Identifying Astroturfing on Social Media

This is a topic which hasn't received enough attention. Astroturfing is probably a bigger issue than most people realize. When one side does this on a large scale, the other side will need to do the same thing in order to compete. The potential end result is people end up with someone elected to office because some PR strategist cooked up a bigger crock of slop than the other side.

Using a right example, this video will be analyzed.

The channel this video comes from has 200,000,000 views, and pitches itself as comedy. There isn't any explicit advertising in the videos. The channel has about 2500 consistently right-based videos. The creator appears to be a single person. One to two short (not shorts) videos are produced daily.

This video is about a party/pool party happening at a short term rental. Just about all the people attending were Black. Anyone could organize something like this and target specific demographics as participants. 

Looking at the comments section, just about all the comments have distinct, biased patterns. There's an abundance of racist comments. Regardless of the reasons for the video, this means votes. It boils down to votes, money and power.

This could just be a normal video, but looking at it the other way reveals the potential dynamics. Someone could pay a few people to engage in this behavior. First of all, this situation in this area is very unusual. There's more views than the population on the island. Looking at the comments, there's an excessive level of racial content. This gets into "get tough on crime" things, and there's comments about gun rights. This affects tourism, so local business owners could be persuaded to vote a different way. Property owners might be influenced because of property values. 

Identity Politics vs. Working Class Politics

 

For quite a while now, we've had this identity politics thing going on. We need a shift in focus to working class politics. Right now, we have someone on one side standing there with a flag that represents conservative identity politics, and someone on the other side with a flag that represents liberal identity politics. While all this goes on, inequality grows and we see the same outcomes.

Working class voters account for about 60% of voters, by the traditional definition. The traditional definition usually means someone without a bachelors degree. Currently, the definition of working class should include teachers, nurses, flight attendants, and all sorts of people who may have 4 year degrees. There's a growing number of people with degrees that are doing working class work.

The "modern" definitions of working class are a bit dated. A two year degree 50 years ago was probably as marketable as a bachelors or masters degree is today. People didn't share the same concerns back then. Today, if a teacher can't afford rent, I'd say that qualifies as working class. Same thing with a medical professional that has their hands full with their job, then they have to deal with relatives that moved back in with them.

In this day and age, someone's niche interests aren't a priority. Given an expanded definition of working class, something like 75% of voters share the same major concerns, like affordable housing, affordable healthcare, food security, transportation, education, and less global conflict. A person's biased views on race, gender, nationality, or religion don't have anything to do with these issues, and pushing these personal agendas won't fix the major problems.

Working class people need to ask their politicians what they are doing to fix these things. To politicians, this is 75% of the vote, and voters need to use this to ensure proper representation. If these things aren't front and center in politicians' agendas, people should just vote them out. 

 

Modern City Planning

Here's a modern city plan. So instead of spending all kinds of resources on working on areas that are old and overpopulated (often coastal), cities like this could evolve in places that are affordable and could use development.

This is kind of the opposite of traditional planning. In the past, cities were developed around waterways, railroads and highways. Highways were introduced to go right through the cities. This design emphasizes using busses for public transportation, and minimal traffic patterns and parking requirements. 8 foot wide multi-use paths could be used where sidewalks would usually be. Bike lanes probably came from vehicular cycling ideas, which is a poor concept.

Clicking on the image will allow for better viewing. With this design there are minimal obstructions to travel. Someone could get anywhere in the city with one bus transfer or turn. All of the industrial facilities, warehouses, box stores, storage units, and strip malls are along the beltway/highway. Freight traffic within the city is minimized. Other highways, railroads, large parks, airports, large recreation facilities, rivers and lakes would be outside the beltway. The parks could have fountains or ponds.

Notable features include: No difficult to navigate subdivisions with features like cul-de-sacs, no gated communities, plenty of mixed use areas outside of downtown where there can be houses, tiny homes, micro-apartments, apartments, stores, services, restaurants, etc. There would be about 25 bus lines running east-west, and north-south.

