Will he meaningfully go back on the propositions in here? He doesn't have to fully change his mind, just something like >50%.
Resolves on my subjective judgement, i guess. Say, >50% resolves to YES, between 50% and 0% resolves to PROB.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ101 | |
| 2 | Ṁ73 | |
| 3 | Ṁ30 | |
| 4 | Ṁ30 | |
| 5 | Ṁ26 |
Suggestions on how to resolve this? I don't think there's any reason to leave it open
@jacksonpolack he said "Based on this, I'm updating heavily towards lower". That definitely count as changing ones mind in my opinion.
@jacksonpolack Just checking you've not forgotten about this market. I think it's very unlikely there will be any further evidence emerging. Seems like a YES resolution to me.
@RobertCousineau He's explicitly said now that he's updating heavily towards density decreases prices.
I'm gonna give this another week or so for him to maybe make another comment about it (but I don't think he will), and think about it more, then resolve it (unless someone wants me to wait longer).
"Maybe all of these together mean that my argument is irrelevant for most cities at most time scales we care about, even if it’s potentially true in theory sometimes." seems strong ... but I think when scott writes something like this, he's emphasizing a possibility in a very vivid way, as opposed to agreeing with it and watering it down with maybe.
But "Based on this I’m updating heavily towards “lower”." is pretty strong. My read on "heavy" update is, like, 60% -> 40%. But when you combine that with the above, it's a strong case for, like, 30%-70% changing of his mind. idk
These sorts of markets are obviously tough to resolve.
@jacksonpolack I do agree that these markets are pretty though to resolve.
I think a comment by Scott that says "I'm updating heavily towards lower" is the best direct evidence you can reasonably expect for him changing his mind when you have a market like this.
He's posted an update today where he seems to double down on most of his points (minus some very minor concessions in the conclusion) and dismiss most of the arguments against his premise. In particular, he dismisses:
The suggestion that he's confusing cause and effect and that the reason why expensive cities are dense is because their desirability means that housing there can cost more and this potential profit is what causes the density
Any mention of Tokyo or Japan as so far outside the American experience that they could never be relevant to American cities
The evidence that cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc. are building quickly and staying cheap
None of this looks like a man who's about to substantively change his mind!
@SimonGrayson Oops - I forgot to actually link his update!
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-housing
@SimonGrayson Just to provide a highly biased counter-interpretation:
The post definitely shows him strongly rebuffing plenty of commenters, but that would probably happen regardless of whether he's significantly changed his mind right? There're always going to be people who've misunderstood his original argument, or missed that he specifically called out Tokyo in the first place. I wouldn't necessarily call those doubling down on his position, he's just calling out other people being wrong in their critiques.
I thought the concessions toward the end of the post amounted to something pretty significant - eg:
"But maybe I should take this same lesson to heart myself. Dense cities are mostly trendy liberal coastal cities; uninhabited tundra in North Dakota isn’t. Maybe the demand is just for trendy liberal coastal cities, and once you attain that status, extra density doesn’t matter that much. Maybe Oakland has already maxed out its “trendy liberal coastal city” status, and even if it became Manhattan-sized, it wouldn’t get any trendier, or would get trendier only with a long time lag."
His original stance was that building more houses raises local house prices; does this and his list of concessions at the very end not amount to a pretty big deviation from that position?
He didn't seem particularly convinced by any of the comments. But maybe https://www.econlib.org/why-scott-alexander-is-wrong/ will change his mind? idk.
Zvi has also come out against the position in the latest housing roundup