6 empty homes for every US homeless person

[GenYus234]

Flooding from broken pipes is going to be pretty minimal in an abandoned house as the water would have probably been shut off, so the only flooding would be from the water still in the pipes.

I will grant you that some houses can quickly become unsellable in a short period of time. But the key here is some houses. Not all or a very large percentage of houses. In order for a free market to drive prices down a significant amount, enough houses have to become unsellable in a very short period of time that sellers will be willing to sell at whatever price because they know (or are very sure) that the house's value will plumet faster than the drop in sell prices. But since many houses can remain vacant without quickly becoming unsellable, sellers will often take the risk that their property will be one of the majority that suffers only minimal damage.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

Flooding from broken pipes is going to be pretty minimal in an abandoned house as the water would have probably been shut off, so the only flooding would be from the water still in the pipes.

There are pipes leading to and from hot water tanks, which commonly hold 40 gallons or more. Even a toilet tank contains enough water to ruin the floor of a smallish bathroom if it's not cleaned up right away.

[erwins]

One of the major risks to vacant houses these days is theft of copper plumbing and wiring, in addition to the other things already mentioned.

I would think that most vacant houses are bank-owned or controlled, and that the main factors going into the selling price are the estimated time it will remain on the market at a given price, and the cost to the bank of continuing to hold onto the house for that long (maintenance, monitoring, insurance, opportunity cost) versus the likelihood of the house value either rising or falling in that time.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

My snark was directed not at people who actually understand the law of supply and demand, but at people who have adopted free-market capitalism as a sort of religion, and refuse to entertain the notion that for some markets (agriculture, healthcare, housing...) it's not the best system for society.

Richard Dawkins often says that he wishes in retrospect that he'd given his first book, The Selfish Gene, a different title.

In context (and it's a fairly technical book compared to some of his later ones) the idea is that the gene doesn't even have to be "good" for the organism that it resides in - so long as it can reproduce itself, it will do so. Applying "natural selection" at the level of the organism will never account for things like cancer, which is very good at reproducing itself but which is no good at all for the organism. Even suggesting that it usually only manifests after the organism has finished reproducing is to miss the point.

But the title is easily misinterpreted by the ignorant to mean "we're selfish because of evolution! Therefore evolution is evil!". There's an element of wilful misinterpretation going on, I'm sure, but the title of the book makes it easier to do.

I'd say the "free market" is similarly misnamed. Quite apart from the idea that it's in no way intended to deal with "public goods" and is supposed to apply only to a limited set of circumstances, it's also very easy for economic libertarians or neo-liberals to (wilfully) misinterpret it to say that "free" means "no rules", "we should be able to do what we like". In fact, it means "free" as in "free to move within constraints, rather than trying to be forced in a particular direction". I say "wilfully" because I'm sure that a lot of the people who advocate this view know enough about economics to know that they're misrepresenting it.

I was thinking about this while watching people play pool in the pub earlier. The balls are free to move on the pool table - there's nobody pushing them in a particular direction - but there's still a table, with obvious constraints (cushions) and a strict set of rules about play to ensure that it's fair, and that the better player wins, and that it's still an interesting game which people get pleasure and benefit from playing.

It seems a lot of current self-proclaimed "free market" advocates would favour a system in which they're allowed to pick the balls up and put them in the pockets so that they win. And punch anybody who complains that this isn't fair, and also favour a rule that says that if you've won the first game then you get the right to stop anybody else picking up the balls. And they try to justify this by emphasising the word "free" and stating that this means the model (in this metaphor, the rules of pool - perhaps we need to pretend that the game is called "free pool") means that they're allowed to do that, because that's what "free" means.

It's not. It was never intended to be. Adam Smith himself points out that one of the first things a group of rich merchants would do if they got together as friends is to try to fix the prices and form a monopoly, and that this has to be prevented by regulation for the system to work as he describes. He was about enlightened self interest, not greed. He also thought that people would be discouraged from accumulating extreme wealth by social pressure - the disapproval would be more important to them than the money. (He was a bit naive like that).

I can't find the exact quotes just now, but here's one in which he clearly disapproves of greed, extreme wealth and selfishness, as opposed to the enlightened system he thought would best replace it. This is from The Wealth of Nations, Book III, chapter 4 (p. 512 of the Penguin Classics edition of Books I - III).

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared it with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference, this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.