With someplace like this, a household that would normally need two cars could get by with one car, or a car and a motorcycle/scooter. Fuel and maintenance costs for autos is reduced. If someone's car breaks down, they can leave it at a shop down the street and take a bus. This would be very walkable and bike friendly. Busses would be on the smaller size, with strong service times and reliability. Probably not hydrogen. A good, free on demand bus service could be utilized for the handicapped.

Image generated with Chat GPT

Social Media and Misinformation

 

Social media platforms are open content. Open is good up to a point. It's good to be able to look at things from different perspectives and hear opposing viewpoints. However, these platforms do very little to filter out junk content. Junk content could be described as low effort, low quality videos posted for virality to rage baiting content posted for profit, political reasons and various negative reasons.

Looking at this junk from an educated perspective, this could be many things. First, who is this person, and why are they doing this. Ultimately, someone could incentive groups to engage in the behavior, then you have the source propagating it. It's best if you just filter out the garbage.

This needs to be discussed in high school classrooms. Whereas the mainline media is limited in scope, social media platforms can contain harmful information and content people are just wasting their time looking at as opposed to learning something or being healthfully entertained. For some reason, the platforms haven't really evolved to productively serve the public.

Here, we have the supply and demand issue. The supply side isn't working properly, so people need to know how to use demand to make social media more efficient. The designs of the platforms usually amplify extremely polarizing content, also known as rage baiting. Most of the time this is junk information which is counter-productive. 

The content is amplified when people view, share and comment on it. If people know how all of this works, and how to distinguish quality content from junk, they won't view it, share it or comment on it, thereby fixing the problem from the demand side. Another issue is phishing. Some of these creators can be phishing for extreme reactions.

All of this is a really serious thing when it comes to politics. If junk content such as this can be used to sway elections, that's bad. People need accurate information in order to make informed voting decisions. A final consideration is bots, which are used to post, share and comment.

 

Philanthropy, Nonprofits and Education Spending

 

Philanthropy is supposed to support humanitarian causes. When it comes to donating to educational institutions, funding isn't going to the most needy areas. There's a lot of money going toward higher education, and very little going to public K-12 schools, especially the most disadvantaged ones.

More specifically, top ranking public and private colleges and universities receive most of the donations to education. In general, colleges and universities don't need that much money. If any colleges need more money, it's community colleges. When all kinds of funding goes to a few elite schools, this mostly just perpetuates inequality. For instance, someone graduates from an Ivy League school and becomes a billionaire. Then, they donate back to the same institution, and a couple more to-be billionaires are produced.

If things with AI go the way experts are predicting, several types of degrees aren't going to be very desirable. Right now we need medical professionals and trade workers. Higher education needs to expand their capacities for needed types of education, and cut back in other areas, and stop selling so many people on degrees they can't use.

What little philanthropy goes to public K-12 schools, most of it goes toward shaping policies, classroom supplies, technology, and activities. Public education teachers need better pay. Poor and rural school districts definitely need way more funding. Literacy in general, for public education students, is declining. Better funding in these ways would reduce inequality and boost upward mobility and productivity.

As far as philanthropy toward education goes, regulations could require that for every dollar given to higher education foundations or institutions, the donor (whether it's a foundation or individual) is required to match it with one toward public K-12 schools. The funds could be applied across the board on an equal per student basis, or go toward the more needy institutions. A special foundation would need to be developed to deal with this.  

The price of higher education is already inflated. So instead of diverting funding to a handful of elite schools, the funds could be used to bring up the lower classes, pay teachers what they deserve, and achieve a more educated society.

 

Inequality and Legal Representation

Along with the growing affordability crisis there has been a chronic shortage of public defenders. With tightened finances this means more people can't afford attorneys. The public defender system seems broken.

Non-federal public defense systems vary. The most common type is where there's a staffed public defender's office (a few offices are nonprofit). Sometimes private attorneys are used to supplement these. Some places have contracts with private attorneys. 

