Man, I’d love to hear that talk.

An incredibly important point that gets missed very often

The other point that’s often forgotten is that labor costs have risen, and shipping has gotten cheaper. This is just how economics plays out. Protectionism can be great for national security and employment, but people would have to stop expecting things to be cheap.

That people don’t care about those in developing countries does not mean they missed it.

There is also a federal capital gains tax.

I suspect cell site density and that Wi-Fi infra doesn’t require the same regulatory permissions as a microcell. Wi-Fi is unlicensed.

Yeah I guess there may not be a regulatory framework for ambulatory cells

It’s so pleasing to hear someone actually know what they are talking about.

(I founded a large MVNO and have been shouting at my screen for a lot of the incorrect assumptions made by others).

That crossover point on voice costs applies on wireless as well.

Retail arbitrage.

The stick is likely Neem; my father did the same in Pakistan.

CFO of Mint here.

I’ve been tracking this, of course, and just glad to hear Mint mentioned :)

Can you help me understand how #1 becomes #2?

In most parts of the country, there's both an upside and downside to increasing property values to landowners. Upside: they're worth more, they could sell and move somewhere else cheaper, pocketing the money, or they could rent out their place for more. Downside: they have to pay higher ongoing property taxes. Most landowners still like increasing property values, but it's not all good for them.

With prop 13, the downside is wiped out. Increasing values are only good; they could increase 10x overnight and this would only make landowners filthy rich, there's no negative effect for them. Ergo, they have every incentive to keep housing supply constrained, to keep voting for politicians and policies that limit housing density.

And to bear specifically on the sub-point that blights the Bay Area -- by removing increasing property taxes, you are removing market pressure for highest and best use.

Another way to think about property taxes is that they're annual nudges to encourage best use of the property.

Without that pressure, as TulliusCicero notes, why would I ever sell before retirement? And furthermore, why would I even try to make money off the property (say, by renting)?

That's probably not in the city's (as in, all the people living there) best interest to have a substantial portion of homeowners so disengaged from the actual market.

PS: Which isn't to say there aren't gentrification and affordable housing debates to be had. Simply that Prop 13 doesn't really help with that -- it just removed risk from those who are already homeowners.