Life Copies Satire: The UK switches to grass-based economy

There's an article in The Onion's compilation book Our Dumb Century called "Cambodia switches to skull-based economy" (I can't find it online).

I'm always reminded of it when I see crap like this:

That new homes bonus could have netted North Somerset Council something in the region of £80m for the South West Urban Extension. But its deputy leader, Elfan Ap Rees, says all that money would have made no difference.

"The greenbelt is more important than money," he says. "Clearly in some areas of the country more homes will get built and there will be local people who really want new houses. I have to say it's the complete opposite here. For a long time, people have been saying here that they're fed up with all this residential development swamping us."

I'm at a loss to make sense of this.

If all NIMBYs lived in tents or caravans and said there was no need for houses in their area, then that would be intellectually coherent*. But if somebody who lives in a house says that other people don't need houses, it just doesn't add up. And who on earth wants to buy a house other than 'a local person'? Doesn't somebody become 'a local person' the minute he buys a house and moves in to it? If it is true that 'local people' don't want houses, then everybody who bought a house would promptly have it demolished, surely?

What have I missed?

* To give an example, there are strict vegans who oppose all animal husbandry, vivisection etc. They don't want anybody else to eat meat and they would refuse to be treated with drugs tested on animals. Whether or not you agree with this viewpoint (and I don't) at least they mean what they say and I have a grudging respect for them.

Economic illiterate of the day (2)

Q: The price of commodity X has trebled. Your country, a developing country, is one of the world's largest producers/exporters of that commodity. What do you do:

A: Encourage your farmers to make as much Commodity X as they can while the sun shines and to export as much as possible, boosting your country's balance of payments and enriching your country?

B: Prohibit exports?

Follow-up Q: You're the Prime Minister of a rich Western country, who wants to help the developing world. The price that those countries can charge for their exports trebles. Do you:

A: Point out that these price movements will increase the incomes of those developing countries relative to rich, Western countries, and obviate the need for aid payments?

B: Wring your hands and say that "the spiraling prices threaten to plunge millions back into poverty and reverse progress on alleviating misery in the developing world"? (hint: see first link above).

Follow-up, follow-up Q: You've studied Politics, Philosophy & Economics at a top British university, and you are hoping to become Prime Minister of a rich, Western country. Do you:

A: Remember that you came out worst in the previous round of this competition and point out that consumption and spending patterns will change to adapt to new price levels, crudely paraphrased thusly: claim that people in the West will need to eat less meat -- and consume, or waste, less food in general. (hint: see first link above)?