When someone is charged with a serious crime, the case may be dismissed because of the defense shortage, and someone that is a threat to society is released. There may not be a defender available, and the accused sits in there for a prolonged period of time, thereby causing unnecessary personal and financial problems, maybe adding to recidivism rates. People may be pushed into plea deals even if they're innocent.

Even when people have a public defender, they're not getting equal representation. Case loads for defenders range from excessive to extremely excessive, contributing to burnout and turnover. More competitive attorneys are dissuaded by this and relatively low pay. 

These issues may cause legal dynamics to work against the accused. Poor defendants don't have access to independent forensic experts and investigators. Witness testimonies can be inaccurate or fabricated. Weak forensic evidence may go unchallenged, and may be weaker if the investigators know case details. Prosecutors may see the lack of adequate representation as a weakness. 

The whole public defender model should be restructured. Pre-law majors could be required take a couple of undergrad courses on criminal law, and these could be a prerequisite to Law School. Law schools could require all students to take a common core (12-15 credits) in criminal law. 

Courts could randomly appoint private attorneys to cover cases where financing is clearly an issue. This should be a condition of practicing law. They could be paid what public defenders would get, which is already an underfunding issue. So, for maybe every 7 cases, for instance, that a family attorney handles for an implicitly inflated rate, they would be required to cover one of these. 

Attorneys would be motivated to give defendants fair representation in order to uphold their and/or their firms' reputations. For more serious cases, a random criminal law attorney could be appointed. This would be a more fair and efficient way, as well as function as a contributor to upward mobility.

Social Media, Podcasts and Astroturfing

 

Here's a few good reasons for getting money out of politics. The FTC needs more resources. Especially, they need more authority and additional resources in order to deal with regulations over political spending on social media and podcasts.

A prime example of how astroturfing works is the Tea Party movement. Much of the personal and organizational political content on social media and in podcasts is astroturfing, and much of that is sponsored in one way or another.

There is practically no oversight when it comes to this. Oversight, when it comes to paid advertising for products and services on digital media, is addressed to a certain extent. The FEC regulates political spending on explicit ads which appear on websites, but it isn't clear how regulations apply to spending on influencer speech in social media and podcasts. When it comes to political spending on influencer speech or visuals conveyed over digital media, which isn't explicit advertising, FEC regulations are incomplete and difficult to enforce. Oversight issues come down to freedom of speech vs. political spending on shady campaign promotions.

The FTC should have responsibility for this because the FEC isn't poised to deal with it, and they have been struggling to effectively regulate online political ads. When someone or something is selling politics, it's the same as selling anything else. These influencers often take a branded approach. Political spending, when it comes to this, is enough to sway the entire political spectrum.

Additional resources for the FTC should include provisions in order to deal with dark money in this type of political sponsorship.

Affordable Housing for Seniors

Seniors have been a growing part of the homeless population, and this will continue. A major reason is Social Security increases aren't keeping up with healthcare and housing costs. COLA increases are based on a measure of inflation, which doesn't always take into account rising healthcare and housing costs (especially housing costs in expensive coastal urban areas). Modern, alternative housing options are needed to deal with this.

The most common solution to date for affordable housing is development using LIHTCs. This system probably isn't the most efficient because it involves several players and is kind of complicated. These projects aren't the most effective for the growing number of needy seniors. Sometimes, they're kind of trophy projects, in that they have features which aren't necessary when it boils down to cost and survival. They may have excessive design (appearance) features, and features which are nice to have, but ultimately aren't necessary, such as washers and dryers, storage and community areas.

 

Affordable housing developments in Missoula 

What would be really helpful here, is if someone started a nonprofit that went around building minimalistic micro-apartments in certain areas. There are smaller towns (population 5,000-15,000) in states such as Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahoma where lots in the 1/4 to 1/3 acre size are cheap, from 5,000 to 10,000. Many of these towns have declining or stagnant populations. These states have mild climates, and are affordable. 

