What do you think?
Rate this book
Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation
In this exciting new graphic novel, economist Bryan Caplan examines how changes to housing regulation can lead us to a vastly better world. Why are housing prices in America so unbelievably high, especially in the country's most desirable locations? The superficial answer is “supply and demand,” but the deep answer―the reason supply is so low―is draconian housing regulation. In Build, Baby, The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation , economist Bryan Caplan makes the economic and philosophical case for radical deregulation of this massive market―freeing property owners to build as tall and dense as they wish. Not only would the average price of housing be cut in half, but the building boom unleashed by deregulation would simultaneously reduce inequality, increase social mobility, promote economic growth, reduce homelessness, increase birth rates, and help the environment. It's surprising then, that despite all these benefits, housing deregulation is universally unpopular with policymakers. Combining visually stunning graphics and careful interdisciplinary research, Build, Baby, Build , takes readers on a journey through what is wrong with the housing market―and what we can do about it.
253 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2024
18 people are currently reading
356 people want to read
About the author
Bryan Caplan
23 books372 followersBryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He received his B.S. in economics from University of California, Berkeley and his Ph.D. from Princeton University. His professional work has been devoted to the philosophies of libertarianism and free-market capitalism and anarchism. (He is the author of the Anarchist Theory FAQ.) He has published in American Economic Review, Public Choice, and the Journal of Law and Economics, among others. He is a blogger at the EconLog blog along with Arnold Kling, and occasionally has been a guest blogger at Marginal Revolution with two of his colleagues at George Mason, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok. He is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
Currently, his primary research interest is public economics. He has criticized the assumptions of rational voters that form the basis of public choice theory, but generally agrees with their conclusions based on his own model of "rational irrationality." Caplan has long disputed the efficacy of popular voter models, in a series of exchanges with Donald Wittman published by the Econ Journal Watch. Caplan outlined several major objections to popular political science and the economics sub-discipline public choice. Caplan later expanded upon this theme in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter (Princeton University Press 2007), in which he responded to the arguments put forward by Wittman in his The Myth of Democratic Failure.
He maintains a website that includes a "Museum of Communism" section, that "provides historical, economic, and philosophical analysis of the political movement known as Communism", to draw attention to human rights violations of which, despite often exceeding those of Nazi Germany, there is little public knowledge. Caplan has also written an online graphic novel called Amore Infernale.
Currently, his primary research interest is public economics. He has criticized the assumptions of rational voters that form the basis of public choice theory, but generally agrees with their conclusions based on his own model of "rational irrationality." Caplan has long disputed the efficacy of popular voter models, in a series of exchanges with Donald Wittman published by the Econ Journal Watch. Caplan outlined several major objections to popular political science and the economics sub-discipline public choice. Caplan later expanded upon this theme in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter (Princeton University Press 2007), in which he responded to the arguments put forward by Wittman in his The Myth of Democratic Failure.
He maintains a website that includes a "Museum of Communism" section, that "provides historical, economic, and philosophical analysis of the political movement known as Communism", to draw attention to human rights violations of which, despite often exceeding those of Nazi Germany, there is little public knowledge. Caplan has also written an online graphic novel called Amore Infernale.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
December 2, 2024
Great graphic novel that you can read in a short sitting. The thesis is simple: government regulation constrains housing supply and artificially inflates housing costs by as much as 50% in the US.
After laying out the basic economic case for why regulation creates housing supply shortages and thus inflated prices, Caplan spends the rest of the book tackling the many objections people tend to have about deregulation. He shows how housing deregulation is the closest thing to a panacea we could have in terms of policy initiatives: for example, it would decrease wealth inequality, increase social mobility, incentivize larger families (due to the availability of cheaper big homes), counter “deaths of despair”, help the homeless, fight crime, and boost economic growth considerably.
Okay, but what about the bad? Such as, parking and traffic issues, and pollution? Well, cities are typically much more environmentally-friendly per capita than suburbs and rural areas due to economies of scale. As for parking and traffic, if the market also decides these things, the costs to park and drive would depend on the time of day and overall demand/scarcity. This would motivate consumers to find alternatives to driving when it’s most expensive. Overall, even if parking is more expensive in a deregulated market, housing costs would be many times cheaper. Psychologically, it is annoying to have to repeatedly pay small amounts to park, but if you do the math, this seems like a no-brainer trade-off to me.
