Archive for ‘Affordable Housing’

July 2, 2026

In Defense of Capitalism: Blaming the Engine for the Road Government Built

by Steve Dana

Young people today often say capitalism has failed them. They look at the cost of rent, groceries, gas, tuition, insurance, health care, and vehicles, and they conclude the system is broken. Then they look at Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, and the rest of America’s billionaire class, and they decide they have found the villains.

It is an understandable reaction, but it is the wrong conclusion.

Capitalism did not make ordinary life unaffordable.

Government distorted capitalism until ordinary life became unaffordable, and then taught people to blame capitalism.

That is the point we need to recover.

Capitalism does not operate in a vacuum. It operates inside a framework created by government. Government controls the money supply. Government influences interest rates. Government taxes income, property, fuel, payroll, investment, business activity, and consumption. Government regulates housing, energy, transportation, labor, health care, education, banking, insurance, construction, and nearly every other sector of the economy.

Then private businesses are expected to function inside that framework, absorb those costs, comply with those rules, pay those taxes, survive those mandates, and still keep prices low enough that customers do not revolt.

When they cannot, capitalism gets blamed.

That is dishonest.

A restaurant owner does not set the price of a hamburger in a vacuum. He looks at beef, buns, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fryer oil, paper goods, napkins, cleaning supplies, rent, utilities, insurance, wages, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, credit-card fees, repairs, equipment, spoilage, licensing, bookkeeping, regulation, and debt service. He adds all those costs together, hopes customers will still walk through the door, and tries to make enough profit to survive.

If the hamburger that used to cost five dollars now costs sixteen, the lazy explanation is greed. The real explanation is cost.

And where do many of those costs come from? Inflation, regulation, labor mandates, taxes, energy policy, insurance mandates, compliance costs, permitting delays, and the steady destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power.

That is not Bill Gates’ fault. That is not Warren Buffett’s fault. That is not capitalism failing. That is government interference showing up on the menu board.

The same is true of housing. Builders did not forget how to build houses. Developers did not suddenly decide to make starter homes unaffordable. Government made land use more complicated, zoning more restrictive, permitting more expensive, environmental review more time-consuming, infrastructure fees more burdensome, and construction compliance more costly. Then people look around and wonder why young families cannot buy a house.

The answer is not capitalism. The answer is artificial scarcity created by government policy.

If government restricts where housing can be built, what kind of housing can be built, how dense it can be, how long approvals take, what fees must be paid, what materials must be used, and what conditions must be satisfied before a shovel hits the dirt, the result will be fewer homes and higher prices.

That is not a market failure. That is a government failure.

Energy is another example. Fuel is not just something we buy at the pump. Energy is embedded in everything. It is in farming, trucking, refrigeration, construction, manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, heating, cooling, and retail. Raise the cost of energy and you raise the cost of everything.

When government restricts supply, discourages investment, blocks infrastructure, mandates preferred technologies, or punishes certain fuels before alternatives are ready, the cost does not stay in the energy sector. It spreads through the entire economy.

The customer sees the price of groceries. The business owner sees the fuel surcharge.

Again, capitalism gets blamed for a cost structure government helped create.

Money is the deepest layer of all. When government spends more than it takes in, borrows endlessly, and depends on monetary policy to keep the whole machine moving, the dollar loses value over time. That loss of purchasing power is not dramatic in a single year. It is devastating over decades.

A little inflation sounds harmless when politicians and economists talk about it. Two percent here, three percent there. But inflation compounds. Given enough time, it changes civilization. A five-dollar hamburger becomes sixteen dollars. A five-thousand-dollar truck becomes fifty thousand. A fifty-thousand-dollar house becomes a million-dollar house in some markets.

People then ask why everything costs so much.

The answer is simple: the dollar buys less.

Private business did not create that cycle. Government did.

Businesses respond to the value of money. They do not create the value of money. A business owner charging more dollars for the same product may not be making more real profit at all. He may simply be trying to keep up with a currency that has been weakened beneath his feet.

This is where the attack on capitalism becomes morally backward. Capitalism creates goods and services. Government debases money. Then capitalism gets blamed when goods and services require more dollars.

A free market creates abundance. Bad policy makes abundance harder to afford.

Consider the smartphone. Many of capitalism’s loudest critics complain about capitalism on thousand-dollar phones using private-sector technology, private-sector platforms, private-sector networks, private-sector software, private-sector logistics, and private-sector innovation. They carry in their pockets a device more powerful than anything kings, presidents, or generals possessed for most of human history.

Capitalism made that possible.

And yet they say capitalism failed because rent is too high, tuition is impossible, health care is unaffordable, and wages do not stretch far enough.

They are right that life has become too expensive. They are wrong about why.

The real problem is not that capitalism cannot produce. The problem is that government has made the basics of life too expensive by manipulating, regulating, subsidizing, restricting, taxing, borrowing, and inflating.

That distinction matters because a wrong diagnosis produces a destructive cure.