The nonprofit could have land use attorneys that push the plans and permits through, and work on zoning exceptions and variances, if that's an issue. Places like these usually aren't hard to build in. They have minimal bureaucracy, and would probably welcome the economic gains (including property taxes) and demographic.

These developments could be about 30-40 units (able to fit on a good sized residential lot), and two to three story so they can be wood framed. 200-250 square feet units would be ideal, with minimal features: a micro fridge, maybe just a microwave for cooking, no washing machines in the facility, basic everything. New construction is always a plus, and they can look nice without becoming cost prohibitive. 

Even a lot of the newer micro-apartments in cities have things that aren't necessities, such as laundry facilities, gyms and common areas. Also, they're for certain people, so there's location and transportation considerations. Here, cost would be the priority. The same designs could be used across multiple developments to save on costs.

These places could be built for people 55+ that receive SSI, SSDI or Social Security (not seriously handicapped), and have that as a requirement to stay. The types of towns mentioned above have basic necessities, and job opportunities wouldn't be an issue. Just someplace where someone can live, rather than be on the street, in a shelter or in a car. 

Loans for the projects could come from or through HUD. Rent could probably run 500-550 per unit. The places would pay for themselves. The nonprofit could make a cost estimate on a project, get the loan, buy the land, then build and rent. They would require only about one parking space for every 2 units, because most of them wouldn't have cars (or, some wouldn't be allowed to park on the property as a condition). It's easy to get around smaller towns.

The key would be having just one nonprofit handling numerous developments across multiple states, so economies of scale can apply. 

Lobbying and Revolving Door Politics

 

In 2021, Biden signed Executive Order 13989, which had several protections against harmful lobbying and revolving door practices. This was rescinded under the current administration. The order was a major step toward getting money out of politics.

Industries where a lack of regulation in this area can be detrimental include pharmaceuticals, defense, finance, healthcare, and real estate. People shouldn't want personal and financial ties interfering with economic efficiencies in these areas.

One example where excessive lobbying can be problematic is how the NAR is lobbying to increase exclusions on capital gains taxes on residential real estate. This results in more inflated home prices. Also, the more the price of housing is inflated, the more realtors make on sales commissions (given equal turnover).

The ways revolving door politics work are a member of congress (or staffer) or government employee may leave that position and end up with a lucrative corporate (including boards), consultant, think tank, media, or lobbying position, and vice versa. This is widely considered to be a conflict of interest.

Spending on lobbying by organizations should be limited to 1,000,000. This would eliminate much of the unethical behavior and open up congress to receiving feedback and suggestions from smaller entities. With politics there's the votes, campaign spending and lobbying. Getting things away from spending on campaigns and lobbying, and toward individual votes would work better.

Private Equity and Affordable Housing

 

Private equity, as well as other institutional investors (to a lesser extent), don't actually own that much of the single family rental supply (estimates range from 3-4%). In some Sun Belt markets, estimates range from 10-20%.

A concerning issue is where private equity is buying up mobile home parks. This is a gross example of predatory investing. Recently, all institutional investors accounted for about one quarter of all mobile home park purchases.

I guess the typical scenario is where investors buy up the properties, then raise the rents for the lots, maybe several times over a period of years, then sell the properties for a profit. Mobile homes are very expensive to relocate, so the owners don't really have options. 

About half of these are financed through government-backed programs. So, one way to remedy this would be to prohibit that. Or, just make it illegal for institutional investors to invest in this type of real estate.

Urban Planning

There are a lot of inefficiencies with historical urban planning. This isn't the 50's, a typical household doesn't have money for two cars. Developing cities with progressive features can better accommodate people dealing with today's issues.

Urban density makes public transportation feasible, while giving people other options such as walking and biking. Mixed use zoning is a big plus, reducing commute distances. Minimum parking requirements and excessive parking lot sizes are big negatives.

If a city can be developed so people don't need half the number of privately owned vehicles, this has all kinds of benefits. The cost of a second car means the price of the vehicle, maintenance, repairs, fuel, and insurance. A family with a median income or lower simply can't afford this anymore.

