Add slides (no talk yet)

20??-??-??-land-use-policy/notes.org

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+* https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/land-use-reform
+The problem
+
+Laws at the local level in the United States and many other countries impose
+strict limits on how much total floor area can be built on a plot of land. Such
+zoning laws constitute a major obstacle to the construction of dense housing.
+The resulting increase in housing prices reduces economic efficiency by creating
+significant deadweight loss; increases inequality by transferring wealth from
+renters to landowners; and reduces both wages and total economic output by
+preventing workers from relocating where they can be most productive.
+
+The effects of zoning laws on housing prices can be estimated by comparing the
+sale price of housing to the associated costs of land and construction.[1] Open
+Philanthropy has combined these estimates with rent data and some additional
+assumptions to conclude that the aggregate "tax" on renters in five large
+metropolitan areas amounts to over $100 billion in deadweight loss per year.[2]
+
+A study by economists Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti examines the costs
+resulting from the reduced flow of workers to more productive regions within the
+United States due to rising housing prices. The authors conclude that land use
+restrictions depress annual U.S. wages by $1.27 trillion and output by $1.95
+trillion.[3][4]
+
+If land use restrictions create these problems, why do they persist? In part,
+the costs of restricting land use in a given location are incurred by workers
+who would benefit from moving to that location, and who as such do not yet live
+there. Since restrictions are created at the local level, they are insensitive
+to the interests of these workers, who do not vote in those jurisdictions. Other
+costs of restricting land use—such as reduced economic output—are dispersed
+across society as a whole. Public choice theory explains why governments neglect
+these costs and instead focus on the concentrated benefits to landowners—even
+if, in the aggregate, the costs vastly outweigh the benefits.
+
+Possible solutions
+
+Open Philanthropy and 80,000 Hours have proposed a number of solutions to the
+problems caused by land use restrictions, which are quoted below. Policy options
+
+Promising options open to policymakers include the following:[2]
+
+    "Local governments in high-wage high-regulation metropolitan areas could
+    simply 'upzone', permitting more and denser development." "Local governments
+    could change the process by which they decide how to regulate land use. For
+    example, they could adopt a 'zoning budget' targeting an overall level of
+    housing growth, so that restrictions in one area would have to be balanced
+    by expansions elsewhere. This would help align incentives of advocates for
+    individual projects to support greater overall growth." "Decision-making in
+    land use policy could be re-assigned from local to regional or state
+    authorities, which would likely be less susceptible to neighborhood pressure
+    to oppose new development."
+
+Funding options
+
+Promising options open to funders include the following:[5]
+
+    Fund existing local groups, such as YIMBY Action, California YIMBY or Open
+    New York, or potential new groups in key housing markets. "Fund a campaign
+    to move land use decision-making power from the local to the regional or
+    state level. We are not aware of any existing arrangements of this form in
+    the United States, or of any active efforts to promote them, so this would
+    likely be an exercise in 'active funding.'" "Support the development of a
+    policy consensus (for example, by convening conferences or sponsoring work
+    on this issue in prominent think tanks). This would have the benefits of
+    both encouraging coordination on this issue by policymakers, and improving
+    our understanding of what policy changes are most likely to be beneficial."
+
+* https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/housing-policy-reform/
+We seek to reduce the harms caused by excessively restrictive regulations on
+local housing.
+
+Local laws often prohibit the construction of dense new housing, which has
+contributed to rising housing prices and lower affordability for renters and
+buyers.
+
+Ratio of median house price and median household income in the US, 1967-2021 (US
+Census Bureau). House price data is MSPUS; median household income is from
+Income in the US Table D-1.
+
+These price increases are pronounced in large, high-wage metro areas (e.g., New
+York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Washington D.C.). More
+permissive policy which enabled a greater supply of housing in those areas could
+unlock value by:
+
+    Encouraging economic growth through greater innovation and agglomeration.
+    Increasing the earnings of individuals moving to high-wage jobs in those
+    areas. Enabling more people to live in denser areas, which have lower carbon
+    emissions. Redistributing wealth and income to lower-income households and
+    supporting access to housing for lower earners.
+
+Changing housing policy laws is unusually valuable because there is a huge
+amount of private capital and firms dedicated to building new homes. Removing
+restrictions on building — especially denser construction in cities — unlocks
+that capital to be deployed much more efficiently without requiring
+philanthropists or government to directly subsidize construction. Indeed, the
+evidence is clear that “upzoning” (removing restrictions on denser housing) can
+lead to increases in supply and reductions in prices, and several recent studies
+conclude that building new homes (even market-rate homes) tends to make housing
+more affordable, including for low-income households.