Other downsides—the character of the neighbourhood, historic preservation, green space, blocking views—are arguably overrated in terms of their actual negative impact. The upsides—much cheaper housing, more cultural opportunities, better shopping, more integrated commercial/residential areas—seem like they dwarf the downsides.
Caplan then defends deregulation from various political and philosophical frameworks—left-wing, right-wing, utilitarian, egalitarian, libertarian—making the case that they all converge on the same conclusion (i.e., “deregulation”). For example, left-wing goals like reducing inequality, environmental footprint, and helping the poor, right-wing goals like more freedom for businesses to pursue their own ends, egalitarian goals to help the poor more than the rich, etc., would all be accomplished through housing deregulation. I was pretty persuaded by this section.
Caplan ends by talking about the greatest impediment to deregulation: these policies are local. But Caplan says this is a good thing because, if deregulation comes, presumably it won’t all occur simultaneously across the US, but come one place at a time, which allows us to do a sort of natural experiment to see what the effects are. The alternative route would be for state governments to nullify local policies.
Overall, this is a great, quick read on why building a lot more housing is absolutely essential to solving housing affordability and the many social/economic problems this creates. Housing deregulation seems essential to do so.
After laying out the basic economic case for why regulation creates housing supply shortages and thus inflated prices, Caplan spends the rest of the book tackling the many objections people tend to have about deregulation. He shows how housing deregulation is the closest thing to a panacea we could have in terms of policy initiatives: for example, it would decrease wealth inequality, increase social mobility, incentivize larger families (due to the availability of cheaper big homes), counter “deaths of despair”, help the homeless, fight crime, and boost economic growth considerably.
Okay, but what about the bad? Such as, parking and traffic issues, and pollution? Well, cities are typically much more environmentally-friendly per capita than suburbs and rural areas due to economies of scale. As for parking and traffic, if the market also decides these things, the costs to park and drive would depend on the time of day and overall demand/scarcity. This would motivate consumers to find alternatives to driving when it’s most expensive. Overall, even if parking is more expensive in a deregulated market, housing costs would be many times cheaper. Psychologically, it is annoying to have to repeatedly pay small amounts to park, but if you do the math, this seems like a no-brainer trade-off to me.
Other downsides—the character of the neighbourhood, historic preservation, green space, blocking views—are arguably overrated in terms of their actual negative impact. The upsides—much cheaper housing, more cultural opportunities, better shopping, more integrated commercial/residential areas—seem like they dwarf the downsides.
Caplan then defends deregulation from various political and philosophical frameworks—left-wing, right-wing, utilitarian, egalitarian, libertarian—making the case that they all converge on the same conclusion (i.e., “deregulation”). For example, left-wing goals like reducing inequality, environmental footprint, and helping the poor, right-wing goals like more freedom for businesses to pursue their own ends, egalitarian goals to help the poor more than the rich, etc., would all be accomplished through housing deregulation. I was pretty persuaded by this section.
Caplan ends by talking about the greatest impediment to deregulation: these policies are local. But Caplan says this is a good thing because, if deregulation comes, presumably it won’t all occur simultaneously across the US, but come one place at a time, which allows us to do a sort of natural experiment to see what the effects are. The alternative route would be for state governments to nullify local policies.
Overall, this is a great, quick read on why building a lot more housing is absolutely essential to solving housing affordability and the many social/economic problems this creates. Housing deregulation seems essential to do so.
Read
July 21, 2024More 👏 Serious 👏 Books 👏 Should 👏 Be 👏 Comic 👏 Books
January 27, 2025
If you’re interested in housing deregulation but really need the information in comic book format then I can strongly recommend this
October 20, 2024
Good comic book that makes a compelling case for deregulation of building and the economic benefits of just such a change in policy, definitely a slap in the face to NIMBY attitudes.