(In context, he was talking about the collapse of feudalism). Never mind Marx, Adam Smith would have been out protesting "the 1%" if he was writing today.

OK, I did come up with the pool metaphor while in the pub. I never said it was a good one. And yes, Adam Smith does go on a bit. Like me, really.

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by Lainie

There are pipes leading to and from hot water tanks, which commonly hold 40 gallons or more. Even a toilet tank contains enough water to ruin the floor of a smallish bathroom if it's not cleaned up right away.

Hot water tanks and toilet tanks generally have anti-siphon valves to prevent flow from the tank to the pipes.

ETA: Which still leaves out the point that such ruin is not a guaranteed result.

Originally Posted by Richard W

It seems a lot of current self-proclaimed "free market" advocates would favour a system in which they're allowed to pick the balls up and put them in the pockets so that they win. And punch anybody who complains that this isn't fair, and also favour a rule that says that if you've won the first game then you get the right to stop anybody else picking up the balls. And they try to justify this by emphasising the word "free" and stating that this means the model (in this metaphor, the rules of pool - perhaps we need to pretend that the game is called "free pool") means that they're allowed to do that, because that's what "free" means.

Calvinball!

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

Was your grandmother's house also in California? As Lainie said, this is largely a cold climate issue. My great aunt and uncle owned a house in upstate New York, and when they passed, my uncle was supposed to take care of it but didn't. The utilities were shut off for non-payment, and when winter came the pipes froze and burst, flooding the entire downstairs. I think it eventually had to be torn down, even though it was "only"' neglected for about a year or so. When I lived in the dorms in Boston, they repeatedly reminded us not to shut off the heat when we went home for winter break, for exactly that reason.

The house was in Missouri which has the extreme weather.

I buy houses in Vegas and rent them. It just seems an house that has been left empty for more then 6 months here starts to have cracking of the walls, plumbing issues, water heater needs replacing, etc.

[Esprise Me]

In case I wasn't clear: I'm more or less in agreement with everything Richard W. wrote. I'm not advocating for the overthrow of capitalism or anything. (Really! I'd tell you if I were!) But I do think some markets need to be extra-carefully regulated--I blame the housing crisis on the deregulation of the lending industry--and this is not what most people mean when they talk about a "free market." Maybe I just hang around a lot of people who are really ignorant on the subject, but I think this sort of ignorance is widespread. Some terms, like "family values," "pro-life," and, yes, "free market" have been hijacked by sociopaths who only value families with opposite-sex parents, think sex should carry the death penalty, and oppose government regulations banning the use of flammable materials in children's pajamas because parents should be free to lose their children to a house fire, to the point that sensible people who choose to employ those terms might have to define them first to avoid confusion.

In other words, I think the housing market is already a little too free, and that's what got us into this mess. But there are those who would argue that we need even less government interference so the market can correct itself. Those are the people I'm rolling my eyes at.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

Hot water tanks and toilet tanks generally have anti-siphon valves to prevent flow from the tank to the pipes.

How does the hot water get from the tank to my shower, sink, dishwasher, etc. if not through the pipes?

[Garnet Jello]

Originally Posted by erwins

One of the major risks to vacant houses these days is theft of copper plumbing and wiring, in addition to the other things already mentioned.

This was the case for the apartment building in which I currently live. The wiring was gutted by thieves, and no one had been living here for quite some time. On the plus side, the current wiring is new due to this.

I'm wondering what percentage of empty buildings in the U.S. remain empty due to the presence of asbestos. There's an old school in my town that has remained empty for at least four decades because of asbestos. I imagine that there are more buildings around here with this problem, too.

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

In other words, I think the housing market is already a little too free, and that's what got us into this mess. But there are those who would argue that we need even less government interference so the market can correct itself. Those are the people I'm rolling my eyes at.

I'm in agreement with this. I think that those who have taken the word "free" too literally in the term "free market" have led us to much of our current economic mess.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Richard W

It's not. It was never intended to be. Adam Smith himself points out that one of the first things a group of rich merchants would do if they got together as friends is to try to fix the prices and form a monopoly, and that this has to be prevented by regulation for the system to work as he describes.

Not at all. He was firmly opposed to such regulations:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible, indeed, to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.

He was opposed to regulations that facilitated such meetings, but that's about it.

I don't see why a book from 1776 should be the last word on economics anyway, though.

