Either there are restrictions on supply in Dallas driving up housing prices, or there aren't. Thompson wants to have it both ways.
@DKThomp I'd also note that he mischaracterized the argument, which is about financing and not antitrust. And he didn't address most of the evidence, or the purchase of housing by investors. He also misrepresented at least one of the people he interviewed.
@DKThomp The thesis @musharbash_b has - that @NewsLambert agrees with because it's not controversial - is that small builders can't get capital as easily as big builders. It's possible that has no effect on supply, or a big effect. But @DKThomp just straw mans and ignores the main point.
@DKThomp @musharbash_b @NewsLambert So @DKThomp called up sources and got them to contradict what @musharbash_b didn't say.
"I’m just a journalist. To the extent that I’m good at anything, it’s calling people and writing down what they say."
@DKThomp @musharbash_b @NewsLambert This piece just seems tissue thin in terms of substance. I'd note that @musharbash_b actually did say zoning was a problem, so is financing for small builders. It's Thompson who rejected the idea of anything *but* zoning.
@DKThomp @musharbash_b @NewsLambert The second argument from @musharbash_b is institutional investors from Wall Street are driving up Dallas housing prices, buying between 34-52% of single family homes in key parts of the DFW metro area, outbidding normal buyers.
@DKThomp didn't even acknowledge this argument.
@DKThomp @musharbash_b @NewsLambert One of the things I notice about these guys is they call us 'antitrust people' and try to cabin our arguments to antitrust law, because they don't understand finance. Here @musharbash_b makes a broad argument about Wall Street and housing, and @DKThomp can't even see it.
@DKThomp @musharbash_b @NewsLambert I've also noticed an interesting parallel to Robert Bork. Bork mischaracterized populists by saying we want an atomized world of individual proprietors, so strategically he wouldn't have to argue against a mixed economy of big and small firms. Thompson does exactly that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. The discussion over 'AI taking all the jobs' has been bothering me for awhile. In 2013, Jeff Bezos was asked about bookselling. "Amazon isn't happening to book selling, the future is happening to book selling." Blaming abstract forces is what monopolists ALWAYS do.
2. Anthropic's CEO says that AI may 'cure cancer' but also eliminate entry-level jobs. Policymakers need to get a hold of that, he says. Weird he doesn't want to talk about how his firm's models are trained on massively pirated content. thebignewsletter.com/p/why-are-we-p…
3. The Economist writes, "AI is killing the web." But that's not true! Google forces publishers to let it train on their content or they don't show in search results. It's a legal problem! thebignewsletter.com/p/why-are-we-p…
1. Ok so let's talk about socialism, aka the state taking over from private industry. Here are some examples you haven't heard of - Kentucky and Ohio - replacing their pharma pricing middlemen with state agencies.
2. In 2018, the Columbus Dispatch revealed that pharma middlemen CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx were ripping off the state Medicaid program, destroying pharmacies, and hurting patients. So Ohio... fired them. And built its own state PBM. thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-rou…
3. It launched in 2022, run by Ohio's Department of Medicaid. It did pharma pricing for Medicaid, rebates for pharmacies, ran call centers, managed a drug list, a network of pharmacies et al. No more conflicts of interest. Caremark predicted DOOM FROM FULL COMMUNISM....
Obama was a malevolent leader and as a person is a mean spirited greedy narcissist. The authoritarian turn we are experiencing now is directly his doing, though not solely his doing.
So is our gruesomely dishonest conversation on race and identity.
I worked on the financial crisis and I remember hearing from people in the White House mockery of the ‘deadbeats’ who couldn’t pay their mortgages. It’s hard to convey the meanness of the Obama insiders.
Obama used his black identity - an important and positive symbol - to oversee the biggest loss of black wealth in our lifetime, with the support of black voters and leaders. He took the moral currency of the Civil Rights movement and spent it on Wall Street. Now it’s gone.
1. Since Yglesias won't address the argument @musharbash_b made about housing, I will. His argument is that Texas, which Abundance authors @DKThomp and @ezraklein point to as a model, has the same housing cost inflation they ascribe to blue areas. Why? thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with…x.com/mattyglesias/s…
2. It's corporate power among homebuilders. Don't just take @musharbash_b word for it, it's a well-known story. Here's a shockingly good CNBC report on how big homebuilders withhold housing supply.
3. This graph from @NewsLambert really tells the story nation-wide. Since 2008, when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt because of zoning policy, 65% of homebuilders have disappeared. And they never returned. Now only the big builders - with huge profit margins - are left.
Mark Zuckerberg is on the stand, the FTC lawyer is grilling him on documents showing the point of the service is to connect to friends. This is about market definition. #ftcvmeta
FTC asks if Meta is still built on a 'social graph,' Zuckerberg says he's not sure what that means but that it's a 'core concept' of Facebook.
"The friend part has gone down quite a bit."
He wants the judge to see TikTok as a rival.
Zuckerberg emphasizes that connecting w/friends and family is important to Facebook but less and less important. This testimony is about showing how Meta is a monopolist in a clear market, social networking services connecting with friends/family.
The basic problem with America is that nearly all of our major institutions are led by vastly overpaid incompetent greedheads who all have agreed to not snitch on each other. It's easy to explain how to fix it once you get this basic diagnosis. Here are a few ideas.
1) Corporate boards are full of lazy kiss-assers who get $100k to show up to a meeting a few times a year. So how about this? No board members of a company can get paid while there's a strike going on at their company.
2) The Federal Reserve actually runs our economic policy. So how about saying that not all of the Fed board members can be millionaires? Some of them have to be borrowers and not just lenders.