting the home loan interest deduction, which promotes massive financing that props up pricing?

Absolutely! Provided it was phased out over a number of years, I'd vote for this in a heartbeat.

Why force people out of their homes because of unreasonable property tax hikes?

You can get past the "forcing people out of their homes" problem in a couple of ways. The first would be to allow people with little to no income (seniors, for example), to have the tax assessed against their home and have it taken out of their estate when they die.

The second would be to move to an income tax and forget about property tax entirely. Property tax causes these sorts of problems by its very nature. Property isn't liquid, so you can't use property to pay taxes on property. Rich people have lots of property, so they pay more (in theory). Old people don't have the income to pay property tax, so we give them a break. Basically, we're fiddling with the property tax to try to make it act like an income tax, but with the nasty side effects of all sorts of terrible market distortions. I don't get why we do it.