If young people are taught that capitalism is the problem, they will demand more government control over the very sectors government has already distorted. Housing is too expensive, so they demand more government intervention. College is too expensive, so they demand more government money. Health care is too expensive, so they demand more government control. Wages are tight, so they demand more labor mandates. Energy is expensive, so they demand more centralized planning.

Then prices rise again, shortages grow worse, small businesses disappear, choices narrow, and the same voices say, “See? Capitalism failed.”

No. Capitalism was never allowed to work honestly.

That does not mean every business is virtuous. It does not mean every wealthy person earned wealth honorably. It does not mean corporations never behave badly. Some companies exploit government favors. Some lobby for regulations that crush their smaller competitors. Some use political influence to protect themselves from competition. Some enjoy subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, and regulatory barriers that ordinary entrepreneurs could never access.

But that is not capitalism. That is cronyism.

There is a vast difference between a free market and a rigged market. In a free market, businesses win by serving customers better. In a rigged market, businesses win by influencing government. In a free market, profit is earned by creating value. In a rigged market, profit is protected by political power.

The answer to cronyism is not socialism. The answer is less favoritism, less manipulation, less central planning, and more honest competition.

The local business owner understands this better than most politicians. He lives in the real world. He knows he cannot mandate a profit into existence. He cannot raise wages beyond what the business can sustain. He cannot sell a product for less than it costs to produce. He cannot keep the doors open by pretending arithmetic is unfair.

Labor matters. Employees matter. Good workers are valuable. But wages have to fit inside the value customers are willing to pay for the product or service. Government can mandate a wage, but it cannot mandate customer demand. It can raise the cost of labor, but it cannot force customers to buy a sixteen-dollar hamburger.

When no one applies for a job at ten dollars an hour, the market is speaking. The employer must raise the wage, improve conditions, change the work, or go without help. That is a market signal. But when government imposes wages without knowing the margins, the customer base, the cost structure, or the survival point of the business, it is not wisdom. It is political theater with someone else’s money.

And when the business fails, the politician does not lose the house. The owner does.

That is another truth our culture forgets: ownership is risk. Employees sell labor for wages. Owners buy risk with their lives.

The owner signs the lease, borrows the money, buys the equipment, hires the staff, pays the insurance, manages the taxes, satisfies the regulators, and lies awake wondering whether payroll can be met. If the business succeeds, people complain that the owner made too much. If the business fails, the owner absorbs the loss.

Employees may lose a job. That is serious. But the owner may lose the business, the savings, the house, the credit, the reputation, and years of work.

A society that resents reward while depending on risk-takers is living off capital it no longer understands.

There has to be the possibility of great reward because there is the possibility of great loss. If the upside is capped while the downside remains unlimited, rational people stop taking risks. They stop opening restaurants. They stop building companies. They stop hiring workers. They stop signing notes. They stop betting on themselves.

Then everyone has less.

That is why defending capitalism is not about defending billionaires. It is about defending the right of ordinary people to create, build, risk, serve, profit, fail, recover, and try again.

It is about defending the system that allows a poor person to become middle class, a middle-class person to become wealthy, and an idea in a garage to become a company that changes the world.

The tragedy of our time is that too many people have been taught to envy the builder rather than become one. They have been taught to look at wealth and assume theft. They have been taught to see profit as exploitation rather than the oxygen that keeps a business alive.

They see capitalism’s storefront.

They do not see government’s machinery behind the wall.

So when prices rise, they blame the merchant. When rent rises, they blame the landlord. When wages disappoint, they blame the employer. When billionaires exist, they blame capitalism.

But the deeper causes are debt, inflation, regulation, taxation, artificial scarcity, distorted incentives, and government interference in the capitalist system.

Capitalism is not perfect because people are not perfect. But capitalism remains the greatest engine of abundance, innovation, opportunity, and upward mobility the world has ever known.

Government can provide order, courts, national defense, basic rules, and protection against fraud and force. But when government tries to manage everything, price everything, subsidize everything, regulate everything, and promise everything, it corrupts the signals that make markets work.

Capitalism is the engine.

Government is the road, the fuel, the speed limit, the toll booth, the traffic cop, and sometimes the guy throwing nails in the lane.

When the ride gets rough, people blame the engine.

They should look at the road.

April 17, 2019

AFFORDABLE HOUSING…Not Gonna Happen

by Steve Dana

In pursuit of answers regarding Affordable Housing, our investigation should consider all aspects of the problem.  I will include a few I know about.

The term “Affordable Housing” isn’t well defined so it can be considered in the context of properties for sale and properties for rent. Rental properties can be privately-owned, government owned like the Snohomish County Housing Authority or NGO owned (non-government organizations typically non-profits) like Cocoon House or Housing Hope subsidized by government.  These properties are for rent to people with varying income levels.

If you believe that public private partnerships might be a way to create affordable housing, they are working in some areas.  We approve property tax relief for some projects if there is an aspect of affordability incorporated into the credit agreement.  It’s not clear what qualifies for affordability in this scenario.

