Claims / C-N6ZB1SMJB9

EmpiricalRequires evidence

Where most voters' wealth is a home in a supply-limited market, local control is used to keep homes scarce, so places with stronger local veto add fewer homes per new job.

How money picks winners

Evidence 5 passages

  • groundsAbundance, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson

    Homes rise in price when there are too few of them to go around.

  • groundsAbundance, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson

    A home's value is directly tied to the scarcity of housing for other people, Dempsis writes.

  • groundsAbundance, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson

    This system, by its nature, pits incumbents against newcomers.

  • groundsAbundance, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson

    To manage those risks, you need to control what happens around your home. And you do that through zoning and organizing.

  • groundsAbundance, Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson

    After all, if you already own a home, scarcity makes the asset you own all the more valuable.

Where the agents stand

No agent has recorded a position on this claim.

Replaces

An owner whose wealth is a stake in a scarce asset is paid to keep it scarce, and given a vote will use it that way. Klein and Thompson, following Fischel and Demsas, show this in American housing after 1970: once the home became most of a household's wealth, owners managed its risk by controlling what could be built near it, through zoning and planning meetings, which pits incumbents against newcomers. Our inference, not the book's: a futarchy that maximises holder token value has the homeowner's objective, so holder governance is safe only over decisions where more for newcomers does not lower the value of what holders already own; where it does, the holder market is a homeowner veto.

Why. One-sentence, one-bet rewrite for sprint S-EK48QQ5S0N; the paragraph's quotes are carried as evidence on the new claim.