I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it's more advantageous to blame scapegoats.
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
Ben Thompson is an American technology analyst who writes a widely read newsletter called Stratechery. He also used to live in Taipei, where he lived continuously for 12 years.
But this past summer he moved back to Wisconsin, trading his urban life for a suburban one. And so his latest article starts with a more personal note, talking about what it's like to return to the US (though the larger point of the post is the intersection of robotaxis and suburbia).
I spent a summer in Taipei in my early 20's and grew to love the place after the first few weeks, and so I was expecting his re-acclimation to have been a bit more jarring. But it turns out, Ben is happy to be back and, in particular, he's happy to be back living in the suburbs.
His post even goes on to question whether the mobility transformations we are seeing today might be about to cement some kind of "end to urbanism":
What is worth considering, however, is if the last wave of urbanism, which started in the 1990s and peaked in the 2010s, might be the last, at least in the United States (Asia and its massive metropolises are another story). The potential physical transformation in transportation and delivery I am talking about is simply completing the story that started with entertainment and television in the first wave of suburbia, and then information and interactivity via the Internet, particularly since COVID. There are real benefits to being in person, just like there are to living in the city, but the relative delta to working remote or living in the suburbs has decreased dramatically; meanwhile, offices and urban living can never match the advantages inherent to working from a big home with a big yard.
I'm not sure that oil is Canada's only economic hard power, but it has to be our largest:
“To effectively use oil, Canada’s only economic hard power, Carney needs to get not just one, but two pipelines built,” said Adam Waterous, chief executive of Calgary’s Waterous Energy Fund, a major oil sands investor.
It's hard to imagine a more strategically important investment for Canada. Right now, virtually all of Canada's oil exports go to the US. That gives us zero leverage. We are price takers! To correct this, we need to diversify our customer base. And the only way we do that is by building pipelines to our coastlines and then selling to the rest of the world.
But beyond shoring up our economy, I'd argue that this is also the way we accelerate decarbonization. Here's the plan: We get rich, and then reinvest the profits into renewable energy, the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, and critical nation-building infrastructure like housing, transport, and education.
Oil and gas profits won't last forever. This is about building for that future.
Cover photo by Chris Liverani on
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it's more advantageous to blame scapegoats.
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
Ben Thompson is an American technology analyst who writes a widely read newsletter called Stratechery. He also used to live in Taipei, where he lived continuously for 12 years.
But this past summer he moved back to Wisconsin, trading his urban life for a suburban one. And so his latest article starts with a more personal note, talking about what it's like to return to the US (though the larger point of the post is the intersection of robotaxis and suburbia).
I spent a summer in Taipei in my early 20's and grew to love the place after the first few weeks, and so I was expecting his re-acclimation to have been a bit more jarring. But it turns out, Ben is happy to be back and, in particular, he's happy to be back living in the suburbs.
His post even goes on to question whether the mobility transformations we are seeing today might be about to cement some kind of "end to urbanism":
What is worth considering, however, is if the last wave of urbanism, which started in the 1990s and peaked in the 2010s, might be the last, at least in the United States (Asia and its massive metropolises are another story). The potential physical transformation in transportation and delivery I am talking about is simply completing the story that started with entertainment and television in the first wave of suburbia, and then information and interactivity via the Internet, particularly since COVID. There are real benefits to being in person, just like there are to living in the city, but the relative delta to working remote or living in the suburbs has decreased dramatically; meanwhile, offices and urban living can never match the advantages inherent to working from a big home with a big yard.
I'm not sure that oil is Canada's only economic hard power, but it has to be our largest:
“To effectively use oil, Canada’s only economic hard power, Carney needs to get not just one, but two pipelines built,” said Adam Waterous, chief executive of Calgary’s Waterous Energy Fund, a major oil sands investor.
It's hard to imagine a more strategically important investment for Canada. Right now, virtually all of Canada's oil exports go to the US. That gives us zero leverage. We are price takers! To correct this, we need to diversify our customer base. And the only way we do that is by building pipelines to our coastlines and then selling to the rest of the world.
But beyond shoring up our economy, I'd argue that this is also the way we accelerate decarbonization. Here's the plan: We get rich, and then reinvest the profits into renewable energy, the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, and critical nation-building infrastructure like housing, transport, and education.
Oil and gas profits won't last forever. This is about building for that future.
Cover photo by Chris Liverani on
Whether or not this is good thing is a separate discussion; I will say it has been good for me, and it’s poised to get even better.
I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I initially made the mistake of going to university in Waterloo, but I immediately started to envy my friends who were living downtown and going to the University of Toronto. So I course-corrected and transferred.
When it came time to go to grad school, I had learned my lesson: a proper urban center was a non-negotiable item. So I moved to Philadelphia and absolutely fell in love with the city's walkability, historic scale, and nightlife. It also didn't hurt that I could take a Chinatown bus to Manhattan for $10.
In fact, when I temporarily returned to the suburbs of Toronto after school — before once again moving into the city — I vividly remember missing Philly. I missed its urbanity. I missed walking everywhere. It was either that, or I just missed the good old "special" at Bob and Barbara's on South Street.
Since moving back to Toronto after school, I have yet to live beyond the confines of High Park, St. Clair Avenue, and the Don River. Maybe one day I will, or maybe I won't. The oldest parts of our city have always felt the most like home to me.
Sure, I also have a deep love for the mountains, but when I daydream about places where I could really live, my mind always goes to big cities like Paris, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro (city and mountains!).
I'm not here to impose my views (just write about them). We all have our lifestyle preferences. And I can appreciate that, for many, like Ben, the suburbs offer a compelling value proposition. His view is also supported by history: new technologies do often have a decentralizing effect on cities.
Cover photo by TangChi Lee on Unsplash
Whether or not this is good thing is a separate discussion; I will say it has been good for me, and it’s poised to get even better.
I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I initially made the mistake of going to university in Waterloo, but I immediately started to envy my friends who were living downtown and going to the University of Toronto. So I course-corrected and transferred.
When it came time to go to grad school, I had learned my lesson: a proper urban center was a non-negotiable item. So I moved to Philadelphia and absolutely fell in love with the city's walkability, historic scale, and nightlife. It also didn't hurt that I could take a Chinatown bus to Manhattan for $10.
In fact, when I temporarily returned to the suburbs of Toronto after school — before once again moving into the city — I vividly remember missing Philly. I missed its urbanity. I missed walking everywhere. It was either that, or I just missed the good old "special" at Bob and Barbara's on South Street.
Since moving back to Toronto after school, I have yet to live beyond the confines of High Park, St. Clair Avenue, and the Don River. Maybe one day I will, or maybe I won't. The oldest parts of our city have always felt the most like home to me.
Sure, I also have a deep love for the mountains, but when I daydream about places where I could really live, my mind always goes to big cities like Paris, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro (city and mountains!).
I'm not here to impose my views (just write about them). We all have our lifestyle preferences. And I can appreciate that, for many, like Ben, the suburbs offer a compelling value proposition. His view is also supported by history: new technologies do often have a decentralizing effect on cities.
Cover photo by TangChi Lee on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
