Changing Policy Starts With Changing Minds

Do not give in to the woes that are to come, but all the more bravely you must go forth to face them, as far as Fortune will allow you to do.

Virgil. The Aeneid (p. 162). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

Why have I chosen to connect this series of housing posts with an ancient Latin epic poem? As I pointed out at the beginning, the Aeneid is part of what has been called our collective unconscious in the west. The image of the Trojan Horse is part of a common language we share whether we like it or not; it is deeply embedded in who we are. The story of the wooden horse, the destruction of Troy, and Aeneas journey toward a new home is familiar to us. There is a tragedy that should have been averted, it leads to dislocation, but in the end, order is restored and something new begins.

Unless you’ve been in a cryogenic freeze, whether you are on the left or the right, you no doubt feel that the commonly held assumptions that you have had about the future are slipping away. We already have a draft decision ending Constitutional protection for abortion. This undermines a central piece of the foundation of the left and the Democratic party. On the right, we’ve seen federal, state, and local governments barely bat an eye while they commandeered private property for public use during the Covid-19 pandemic. We need to get back to basics if we’re going to see change.

It’s this example, the requisitioning of privately owned rental property by the fiat of the government, that should have us all worried and asking ourselves, “What do we do next?” As I’ve pointed out, we have to start with what we believe and what we know. Rental housing or any housing isn’t racist. People in the real estate businesses aren’t inherently greedy. And housing is not a “right.”

Sadly, as I posted in the past, there has been no will and no movement behind the idea that a free market in housing is the answer to any assumed housing “crisis.” It’s worth revisiting a post I made almost a year ago called, “Can We Change The Housing Debate Before It’s Too Late?” Then I wrote,

“First of all, many if not most Americans view rental housing as a residual business; being a ‘landlord’ means buying property with cash and getting passive income from renting it. ‘What’s there to do?’ people ask, ‘other than collect the rent in your mailbox each month.’ And with electronic payments a trip to the bank isn’t even necessary. This notion feeds resentment, and that resentment makes it easy to pass legislation that tips the business relationship between seller and buyer toward the buyer with added risks and costs for the seller that end up being paid by the consumer in the long run.”

This sentiment extends more broadly to housing in general. The view I’ve heard over and over again after working in this space for more than 20 years, is that, essentially, people should not make money providing people with housing. The prevailing view in America, even among Republicans, is that somehow, subsidizing housing is the answer when prices go up.

The notion that the market can provide housing for most if not almost all people, especially those who have incomes, is deemed an impossibility. “The market,” they say, “will never solve the housing crisis.” More than likely they type these sentiments into their phone, a product with more technology than the equipment used to land men on the Moon. If the market can do that, why can’t it solve housing prices if we let it.

I hate the term, “free market.” I’m not sure exactly what it means and I know what most people think when they hear it, something similar to what they think when they hear the term “property rights.” I think the majority of Americans have the emotional sense that these terms are the opposite of “compassion” and “collaboration” and “opportunity,” even though that’s exactly what the real meaning is behind a “free market” and a “right to property.” I can’t answer here how this happened. I use the term “value exchange” first because people don’t know what it is so that can’t dismiss it without wondering, “what do you mean.”

I’ve discussed value exchange elsewhere and often, but simply put it is the tendency of people in a civilization to seek each other out to find out how they might work with other people’s strengths to offset their own weaknesses. It is the simplest human interaction there is and the exact opposite of exploitation. When monetized, value exchange allows amazing things to happen, like developers and builders making profits while providing housing for people with smaller incomes. That happens when producers of housing products can take the shortest path between their skills and meeting people’s need to buy with as little interference as possible.

This inspires eye rolls and the shaking of heads. Yet every single thing we do is dependent on this simple interaction – and that is what it is, and interaction; it is not an idea. Taking two dollars from a person with five and giving to a person with one and calling it “fairness” is an idea. The resentment and dependence created by this idea is destructive to both parties and is always – always – reversed. When people realize that they are legally prohibited to make more money and advance themselves based on their skills and hard work, they do it anyway. And then other people follow them. Some ideas are better than others, and the idea that people should be free to exchange value with each other, unhindered, is a better idea than trying to force “fairness” on the exchange.

The answer to the question I asked at the beginning about “what do we do about housing?” is simple. Find out why people think what they do, find messages that are persuasive, and then repeat those messages until they are embraced. People want efficiency; a system that delivers what people need and want quickly, including help when they need it.

People want fairness; they want to know that win or lose, they’ll always have a chance regardless of who they are or where they came from. And people understand that when there is scarcity, prices will be high; they want abundance. Until we are able to internalize these concepts and persuade others that these are better ideas, then those of us who believe that freedom is linked to value exchanged are doomed to watch people and government wander aimlessly from bad idea to bad idea.