Still, Caplan has the bad habit of dismissing criticism as hyperbole or exaggeration even when it is neither.
It is a clear cut case that more housing supply would bring down prices but what about increasing the supply of desirable places at the same time. A high density city center full of super-tall skyscrapers might be financially sensible but it can also cease to be desirable quite quickly. While it is hard to put an economic value to older buildings and tree lined streets, some cities practically depend on it for their survival, like cities popular with tourists. The Empire State Building notwithstanding, the old Waldorf hotel would have been a nice thing to keep.
Not to mention the unmeasured benefits of closeness to nature and solitude. So why emphasize only construction supply and not the increase of supply in desirability.?
The comparison the author makes with the scarcity of the front court seats in basketball in comparison to the abundance of land is also misguided. Some locations are also scarce when it comes to land like coastline buildable areas. It is interesting that Caplan points out that he lives in a single family detached home. He also has a university education. But he dismisses both things as unnecessary for everyone else. I tend not to trust people that have a very clear idea of how people should live.
Of course homeowner associations can go a great way to enact and demand livability and
Still, Caplan has the bad habit of dismissing criticism as hyperbole or exaggeration even when it is neither.
It is a clear cut case that more housing supply would bring down prices but what about increasing the supply of desirable places at the same time. A high density city center full of super-tall skyscrapers might be financially sensible but it can also cease to be desirable quite quickly. While it is hard to put an economic value to older buildings and tree lined streets, some cities practically depend on it for their survival, like cities popular with tourists. The Empire State Building notwithstanding, the old Waldorf hotel would have been a nice thing to keep.
Not to mention the unmeasured benefits of closeness to nature and solitude. So why emphasize only construction supply and not the increase of supply in desirability.?
The comparison the author makes with the scarcity of the front court seats in basketball in comparison to the abundance of land is also misguided. Some locations are also scarce when it comes to land like coastline buildable areas. It is interesting that Caplan points out that he lives in a single family detached home. He also has a university education. But he dismisses both things as unnecessary for everyone else. I tend not to trust people that have a very clear idea of how people should live.
Of course homeowner associations can go a great way to enact and demand livability and
January 18, 2025
In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, expressed his concern that America has lost her way. He highlighted issues such as virtue signaling from both political sides, which he believes burdens the American taxpayer, and the prevalence of bloated, restrictive bureaucracies. Dimon illustrated his point by recounting the story of a bridge connecting New Jersey and Staten Island, where securing permits for repairs took twelve years—compared to the eight years it took to send astronauts to the moon...
This is the type of issue addressed in Caplan's fun and insightful little book. He presents arguments in favor of housing and zoning deregulation, thoroughly examines common objections and tests them against the logic of the free market—demonstrating that regulatory approaches are wasteful, repressing, counterproductive, ultimately falling short of their stated aims.
You'll learn fun bits along the way as well. I, for one, didn't know that the Empire State building was erected on the site of the old (and historic) Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Why is this important? Because this is one of the arguments that those in favor of building restrictions appeal to when they want to apply the brakes on a new housing or building project. If the building is deemed "historic" or important to the preservation of "the character of the neighborhood", then this is usually enough to delay and make the project so burdensome as to make the developers want to desist. But as Caplan shows, what could be built in its stead is not seen - hard to imagine the NYC skyline without this iconic tower.
This is bad for everyone. As Thomas Sowell stated:
Highly recommended!
This is the type of issue addressed in Caplan's fun and insightful little book. He presents arguments in favor of housing and zoning deregulation, thoroughly examines common objections and tests them against the logic of the free market—demonstrating that regulatory approaches are wasteful, repressing, counterproductive, ultimately falling short of their stated aims.
You'll learn fun bits along the way as well. I, for one, didn't know that the Empire State building was erected on the site of the old (and historic) Waldorf Astoria Hotel. Why is this important? Because this is one of the arguments that those in favor of building restrictions appeal to when they want to apply the brakes on a new housing or building project. If the building is deemed "historic" or important to the preservation of "the character of the neighborhood", then this is usually enough to delay and make the project so burdensome as to make the developers want to desist. But as Caplan shows, what could be built in its stead is not seen - hard to imagine the NYC skyline without this iconic tower.