+
+Considering these potential gains, we think that working toward more permissive
+housing policy from a public-interest perspective (as opposed to lobbying for
+specific developments) appears neglected in those key regions. We began making
+housing policy grants in 2015 and were early supporters of the YIMBY movement,
+which supports people to advocate for permissive zoning and development in their
+local areas. Since that time, we have seen significant growth in the movement
+and notable policy breakthroughs. Successes our grantees have been involved in
+include: the growth of Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) reform in California and
+Seattle, bills supporting middle housing and ADUs in Washington state, and
+further legislative success in California for housing on commercial corridors
+and removing parking mandates near transit.

20??-??-??-land-use-policy/talk.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,403 @@
+\documentclass{beamer}
+
+% \usetheme{CambridgeUS}
+
+\title{Rethinking Land Use: Effective Altruism Meets Georgism}
+
+\subtitle{Mental frameworks for policy level interventions}
+
+\author{Your Name}
+
+\date{\today}
+
+\AtBeginSection[] {
+    \begin{frame}
+      \frametitle{Table of Contents} \tableofcontents[currentsection]
+    \end{frame}
+}
+\begin{document}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \titlepage
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Welcome and Context}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Welcome!} Today, we'll explore Georgism—an economic philosophy
+    with potential relevance for effective altruists.
+  \item \textbf{Effective Altruism (EA):} A movement dedicated to using evidence
+    and reason to find the most effective ways to improve the world.
+  \item \textbf{Why discuss Georgism here?}
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item EA seeks high-impact solutions to pressing global problems.
+    \item Georgism offers a distinctive approach to addressing poverty,
+      inequality, and resource allocation.
+    \item \emph{Land Use Reform} as cause area
+    \end{itemize}
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Motivation for the Land Use Reform Cause Area}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Increased wealth transform from renters to landowners, reduction of both
+    wages and total economic output by preventing workers from relocating where
+    they can be most productive
+  \item Building permits, Zooning Laws and Nimbyism as structural roadblocks to
+    societal improvement
+  \item Surface Sealing, Car focus
+  \item Housing Crisis as everything crisis
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+
+  If land use restrictions create these problems, why do they persist? In part,
+  the costs of restricting land use in a given location are incurred by workers
+  who would benefit from moving to that location, and who as such do not yet
+  live there. Since restrictions are created at the local level, they are
+  insensitive to the interests of these workers, who do not vote in those
+  jurisdictions. Other costs of restricting land use—such as reduced economic
+  output—are dispersed across society as a whole. Public choice theory explains
+  why governments neglect these costs and instead focus on the concentrated
+  benefits to landowners—even if, in the aggregate, the costs vastly outweigh
+  the benefits.
+
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Why Might Georgism Interest Effective Altruists?}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Root Cause Focus:} Georgism targets the root causes of social
+    and economic problems, rather than just symptoms.
+  \item \textbf{Systemic Change:} Proposes reforms with potential for
+    large-scale, sustainable impact.
+  \item \textbf{Alignment with EA Values:}
+    \begin{itemize}
+    \item Promotes fairness and justice in resource distribution.
+    \item Aims to maximize social welfare and reduce poverty.
+    \end{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Room for More Impact:} Land value taxation and related ideas are
+    underexplored in mainstream policy, presenting an opportunity for neglected,
+    high-leverage action.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{What is Georgism? (Preview)}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Economic philosophy developed by Henry George (1839–1897)
+\item \textbf{Core idea:} People should keep what they produce, but the value of
+  land and natural resources belongs equally to all
+\item \textbf{Focus:} Fair distribution of \textit{economic rent} from land,
+  natural monopolies, and the commons
+\item \textbf{Main policy:} Land Value Tax (LVT) — taxing the unimproved value
+  of land, not labor or productive capital
+\item \textbf{Goal:} Reduce poverty, increase fairness, and fund public goods
+  efficiently.
