Comment by littlestymaar
4 months ago
> This is very similar to the economic destruction wrought by those who block housing in the most highly productive geographic regions of the country.
It's not. You are just repeating Cloud providers' talking point.
Housing is a basic need, and I such many people including myself wouldn't mind overruling the locals' preferences in order to make sure everyone can have access to housing at a decent price.
Data centers aren't and there are already too many of them. As a matter of fact the majority of them exist because companies worth hundreds of billions of dollar use cloud-based walled garden to milk consumers in ways they couldn't if the software was local.
> Data centers aren't and there are already too many of them.
And here you're just repeating the same arguments that NIMBYs use to block housing. And saying "you're using the same arguments as X, X is bad, therefore your argument is bad" is nat actually a sound argument in itself, I point it out because it's ironic when you accuse me of repeating Cloud provider's talking points!
Where the NIMBY argument actually falls down in that the assessment of "too many." How is that determined? Why is your answer right and the person who wants a datacenter wrong?
And don't you see that your determination of "too much" is exactly what converts productive capital allocation into rentier capital allocation? What happens if you are right and the cloud provider is wrong? The cloud providers spends a bunch of money building a datacenter that doesn't get used, and loses lots of money, and pays property taxes to the local government. If you are wrong, then existing data centers are able to jack up their prices a ton, and will, and make a lot more money not because they are providing a better service, but because there's an artificial shortage. It rewards speculation, and incentivizes speculation on land uses.
> If you are wrong, then existing data centers are able to jack up their prices a ton, and will, and make a lot more money not because they are providing a better service, but because there's an artificial shortage.
Your econ 101-based argument is seducing and all, but it's not like there is a competitive market in here, we're talking about a handful of players with a dominant position over a segment of the market. They are already jacking prices up because they thrive over an artificial walled garden.