This is bad for everyone. As Thomas Sowell stated:
As for the argument about "preserving" things for "posterity," that boils down to allowing the posterity of existing residents to keep out the posterity of other people.
Highly recommended!
July 13, 2025
how can you make an incredibly yawn worthy sounding topic (the facts and benefits behind housing deregulation) and make it really fun to read? make it into a science fiction style comic book where professors are drawn as super heroes who fight the evils of government housing regulation.
without dumbing down the content, this was such an unexpected medium for a graphic novel but made me understand the science and housing behind housing regulation and made a really convincing case of why anyone should support deregulating housing policies around the US.
without dumbing down the content, this was such an unexpected medium for a graphic novel but made me understand the science and housing behind housing regulation and made a really convincing case of why anyone should support deregulating housing policies around the US.
April 17, 2025
Fantastic, must-read book. It’s a comic book format, which helps illustrate (literally) the problems with housing regulation and their solutions. I was already against housing regulations, but I had no idea the widespread damage they cause. And the book makes a compelling argument for why removing these regulations serves both the desires of the political left and right, while solving many of our societal problems.
July 7, 2024
I never knew how enormous the consequences of housing regulation were on the labour market, poverty, social mobility, family formation, long commutes, and the environment.
This may be the most pressing issue of our times!
No matter how much regulation you typically support, the case for housing deregulation deserves earnest consideration.
fun, easy, and quick to read like all of Bryan Caplan's graphic novel's.
This book lists the best YesInMyBackYard arguments for deregulating housing construction.
Read this book for a new perspective on urban development which fundamentally changed how I view urban development in all of its aspects, not just housing.
One characteristic of housing and cities which this book really made me appreciate is population DENSITY. I now think it is a wonderful phenomenon kept down by housing regulation and NotInMyBackYard sentiments.
Housing prices stay high in desirable areas because most governments strictly regulate new construction. In a free market developers would indeed respond to high prices by building TONNES OF NEW HOUSING. But we do not have a free market in housing. Not even close. Since regulation keeps quanitity low, prices in the most desirable areas stay high. This is Econ 101.
Real-estate agents often say the most important feature of any house is its location, and that this is what determines its demand and subsequent price.
So, why don't developers respond by building tonnes of homes in the most popular locations?
Knee-jerk reactions to this question are wrong.
KJR1: there isn't enough land.
A: Space is three-dimensional. If you can't build out, you can build up instead.
KJR2: we've already built as high as we can go.
A: Absurdly false. Look at San Francisco. It's a handful of skyscrapers surrounded by stubby little buildings. New York is not as desolate but you could easily ring Central Park with hundreds of sky scrapers as tall as the new 95 story Central Park Tower. Dubai's Burj Khalifa has 163 floors.
KJR3: people don't want to live in skyscrapers.
A: Doesn't that depend on the price? Most suburban developments contain single family homes and use only slivers of their total land area. There's ample room out there to build more houses and apartments, not just skyscrapers.
KFR4: You've got too much faith in competition. Monopolists must be choking off supply.
A: There are lots of competing builders in Lubbock (Texas) which is much smaller than the Bay Area of San Francisco or New York City. If any industry is competitive, it's construction in big population centres.
If these knee jerk reactions are all wrong, what is the story behind housing developers not building tonnes of homes in massively in demand areas?
Building homes is regulated. So developers can't respond to demand is massively popular areas by building tons of housing in the most popular locations.
Developers are chomping at the bit to build new skyscrapers, but regulators fight them tooth and nail (You're building too tall!). Developers hate to leave valuable land vacant. But regulators force them to do it anyway (You're building too dense!). Developers love to erect multi-family structures, but regulators zone most residential land for detached single-family homes (You're building too tall and too dense!).
It's true, I rarely see governments demolishing buildings. Instead, they simply deny permission to build in the first place. And especially in desirable areas of the country, this permission is VERY hard to get.
