hx87

Tax on land value only, excluding improvements. This encourages landowners to build to the limit of marginal construction costs, which benefits both the local economy and tenants.

Companies can't grow faster than the supply of office space, which also has time constraints.

The more important question is: can we have growth in economic output (which is what we actually want) without growth in economic input (which is purely instrumental)?

In order to crack water, you need water, which is in short supply in the desert. Desalination + massive pumps and pipelines from the ocean would soak up any increase you get in price efficiency compared to batteries or even compressed air.

I wonder what the breakeven cost would be of a monthly subscription to ad-free journalism on the quality level of the New York Times (or your preferred equivalent). Something like $200-300 maybe? If it were actually ad-free and zero-clickbait, 100% high quality journalism, I'd be willing to pay about that much.

When you are told something that is wrong, holding onto it after you learn that it is wrong is entitlement.

NIMBYism is pretty much a de facto campaign against internal migration. It's not much of an issue in the fastest growing states, but certain states with hot economies but stagnant or declining populations, like Massachusetts or California, are affected by it.

What factors influence the amount of calories used and taken in (not just eaten)? That's the question, and the answer is hardly rudimentary.

> but in my calorie range

That's the difficult part--the insulin spikes from ultraprocessed food will make you hungrier and eat more as well as lower your basal metabolism. "Calorie range" is a moving target.

When your basal metabolism is 4500 calories a day.

The extra bedroom is also optional.

Aesthetic objections to new construction are 99.9% bullshit. Otherwise things like vomit- and baby-poop-green vinyl siding, uniformly white windows with fake grills and little to no trim, McMansion-style hip-roof horrorshows and gables on top of gables wouldn't exist.

> The idea that a place like Beverly Hills is going to have to throw up a bunch of new housing to please CA congress

They don't have to do anything except allow private landowners to build higher if they wish.

Your house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Developers are willing to pay a lot for it since a multifamily building can yield a lot more rent revenue than a single family house. The house is probably worth more in this scenario.

It's almost like they've never heard of orientation, shading, or SHGCs.