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Why Should Effective Altruists Care?}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Georgism addresses \textbf{systemic causes} of poverty and inequality
+\item LVT is efficient, evidence-based, and minimizes economic distortions
+\item Revenues can fund public goods, reduce regressive taxes, or provide a
+  basic income
+\item Historical and modern examples show practical impact (e.g., land reforms
+  in Taiwan, Japan, and pilot communities)
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Georgism and Effective Altruism Values}
+\begin{itemize}
+\item \textbf{Prioritization:} Tackles neglected root causes of global problems
+\item \textbf{Evidence-based:} Supported by economists for efficiency and
+  fairness
+\item \textbf{Global Wellbeing:} Aims to eliminate poverty and promote
+  prosperity for all
+\item \textbf{Systemic Change:} Offers a scalable, policy-level intervention
+\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+%\begin{frame}{Today's Agenda}
+%  \begin{itemize}
+%  \item Brief history and fundamentals of Georgism
+%  \item Exploring core concepts further: economic rent, land value tax
+%  \item How Georgism addresses issues central to EA: poverty, inequality, and
+%    efficient philanthropy
+%  \item How might Georgist policies fit into EA cause prioritization?
+%  \item Critiques and open questions
+%  \item Q\&A and discussion
+%  \end{itemize}
+%\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Outline of talk}
+  \tableofcontents
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{A brief history}
+
+\begin{frame}{What Is Georgism?}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Georgism} (also known as Geoism or the Single Tax Theory) is a
+    social economic philosophy developed by Henry George in the late 19th
+    century.
+  \item Core idea: \textbf{People should own the value they produce}, but the
+    \textbf{economic rent from land and natural resources should belong equally
+      to all of society}.
+  \item Focuses on land, natural resources, and the commons as sources of
+    unearned income that should be shared.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Historical Background}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Emerged in the late 19th century, rooted in classical liberalism and
+    political economy.
+  \item Influenced by thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart
+    Mill.
+  \item Sought to address persistent poverty despite technological progress and
+    wealth creation.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Key Figure: Henry George}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item American economist and social reformer (1839–1897).
+  \item Author of \textit{Progress and Poverty} (1879), a bestseller second only
+    to the Bible in the US at the time.
+  \item Sought to explain why poverty persists alongside economic growth,
+    identifying private land rent as a key culprit.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{The Law of Rent}
+
+\begin{frame}{David Ricardo and the Law of Rent}
+  \textbf{David Ricardo (1772--1823)} was a prominent classical economist who
+  formulated the Law of Rent in his 1817 work \textit{On the Principles of
+    Political Economy and Taxation}.
+
+  \vspace{0.5cm} %
+  \textit{“Rent is always the difference between the produce obtained by the
+    employment of two equal quantities of capital and labour.”}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \begin{figure}
+    \centering %
+    \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yltJHY6g5I}
+  \end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \begin{figure}
+    \centering %
+    \only<1>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent1}}
+    \only<2>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent2}}
+    \only<3>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent3}}
+    \only<4>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent4}}
+    \only<5>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent5}}
+    \only<6>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent6}}
+    \only<7>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent7}}
+    \only<8>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent8}}
+    \only<9>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent9}}
+  \end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \begin{figure}
+    \centering %
+    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/calculator}
+  \end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \textbf{Ricardo's Law of Rent:}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Definition:} Rent is the portion of the produce of the earth
+    paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers
+    of the soil.
+  \item \textbf{Key Principle:} Rent arises due to differences in land fertility
+    and location. It is the economic advantage obtained by using a land site in
+    its most productive use, relative to the advantage from using marginal
+    (rent-free) land, given the same inputs of labor and capital.
+  \item \textbf{Marginal Land:} The least productive land in use, which earns
+    zero rent. All other land earns rent equal to its excess productivity over
+    marginal land.
+  \item \textbf{Implications:}
+      \begin{itemize}
+      \item As population grows, less fertile land is cultivated, increasing
+        rent on superior land.
+      \item Rent does not enter into the cost of production; it is a surplus
+        accruing to landowners.
+      \end{itemize}
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Core Principles}
+
+\begin{frame}{The Central Principle}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item \textbf{Distinction:} People own what they produce, but land and natural
+    resources are not produced by anyone.
+  \item \textbf{Single Tax:} Proposes a tax on land value (not on labor or
+    capital) to fund public goods and reduce inequality.
+  \item \textbf{Goal:} Economic efficiency, social justice, and reduction of
+    poverty by sharing unearned income from land.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{The few different ways to make money in the economy}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Labor: You can sell your time to produce more of a valuable good or
+    service.
+  \item Capital: You can lend someone else your money, allowing them to make
+    investments that will produce more valuable stuff.
+  \item Information: You can do research, developing and selling knowledge of
+    ways to create more valuable stuff.
+  \item Entrepreneurship: You can take on personal risk and leverage the labor,
+    capital, and information of others to create new valuable stuff.
+  \end{itemize}
+  And then there's land ownership. You can buy land, and then you collect rent
+  from people who want to use your land.