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by Lainie

How does the hot water get from the tank to my shower, sink, dishwasher, etc. if not through the pipes?

For the hot water heater, the water pressure of the cold water flowing into the hot water heater pushes out the hot water. This is how you can get hot water upstairs when the hot water heater is in the basement. With the water shut off, there is no pressure to push so no water flows out of the hot water heater into the hot water pipes. The anti siphon valve prevents water from flowing backwards through the cold water supply lines.

You can test this by closing off the main supply to the house. Then turn on a hot water tap. You'll get some water from the lines (more if you open a downstairs tap), but then it will shut off, much sooner than it would if you drained the entire tank.

[Beachlife!]

Having shut the water of in my house over the weekend, I can confirm this.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Steve

Not at all. He was firmly opposed to such regulations:

He was opposed to regulations that facilitated such meetings, but that's about it.

I don't see why a book from 1776 should be the last word on economics anyway, though.

Aha, thank you - you found the passage I was referring to. I had meant to come back to this thread ages ago, but forgot.

He doesn't say that he's firmly opposed to regulations against price fixing. He says he's firmly opposed to regulations that would restrict freedom of assembly. Rightly so, but that's a complete red herring from our point of view.

I think it's clear that he doesn't approve of price fixing. And as you said, he's speaking in a context where the laws were forcing people to enter into corporations which they may not have wanted to enter:

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. It connects individuals who might never otherwise be known to one another, and gives every man of the trade a direction where to find every other man of it.

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves, in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade, an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law, with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever.

You could argue that he thought the law was stacked too heavily on the side of the businesses, there... certainly guilds had powers that we wouldn't give to businesses these days, and it's wrong to legally require membership in guilds or unions.

The specific concerns he mentions aren't as relevant now, as it's pretty easy to find out who else is in the same business now, even if there isn't a requirement to register - in fact if nobody can find out, then it's hard to see how you could do much business.

I think he was probably wrong about this at the time, too - it's just that the "right" answer is too far on the other side of the problem for him to have considered it. If you're worried about people getting together and fixing prices, then making it slightly harder for them to get together hardly helps. They could still easily get together and fix prices if they wanted to, even if they weren't required to write their names and addresses in a book. To solve the problem you should simply outlaw price fixing. Which we've now done, for this reason.

As for a book from 1776 being the last word in economics, that isn't my intent in quoting Adam Smith at all. (Repeatedly quoting... When I searched for Adam Smith in an attempt to find this thread, I see that I've said similar things, and even had similar discussions with you, several times before.) My point is that so much current discussion focusses on the supposed "free market" as being beneficial for all, but has nothing to do with the actual meaning of a free market, or with the reasons it was felt to be beneficial. Often, current "free market" arguments are transparently self-serving, which isn't at all the same as enlightened self-interest.

Adam Smith is usually credited with defining the "free market", and his idea was that it was based on enlightened values which would maximise benefit for all. I think there are some problems with the model - one of which is that it has to deal with the tendency for wealth to flow upwards, which Smith thought would be dealt with by general benevolence and enlightenment - but in a lot of situations, it's a good model. (I don't think it applies well to infrastructure, which makes a lot more sense as a monopoly, and personally I think that any necessary monopolies should be owned by the state, or rather everybody, rather than by specific individuals). So I think it's worth pointing out when his model doesn't agree with the current things we're told are a "free market" and therefore "beneficial".

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Richard W

Adam Smith is usually credited with defining the "free market", and his idea was that it was based on enlightened values which would maximise benefit for all. I think there are some problems with the model - one of which is that it has to deal with the tendency for wealth to flow upwards, which Smith thought would be dealt with by general benevolence and enlightenment.

I'm not sure where he talked about benevolence dealing with wealth distribution.
He doesn't seem to have had much of a problem with inequality, and was a flat-taxer to boot. So Marx may have been on the side of Occupy Wall Street, but I don't think Smith would have been.

Even in the passage you quote about diamond buckles he wasn't arguing against people being very wealthy, he was pointing out that such wealth is generally wasted in noncommercial societies. (He also pointed out that it wasn't feudalism that he meant, but feudal and nonfeudal Britain before commercialization.) He just thought that an equal amount of wealth in the hands of one person would do much more good if that person lived in a commercial nation.

He did think that wealth generally didn't remain as long in families in commercial nations, but that had nothing to do with benevolence or self-interest.