> Even IF people bought a lifetime worth of food or electricity, I still wouldn't care. A 90% decrease in costs for food and electricity would STILL save 10s of thousands of lives every year.
And yet the "saving lives" portion of this comparison only works with food, and a select other few items. Do I really have to explain why making a comparison between items and using a feature that only exists within the compared to situation makes for a poor comparison?
Are you saving millions, or even hundreds, of lives by dropping house prices immediately in a locale instead of looking for policies that both create housing (hopefully affordable) while also trying to reduce the most egregious losses from the middle class?
To be clear, again, I'm not against allowing house prices to drop, and I'm not against building more housing. I'm for a considered approach that tries to reduce extreme negative impact for people who would also have a hard time dealing with a large drop in their home price? Because I'm having a hard time understanding why people are so averse to trying to find a best possible option instead of just doing the thing that immediately just sounds like the simple thing to do.
Feel free to have the last comment. On this topic, I think I'm done telling people over and over again how they've ignored the actual point of my argument only to have them double down.