Housing prices stay high in desirable areas because most governments strictly regulate new construction. In a free market developers would indeed respond to high prices by building TONNES OF NEW HOUSING. But we do not have a free market in housing. Not even close. Since regulation keeps quanitity low, prices in the most desirable areas stay high. This is Econ 101.
If moving from cheaper and denser hopusing is so good why haven't we? Because housing regulation is very popular. NIMBYism is popular with home owners for "protecting property values", with renters "for protecting low cost housing, with environmentalists "for protecting the environment", and with preservationists for "saving these lovely 19th century victorian buildings".
It's tempting to declare this purely as a matter of taste and say "face it, people don't want to live in a freakish overbuilt utopia".
But, the popularity of housing regulation rests on ill-examined THEORIES about its effects.
Yet researchers left and right have tested these theories and found them wanting.
Laymen neglect the negative effect of housing regulation on housing affordability (more expensive housing) and exaggerate the negative byproducts of freer development (less crowded central park).
Laymen overlook cheaper and more humane ways (toll roads instead of free roads, people affording to live walking distance from work, public mass transport) to handle negative byproducts of cheaper and denser housing like traffic.
Laymen also ignore many positive byproducts of freer development. Deregulation lets ordinary folks combine spacious living with urban upsides like vibrant and walkable/cyclable downtowns, short commutes, convenient mass transit.
The book talks about the 'manufacture of scarcity' and shows a picture of paris where homes are 20 metres high and the Eiffel tower is 324 metres high.
Our society faces a housing problem (known as the housing crisis). Back in 1982 a San Francisco median existing single family home already cost $125'000, six years of income for the typical American family. By 2019 this price had multiplied to 18 years of income for the typical American family.
It's tempting to say that "this is supply and demand at play, we can't all have court-side seats".
But something funny is going on with supply and demand if we take a closer look. San Francisco has limited housing supply and sky high prices. So why isn't the whole city sky high too? Whoever owns one of the short stubby buildings of SF is sitting on a gold mine. If they tear their little house down and build a skyscraper they'll make a fortune. So, why hasn't it already happened? You really think you're the first person to think of that? Because the government won't let you. San Francisco city hall (the SF government) has allowed the construction of a dozen new skyscrapers since 2013, and has been strangling skyscraper construction since the 1980s.
And all that stands between us people and a nice home in SF isn't just the regulation of skyscrapers. Even if the rules against SSs were scrapped, gov can hinder construction in other ways. For example, by zoning the project out of existence ("you're free to build once you get this huuuge mountain of paperwork done"), by making the builders leave lots of land vacant ("you can only build on 1% of your land), by demanding expensive changes ("you're free to build if you make it single family housing"), by denying critical services ("you're free to build but you can't have a septic tank or public sewer"), by making them fix the neighbourhood ("you're free to build bu we need you to build a park too"), by making them fix society ("you're free to build but half the units have to be low income housing").
You might think that builders would make more money with less regulation. But you might ask:
"I don't see why less regulation means lower prices for me? What makes me sure the builders would share these gains? Aren't they trying to maximise profits?"
I know this is really hard to believe but: "BUILDERS TRY TO MAXIMISE PROFITS BY CUTTING PRICES". Supply and demand curves are hard to understand so let's switch to plain English!:
As long as new buildings are profitable a builders makes as many as they can. Because if they didn't, some other builder would build their buildings instead. So, builders try to maximise profits by cutting prices.
You might say: "fine, now the yuppies (A young city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle) can afford San Francisco. How does this help the rest of us?"
Through a simple chain reaction. When the yuppies move to San Francisco who moves into THEIR old lodgings?
Other yuppies?
Poorer yuppies. Who get replaced by, say, teachers, and so on:
Picture a game of musical chairs with a twist: instead of subtracting a chair every turn, we ADD ONE. What happens? The fastest players will still win, just like the richest win in the housing market. At first, every time you add a chair the competition gets easier. If you add enough chair, we're all winners. A dull game, but a nice way of life.
