I'm sure some of us knew it would come to this.....

I've given you the economics that's used to understand trade and the impact of protectionism. This isn't new stuff mind you, so no excuses! The mercantilists are long dead.

 

You have not shown where I was wrong. I have had a bit of economics also. Terms and theories are useless unless you apply a little logic.

 

To dismiss Ricardian comparative advantage, you're going to have to reject opportunity costs. Good luck in pretending that's logic based

 

We could decrease the outrageous taxes laid by government on construction.

That would work too

 

By "retaliatory" effects, he's referencing the tariffs other nation's would levy upon us.

 

Depends on taxes relative to others. It can also be distortionary and therefore inefficient. This can be particularly problematic for Anglo Saxon capitalism as, with extreme inequalities, there is often too much reliance on consumerism and how its fueled by the property market.

 

Zoning and permitting can easily add 10-20% to the total cost of a development, with municipal regulations often being the primary barrier to affordable housing

 

Easy to sort affordable housing. Make it part of planning acceptances.

 

You would need to qualify that statement beyond your opinion. Are you saying tariffs are unconstitutional? Or just the ones you don't like? You people are unbelievable...

 

People who believe in the Constitution are unbelievable? You people are unbelievable. The Constitution says taxes have to come from Congress, not the President. No, not just the ones I don't like, because I don't like any of them. Unlike Trump and his followers, I'm fond of the Constitution.

 

Tariffs aren't taxes, they are tariffs, not hard to understand...

 

Tariffs are taxes on imported goods. That's literally the definition.

 

See Trade Act of 1974...

 

Trade acts aren't amendments. Until there is an amendment, tariffs belong to Congress. Not sure why Trumpists hate the Constitution so much.

 

Wow, really? I guess you didn't read it, it gives the president the authority to levy tariffs. Its not much different than say the War Powers Act, and allowing presidents powers to act immediately. Embrace your ignorance, nobody else will...

 

I guess you didn't read the Constitution. Or you don't know how it works. You can't change the Constitution with simple legislation. You need an amendment for that. Other legislation only allows the President to act as the "mere servant" of Congress, executing their will under their guidance.

 

These laws are stop gaps in that bridge matters that require a level of expediency. If you have a problem with it, you need to take up the issue with the judiciary. Seeing as this act is 45 years old, I'm guessing its been determined to be Constitutional, and if you, go ahead and challenge it...

 

You need to take your complaints up with the Constitution. It is me and the Constitution vs you and Trump. By the way, the courts have ruled against the concept of the delegation of Constitutional powers. How may posts before you actually address the Constitution? A dozen more?

 

No more, the matter has been addressed, relevant laws cited. Your whining does not change reality. Cite cases or rulings against Trade Act of 1974 or similar laws and you might have a point. I agree that not every law or ruling is correct, until otherwise addressed they are the law of the land. The only way to change that is legislatively or filing the proper suit.

 

Still dodging the Constitution at all costs. Predictable. Keep prioritizing Trump over our laws. I'll keep doing opposite

 

Trump wasn't president in 1974, you seem to be ignoring reality to attack Trump at all costs. How sad...

 

I own a commercial residential property in Los Angeles(which since I'm under the impression that you're European would be 5+ units on a given property).

California, in general, to combat the "housing crisis", has eliminated SFR zoning in it's entirety, allowing developers to tear down any home and build up to 4 apartments on the property.

On the commercial side they allow density waivers, where an owner of a commercial property is allowed to add more housing units in excess of what would otherwise be permitted if a certain number of them are set aside for "low income housing".

My grandfather built that **** in 1949 with his blood, sweat and tears. It's where he lived and died, housed 5 generations of my family, and where I keep all of my yesterdays. Regardless of cost, it will still be standing there when they put me in the ground, maintained to the same standard my grandpa kept it in, and hopefully into perpetuity.

My objection to your suggestion, is that as my property, which currently has 5 units upon it, is currently permitted to have about 45. There's a lot of people who have continuously tried every means they can think of to force me to sell out. And that's only ever going to happen one way.

 

It's not difficult: provide affordable housing. Perhaps you'd prefer a Georgist response?

 

You mean like they did here in Indianapolis in the past where the tenants tore out the copper piping to sell for drugs?

 

I earn my livelihood in construction.

It's quite difficult in this day and age to erect a structure deemed affordable in high density areas.

In Los Angeles, parking alone adds about $50,000 per unit to the cost of construction. It's incredibly difficult to make that "affordable".