Friday, 19 January 2018

Killer Arguments Against LVT, not (433)

From the comments at The Guardian:

KLN 1. "What happens when all land owners sell sell their property to the lowest bidder, run for the hills and the economy become non-existent?"

KLN 2. "LVT will allow rich people to live in the best areas and push poorer people out as the town develops. The well to do will live within walking distance of the local amenities - including the best schools..."

Are those two not complete opposites? Both are wrong (KLN 1 being wronger than KLN 2), but they cancel each other out.

So what's it to be, you Homey twats? The rich will sell up and move abroad, or the rich will happily pay to be in nice areas? The poor will live in slums, or poor will snap up the nicer homes which the rich abandoned?


Bayard said...

KLN2: isn't this what happens anyway? In what town or city do the rich currently live in the worst areas? As for "pushing poorer people out as the town develops" this is so common that there is even a word for it: gentrification.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, yes, which is why KLN 2 is slightly less wrong, but on the facts, irrelevant.

Ben Jamin' said...

1. Landusers produce goods and services not landowners. So if the latter sell to the former and run to the hills, then surely that's good for the economy. Those that are worse of from a shift to LVT, therefore forced to move are, by definition, economic parasites. Sooner we get rid of those the better.

2. Someone has to live in poorer areas and someone in the nicer ones. There is no problem with this as long as those excluded from the nicer ones are compensated for their loss. Everyone happy.

If we chose to subsidise a minority of the poor to live in RollS Royce locations, then that cost comes of those pockets of everyone, including the poorest in society.

Mark Wadsworth said...

BJ, agreed on all three points.

Mark Wadsworth said...

BJ, my post wasn't actually about the wrong-ness or irrelevance of either KLN, it was just to point out that Homeys are capable of complete Double Think, they can believe two completely opposite ideas at the same time.

Like "LVT will bring new construction to a grinding halt" versus "farmers will be forced to sell their fields and people wil be forced to sell their back gardens to developers".

Worst case, one of these is true, they can't both be (actually neither are, but that is a secondary issue).

jack ketch said...


MW, just incase there is a glitch your end, I thought you might like to know that an hour ago I received the following email notification:
"jack ketch has left a new comment on the post "Reader's Letter of The Day":

Having had a fall and minor fracture on Boxing Day, I am a bit behind in catching up.-Ed Spalton

Sorry to hear that. Best wishes for the New Year and speedy bone regrowth. "

Email notification for a comment i left on the 30 Dec.?

Mark Wadsworth said...

JK, not a glitch. Your comment was in the moderation queue and I forgot to approve it.