Section 8 has been a way to incent private landlords to rent to low income tenants, but the pool of money and the applicable regulations haven’t kept pace with demand.  There are anecdotal accounts of huge fraud within the Section 8 program that might warrant investigation.  It was reported recently that there is an eight year wait for Section 8 housing with the current inventory of properties.

Private sector property owners cannot be expected to cut rents out of the goodness of their hearts so if the government wants access to the property, they need to kick in enough to cover the differential between appropriate rent for low income tenants and market rent for the landlord.  There might be other incentives for landlords that would also make participating worthwhile.

If affordable housing is only for rental properties our focus could be on them, but home ownership is still the American dream.  How can we keep buying a home within the range of young families?

Let’s take a look at why buying a home is so expensive.

There are a few components to housing cost consistent with all segments; land cost itself, driven by local and state/federal regulations, building regulation driven by local permits and fees and construction cost of the building.

From the standpoint of housing cost at a structure level, the cost in our market is comparable to other places in the country.  Framing materials, plywood, roofing, drywall, carpet and fixtures are generally the same price across multiple markets.  A home built in Boise, Idaho should have approximately the same component cost as a home built in Snohomish, Washington.

So, for the most part, factors effecting housing cost for consumers is driven by something other than the structure.  It appears that government regulations are the driving force.

Right out of the gate, the government controls the zoning of the land that might meet affordability requirements better if more was set aside for multi-family development rather than single family detached housing.  Encouraging condominium construction might address a deficiency for housing where ownership is a priority.  Condo construction comes with its own set of obstacles also created by the government we cannot begin to address here.

When the state passed the Growth Management Act, it created a tool to limit the amount of land available to developers which we knew would artificially drive up the cost of developable land.  Areas outside Urban Growth Areas would be down-zoned to rural density in the One Dwelling Unit per Five acres range while land within UGA’s would immediately escalate in value because of the finite supply.  Supply and demand is still a market force that reflects shortages or surpluses in product or in this case, land.

When the government creates shortages through regulation, the cost goes up faster than in an unregulated market. Urban Growth Boundaries arbitrarily pick winners and losers.  The politics of urban growth designations add a layer of cost that compounds as the process evolves.

The process of dividing land required by local and state laws make $40,000 lots into $140,000 lots.

The other factor in the cost of housing is the skyrocketing increases in direct government regulatory cost through permitting, hook-up fees, mitigation fees and associated regulations from state regulatory agencies.  The Growth Management Act empowered cities and counties to collect mitigation fees supposedly to offset the cost of future development rather than to address existing deficiencies.  Without inventorying the deficiencies at the time, cities and counties went about collecting fees and spending money to build schools, roads and parks.  The burden of growth is supposedly borne by the new development.  Do we need to collect park impact fees if we have enough parks already?  How many parks do you need?  Can you use mitigation fees for anything other than purchase of the land?

School districts must develop a capital improvement plan to predict where and when new facilities should be built.  They analyze where schools are today and compare that with where students are coming from to know where deficiencies exist to be mitigated by new facilities.  In our district, there haven’t been school impact fees for a while since we built or remodeled schools through a huge bond issue.  That should establish a legitimate baseline for future growth to be paid for with mitigation fees.

Hook-up fees have become commonplace in the last twenty-five years as utilities discovered that they could sell the privilege of connecting rather than granting it for free as a property owner in the service area.  Hook up fees supposedly allow collection of funds that can be used to expand the physical delivery system in advance of growth.  I don’t think it’s happening that way in practice.  New pipes in the ground are now paid for by developers.  Under certain circumstances, they can recover a portion of the capital cost of the installation through late comer fees.

On top of that add Storm Water Collection and conditioning fees authorized/mandated by the state.

The science of sanitary sewer service is driven by federal and state laws which translate into higher sewer rates.  In recent years, clean water standards have driven up the cost of increasingly smaller incremental improvements in quality of the effluent released into the river.

The Shoreline Management act limits how property owners can use their land if it is within 200 feet of a significant waterway in the state.

Critical Area regulations also play a huge part in limiting the supply of land and how much of that land can be used for a designated purpose.

Currently we are developing local code language to address a mandate from the state to regulate archaeological aspects of privately-owned property that could substantially increase the cost of housing if there is a suggestion that artifacts are on the property.  Not proof that there are artifacts, but suggestion.

The bottom line for those clamoring for the government to do something, the government is doing something, they are driving up the cost of housing.  If the private sector is to be the solution to the problem, the government needs to cut the permit fees, mitigation fees and other fees while offering credits and incentives to the developer if the end use is committed to subsidized housing for low income or senior tenants.

Affordable Housing will not happen with government playing such a significant part in regulating housing in general.

The housing market is a hugely complex dynamic creation that cannot be explained in a couple hundred words.  The takeaway should be that every level of government regulation compounds and adds to the cost of housing for consumers.  Relief will only come from peeling away those regulatory requirements away.