Just looking at parking spaces, they can be an enormous waste of space. Parking areas mean farther commute distances. They take up all kinds of property, thereby driving up land costs, as well as the costs of goods and services. Longer commutes mean more wear and tear on vehicles, as well as more fuel and repairs. Also, more infrastructure costs as roads are needed to cover the extra distances.

 

 

Costs of Underfunding Concentrated Poverty Schools

 

If a kid comes out of a school in a poor area partially illiterate or illiterate and ends up in the criminal justice system partly as a result, this costs society in several direct and indirect ways.

• Lost tax revenue (income tax, sales tax, property tax)

• More police

• More judges

• More jails and prisons (public and private)

• Public defenders
  

• Prosecutors

• Probation officers (public and private)

• Parole officers (public and private)

• Monitoring (drug tests, tracking) (public and private)

• More courts and court services

• Pre-release centers (usually private)

So basically all these people end up making money from this, whether it's a contractor building a new jail, or a probation officer working for a private contractor. It may even be a non-profit (all this, and they don't even have a website. I always thought nonprofit meant not being a dick): they make money.

Income Tax Policy

Money motivates people. The way this is supposed to work is if someone works more, they make more. If they work less, they make less. In times like the 50's and 60's, people making less got by alright. Executive salaries were within range, yet we still managed to compete very well. The median standard of living was much better.

Non-CEO executive pay is somewhat inflated. CEO pay for large corporations is bloated. Whereas a typical executive may make 200,000-1,000,000, CEO's can make 15,000,000-1,000,000,000. Amongst other things, this can create ethics considerations. People can get more ruthless as the stakes get higher.

Between 1954 and 1963 there were 24 tax brackets which remained consistent. The highest earners (200,000 and up for single filers) were taxed at 91%. The effective rate for this bracket was more like 50-60%, vs. an effective rate of  20-30% for the top bracket today.

The current (2016) income tax brackets are 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%. 37% is for 640,600 and up (single taxpayer). There's a lot of 626,351 and up. There should be more brackets for the up part. Maybe a 40% for 1,000,000-5,000,000, 45% for 5,000,000-10,000,000, 50% for 10,000,000-15,000,000, 55% for 15,000,000-20,000,000, 60% for 20,000,000 and up (single taxpayer). Something like that anyway. 

via the Institute for Policy Studies 

Things such as tax rates can be used to control incentives. Different things motivate people: money, power, control, egos, competition, psychopathy. When it's money, it's sometimes a matter of relative standing. They'll compete based on standing, they don't need 50,000,000 to motivate them. With lower CEO salaries, costs can be controlled, and savings can be passed on to workers or consumers. 

Most of the pay packages for upper executives is usually stock. Stock as pay is taxed as income.

Inequality and Upward Mobility

We had this Gilded Age up until the 1890s. The Progressive Era followed where most of the presidents during this time were Republicans. There are various similarities between the Gilded Age and today. Currently we have an eroded middle class, extreme wealth on the one end and people dealing with low wages and high costs on the other.

Extreme wealth usually results when entrepreneurs are really successful and they end up with a lot of stocks which have risen in value exponentially. Also, top corporate executives' pay has become, in general, grossly inflated. As for the former situation, the gains in wealth aren't taxable until the shares are sold. Service and retail workers need better wages and lower costs, so they can enjoy a more middle class-like lifestyle.

Tax policies can be used to equal-out the wealth gap. Costs, such as housing and medical, can be controlled so lower wage earners have a higher effective income. Labor laws need to be strengthened. Whereas high corporate salaries can be controlled, it is difficult to raise wages for those on the bottom. Corporations' savings in executive pay can be applied to lower earners, but it needs to be done the right way. Lower pay for top executives can lower operating costs, resulting in lower prices for goods and services, thereby benefiting lower wage earners. 

