In a time when phrases like “Global savings glut“ are thrown around, I get confused as to why anyone thinks solutions like “The problem is that we don’t have enough available capital for investing“ make sense, apart from places that can engage in zero-sum competitions for investment. That doesn’t really seem like the limiting factor here.
Maybe there’s a reason that makes sense, but I’m not seeing it.
I do think there’s an If-Then there.
In that IF you fixed a bunch of your institutions to let you spend money in interesting ways, THEN you could spend a bunch of money doing useful things and not have said savings glut.
Because the skyline of every major city is filled with million-dollar holes that could be filled with half a million in materials.
And those holes aren’t filled for very bad reasons like zoning laws.
Ah, but my dear Poi, why are the zoning laws broken?
Because the only way to avoid crime and societal dysfunction under our current conditions is to price it out of the market! Also American cities suck at spending infrastructure money effectively, but that’s more widely acknowledged.
The political will for denser zoning will not exist until multiple other issues are rectified, including the creation of criminals, improper incentives that don’t sufficiently reward non-criminal relative to criminal activity, simultaneous over and under policing of areas, etc.