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Problems with land ownership}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item (scarcity) there's a fixed supply of land. Realistically you can't
+    create or destroy land (surface, which a mathematical area).
+  \item (inelasticity) the demand for land is very stable. You can't decide to
+    just not take up any physical space tomorrow.
+  \end{itemize}
+  This means
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item landowners are effectively always running an auction for land use
+  \item the rent for land use keeps rising to the highest rate someone is
+    willing to pay.
+  \item because you can't make more land, land owners get to capture more and
+    more value as the economy grows, without the land owners actually doing
+    anything valuable.
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Actually, there are a few other things like land}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item domains
+  \item patents
+  \item electromagnetic frequencies
+  \item satellite orbits
+  \end{itemize}
+  (my) rule of thumb: if the thing you pay for is more like a right of usage
+  than an actual item, then the market for it is economically similar to the
+  land market
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Land value is (mostly) the value of society}
+  \small{
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Close to essential services like schools, hospitals, shopping centers,
+    and recreational facilities
+  \item Easy access to public transportation and major highways
+  \item Near cultural amenities like theaters, museums, and restaurants
+  \item Safe area with low crime rates
+  \item Well-maintained public spaces and active community organizations
+  \item Strong sense of community with local events and activities
+  \item Located in an area with job opportunities and economic stability
+  \item Presence of thriving businesses and a flourishing local economy
+  \item Upcoming infrastructure projects or public improvements planned
+  \item Zoning changes that allow for increased development potential
+  \item Scenic views or natural beauty
+  \end{itemize}}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{General Moral Foundation}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Everyone should benefit from natural resources and societal progress.
+  \item Privately created wealth remains private; socially created wealth (land
+    rent) is shared
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\section{Main Policy Proposals}
+
+\begin{frame}{Basic Argument\footnote{inspired by this discussion:
+    \url{https://old.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/1esw8l9/where_do_you_start_when_introducing_georgism_to/}}}
+  \begin{small}
+    \vspace{-0.3cm}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Nobody likes taxes, but we gotta pay for some stuff, so we should tax in
+    the least destructive way we can.
+  \item Turns out, land has this neat property where we can't really create it
+    or destroy it, so it's almost immune to distortionary taxes.
+  \item Plus, land has this ugly tendency to get hoarded and milked as a source
+    of income for people who don't actually contribute anything to society.
+  \item Plus plus, because of the eccentricities of how land works, you can tax
+    land a fair amount before landlords can pass those costs on to land users.
+  \item So, we can cut a bunch of bad taxes, like income tax and sales tax,
+    replace them with a tax on unearned income from land, and make almost
+    everybody better off!
+  \end{itemize}
+  \end{small}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{Destructive Taxes - An Example}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item Imagine there will be a 10\% tax on apple sauce starting next year.
+  \item Producers are allowed to pass them to the consumer (as usual, and it can
+    not be prevented really)
+  \item Prices will increase by almost exactly 10\% (all things being equal)
+  \item Less people will buy apple sauce, even though the underlying demand does
+    not change
+  \item In a year's time, there will be around 10\% less apple sauce, because
+    here supply follows demand
+  \item Now imagine this for other, more important goods, like medicine and
+    income taxes that affect prices indirectly
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}{A tax on land value has no dead weight}
+  \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
+    \begin{figure}
+      \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/dead-weight}
+    \end{figure}
+  \end{minipage}
+  \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
+    \begin{figure}
+      \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/no-dead-weight}
+    \end{figure}
+  \end{minipage}
+  \vspace{0.1cm}\\
+  \footnotesize{
+    \textit{price ceiling} means \textit{price before tax} in this context\\
+    source (left): \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss}\\
+    source (right): \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax} }
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item empty houses/flats will be put on the market because it is financially
+    reasonable to do so
+  \item additionally there is now incentive to building new houses on vacant
+    lots or add floors to existing buildings in high demand locations
+  \item the rent distribution will shift downwards
+  \item (small) businesses will have an easier time finding locations or
+    operating in the existing ones
+  \item people will move into the city
+  \item public infrastructure can be funded better
+  \item if land value is faithfully reflected in parking tickets, people will
+    park cars on their own property or get rid of it
+  \item tax evasion will become impossible
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+% map of consequences ?
+
+\begin{frame}{General Expected Outcomes}
+  \begin{itemize}
+  \item More equitable distribution of wealth.
+  \item Incentives for productive use of land.
+  \item Reduction in speculative land holding and economic inefficiency
+  \end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\end{document}