Raising minimum wage doesn't always work. Sometimes, this results in lost jobs and shifts to automation. Union numbers have declined, and unions can be influential by controlling executive pay, as well as championing worker interests. Often in management-worker relations, there's an us vs. them mentality. Managers might just want to win through strategy, and unions can be too demanding. Management and workers need more teamwork.

Prior to 1982 the SEC viewed buybacks as illegal market manipulation. In 1982 a safe harbor rule took effect which protects companies from prosecution. This was around the same time executive pay started growing fast. Buybacks are usually bad because there's a conflict of interest (stock is given to executives while being inflated through buybacks), possibly resulting in a bubble. Often times buybacks are leveraged, and the resources used for buybacks could go toward R+D, production or pay to workers. A lot of the pay packages for top executives is stock awards. Companies could buyback less stock to give to top earners and just pay the under-paid more.

K-12 Public Education Spending

Sometimes organizations do things certain ways because that's the way they've been done in the past. Organizations need to adapt to changing circumstances. The costs associated with illiteracy in general are extensive.

Discrepancies in per-student spending between public K-12 school districts in local areas are a significant driver of inequality and reduced upward mobility. Under-educated individuals are less likely to function well in society. Incarceration and criminal activities stemming, in part, from poor education cost society more than education.

Most of the funding for these schools comes from state and local sources. Funding between districts can vary widely due to differences of wealth between districts.

Differences in per-student spending levels among different districts may perpetuate inequality. Making per-student spending equal within counties would be more realistic, then the state can try and level out the spending between counties. Poor counties can receive the same per-student resources as wealthier ones.

Special considerations for resource restricted districts include wraparound services in order to compensate for socioeconomic deficiencies.

All K-12 students need a mandatory class on media literacy so they can decipher accurate information through the obscure media landscape and learn critical thinking skills. 

Politics circa 2026

 

First of all, the legislative branch needs more power vs. the executive branch. This was the intention of the constitution. The two main parties have evolved and pivot over time. Neither very closely resemble their original forms. For example, Democrats have at times been anti-immigration in order to protect union members and low wage workers, whereas now Democrats are generally pro-immigration. 

Today's Democrats are less often centrists, and several Republicans are far-right. While the two parties become increasingly polarized,  inequality increases. Both parties are entrenched and people need more options. 

There should be at least 4 options on the general election ballots, with the other two representing other parties or running as independents. These other party candidates need to have access to the same resources, including debates, as the two major parties' candidates. 

Campaign finance reform is needed. Politicians shouldn't be sponsored, they're supposed to represent the people. PACs and all of that should be replaced with general election funds for state and federal elections. Candidates on primary and general election ballots should get equal funding.

There are efforts at the state level to get around Citizens United. Others are working on an amendment to overturn the 2010 ruling.

The definition of a Progressive politician sometimes includes "left-leaning." Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive Republican and he did a lot of good things. The best way to straighten things out in the near future is to get someone smart in there as a Progressive Democrat. An effective Progressive Republican leader probably won't be an option anytime soon.

Corporate Operations Facilities and Society

Corporations can take a little more responsibility and do some things smarter when it comes to issues society is dealing with, such as high housing costs. In many ways, places like San Francisco, LA and New York are a mess. These places are old, overpopulated, stressful, and expensive. While it makes sense for some companies to have their headquarters in these types of places, it doesn't make sense anymore with several other types of operations.

Sometimes professional employees and recent graduates want to be in certain locations because there's a lot of novelties: the shopping, or beaches are close, or there's a lot of recreation options. Often, many of the people that live in these areas don't have the time and/or money to take advantage of these local perks. And communications have evolved to where proximity isn't always necessary.

When possible, newer facilities such as offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities should be located in more rural, usually inland places where land is cheap. As long as there's smaller towns or a small city around, that's all they really need. Being within a reasonable commute to some recreation opportunities is relevant.

Somewhere within 50 miles of a large town or small city is ideal. That way people can commute if necessary until things develop. If there's minimal infrastructure there, everything else will follow. Less populated areas are also more conducive to solar farms.

