Comment by didibus
2 days ago
> all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed
Did it collapse, or he simply created another dubious narrative to replace the previous one?
2 days ago
> all he did here was read papers and call up the authorities they cited, and the narrative behind those papers collapsed
Did it collapse, or he simply created another dubious narrative to replace the previous one?
It collapsed.
I assume I'm somewhat impartial, I don't know this author, it's the first time I hear of the "antitrust left" or of the argument that big monopoly builder purposely keep the market scarce to increase prices. And it's not an issue that I hold a strong opinion about.
The way the piece reads to me is a "He said, She Said". And I have to choose whose word I trust.
Two articles, both claim to have spoken to expert sources, both claim the expert have told them X and Y. One says the expert told them things that corroborates the idea of the "antitrust left", and the other claims the sources actually disagreed with it.
So my personal take is that both appear untrustworthy and biased, pushing their own distorted narrative.
The crazy part about this is that it is fundamentally a competition problem, but they misidentified the perpetrators. It's not predominantly construction companies colluding with each other in the market, it's land owners colluding through regulatory capture of zoning boards to constrain construction.
Or, to the extent that it is construction companies, it's still regulatory capture rather than market collusion, but in their case it's capture of occupational licensing to artificially restrict people from entering into the trade labor market.
I have never heard antitrust left either. The author casually namesdrop it like some school of thought. I just read it as a virtue signaling epithet.
Hold on. Take the first claim. Derek Thompson called the author of the paper who effectively said "no my paper does not support the claims made".
So either:
1. Derek Thompson is flat out lying
2. The author is wrong and confused, or
3. The critics are wrong
The critics haven't claimed to speak from the author to confirm their interpretation is correct. So to think the critics are right you have to think the convo is a lie or the author is muddled and confused.
2 replies →
"He said they said, so I talked to them, and they said otherwise".
1 reply →