← Back to context

Comment by mhb

3 days ago

That's overly reductive. I was hoping that the specific commodities weren't going to be the focus, but I guess that was naive.

If you're going to use "housing" as an umbrella for its substitutes, let me do the same. Instead of wheat, beef, pork, cocoa, sugar, etc, let's call that "food". So now food is as essential as housing. Why doesn't the housing complaint against speculators work for food speculators?

The argument is either intellectually dishonest or you just really haven't thought this through very deep and are just puppeting this neoliberal bullshit.

We could start with I have traded wheat futures and could hedge with future contracts on all those commodities. You can't trade single family home derivatives in the same way because it is not the same.

This is unthinking market religion stupidity and the result is going to be a massive over correction towards socialism. You don't help free markets with this bullshit. You are helping to destroy them in the long run.

  • So on one side, we have a theory which suggests increasing supply to reduce prices. And on the other, we have playing whack-a-mole with the bogeymen du jour who are manipulating a vast market. One solution makes economic sense and the other appeals to populists who favor state control.

    And you're claiming that the reaction to opposing state control and socialism is socialism? Not compelling.