Companies could use this as a selling point to employees because that's developing places where modern urban planning can be implemented, and there aren't all of the negative aspects associated with overbuilt places (high taxes, high housing costs, traffic, long commutes, stress, dirty air). This map shows all of these places which are underdeveloped.

GE is opening several facilities in the south and southeast which seems to be pretty smart planning. 

These are in mostly more rural areas that can use development and are affordable.

 

Effects of High Housing Costs

Extremely high housing costs have numerous consequences. If people are spending most of their money on housing, they don't have money for other necessities, such as healthcare, retail goods and food. There is also lower morale, and upward mobility is diminished. People need to be motivated by opportunities, they can't just be hanging on by a thread.

When people don't have money for healthcare, they either get Medicaid or end up at medical facilities without insurance. When people are treated without insurance or cash, it drives up healthcare costs. There is also more reliance on other social services.

There's all kinds of indirect effects with something like high housing costs. For example, when people can't have enough money, they're more likely to get things other ways. Retail theft can rise. People might engage in other illegal or corrupt activities. With retail theft, this results in higher costs for numerous reasons. Retailers need more security, things get locked up, stores close, and shrinkage raises prices.

A misconception exists where some people think affordable housing developments will depreciate their property values. When prices are inflated, this could make the issue worse because they have more to lose (depreciation). LIHTC projects may face more pushback or require more expensive design features in order to compete with inflated interests.

Other considerations include consumption, inflation and exports. People don't consume as much when they have less discretionary income. Employers need to pay workers more so they can afford housing and this drives up costs. Rising production costs mean lower exports. Excessive borrowing and predatory lending may also factor in.

High housing costs can increase housing instability, which contributes to higher dropout and illiteracy rates for poor students.

When competing in a global economy, people need to be competitive. A major part of this is controlling costs, all kinds of costs: Labor costs, production costs, transportation costs, government spending and taxation, healthcare costs, retail costs, infrastructure costs, etc. All of these things end up in the prices of goods and services sold domestically and exported. 

The Unfixable Housing Crisis

Housing and land costs have become inflated to the point where they would be very difficult to fix. It would be subjective to say where prices would ideally be. A $300,000 house might realistically be priced at $200,000. So, if measures were taken to straighten out the discrepancies, people and businesses would lose money. Who is going to vote for this?

A major contributing factor to these inflated prices is long term capitol gains tax policies on residential and multifamily real estate. Policies should probably be set back to those similar to the early 1990's, The 0-15-20 rule should be more like 0-20-35, with the 35 due to growth in inequality. The $250,000/$500,000 exemption should be eliminated. The best way to do all of this would be to phase it in over 3-5 years so people can work with their finances. 

Most of the non-institutional investment in residential real estate is by small to medium size investors. Larger investors invest less, with mega-investors representing a minimal share of the investments in homes. The percentage of home sales to investors in 2025 was about 1/3, and is growing.

There are more investment options now than ever. People can choose between stocks, cryptocurrency, derivatives, etc. Small businesses are investments. Real estate shouldn't be such an attractive investment to where it causes a major affordability problem.

More housing isn't always a solution. Underlying land costs are also an issue. Here, something like a 0-20-35 rule would help keep wealthy investors from inflating land values.

Some people probably don't understand the issues with the current structure. If someone buys a house for $200,000 and sells it for $300,000, then they buy another house, they need to pay more for it. Unless they're moving to a nursing home or something, they're not really getting ahead. Also, a more expensive house means a much more expensive mortgage, if financed, because there's more interest costs on bigger loans.

Using a simple loan calculator, the interest paid on a 30 year loan at 6% interest for $300,000 with no down payment is $347,514.57. The interest on a 30 year loan at 6% for $400,000 with no down is $463,352.76.

These policy changes would result in more affordable houses and multifamily units being built as well. Smaller homes on smaller lots, more affordable apartments and fewer mansions and McMansions.  

Most images courtesy of Pixabay