But how much is regulation jacking up home prices? Fames housing economists Ed Glaeser and Joe Gyourko have tried to guess. Starting with costs, every homes requires land and and construction physically. But legally every structure requires approval from the (local) government. Since we can measure land and construction costs, and construction is a highly competitive industry the simplest way to measure regulatory costs is to look at the DIFFERENCE between market price and physical cost. How much can it costs to fill out some approval forms? When approval is a formality not much. If approval is expensive or impossible however, regulatory approval quickly becomes the MAJORITY of the cost of housing. How does a local government raise costs of construction for builders by saying 'no'? It really doesn't matter is you make builders jump through extra hoops or flatly refuse permission to build, either way, you are MANUFACTURING SCARCITY. Inflation adjusted housing prices has roughly doubled since 1980 even though building costs have stayed about the same. The upshot is that DEREGULATION COULD PLAUSIBLY CUT HOUSING PRICES BY 50%.
One of the main reasons land is so expensive is because regulation forces builders to WASTE so much land through minimum parking requirements. These regulations lead to so called 'egg' development: a 'yolk' of buildings dwarfed by an 'egg white' of parking spots. This pushes up the price of the land throughout the region. Which means higher home prices even in neighbouring areas with less regulation.
So, save the planet, eh? Hardly, people have to live somewhere. When you waste the best land, they spread out, and make a BIGGER footprint. Who said anything about wasting land? Waste means using more than necessary. If you could build two 20 story buildings or one 40 story building the first plan needlessly uses twice as much land.
Don't taller buildings cost more to build? Less than you think. Most estimates actually find FALLING marginal costs per floor at first. You often see big cost jumps at 4, 6, or 9 stories. Followed by a flat cost range. Then cost per floor slowly creeps up.. So, if it's worth building 9 stories it's probably worth building a fully-fledged sky-scraper. When builders don't do so you should probably blame housing regulation.
What about suburbia? The regulations waster tonnes of land too! Outside of city centres regulations HEAVILY favour single-family homes. So developers can't save land or construction costs by building apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and so on.
The share of residential land reserved for single-family homes is 75% in LA, 94% in San Jose and 38% is San Francisco.
The status quo stifles other options to single-family homes, which wastes lots of land, which drives up the cost of all options.
There was a section on how markets are quite resilient, so they spring back to life when government regulation stops crushing it, unlike a person whose been run over.
Deregulating housing has a wonderful and predictable consequence: DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE PRICE OF HOUSING.
Housing is roughly 20% of an American's budget (much more of Londinian's budget). Simple estimates suggest that serious housing deregulation would but average US housing prices by 50% and this reduces overall cost of living by 10%, which raises living standards by 11%.
This is not a one time gain. it's +11% year after year.
Some parts of the country are more productive and therefore higher paying than others.
Historically, this has led Americans to migrate from declining regions to booming ones, enriching the country and themselves. In recent decades, however, housing regulation has CRUSHED this natural process. Why move to a 'better' job in California if extra housing costs eat up all the gain?
End result: Housing regulation traps talent in low-productivity regions, thereby imporverishing the whole economy.
So, what's the damage? Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti wrote a 2019 paper on the topic. Between 1964 and 2009 Total Factor Productivity (measures how much value businesses can create with a GIVEN amount of labour and capital) crashed in the Rust Belt and skyrocketed in New York City and the Bay Area as the high-tech sector eclipsed traditional manufacturing. Chang and Enrico use data on 220 US cities to model how workers would have responded to these massive TFP shifts if housing regulation hasn't exploded at the same time. Workers predictably flee the Rust Belt in favour of good jobs and ample housing in the Bay Area and NYC enriching themselves and the world. What's most striking from their model is just how large the payoff is. A conservative estimate is +14% US GDP and optimistic estimate is +36% US GDP. If we add these productivity gains to consumer gains the average americans is made anywhere from 25% to 47% richer. That's not just huge in itself, it has huge implications for a long list of social ills.
While we almost always use the words panacea and cure all sarcastically, housing regulation is the closest things to a bona fide panacea policy I've ever encountered. Panacea was the goddess of universal remedy.
Other sections on traffic, other ills, french economist Bastiat's 'What is seen and What is not seen', consilience (different political ideologies reaching the same conclusion: hous. dereg.), traffic, commutes, keyhole solutions, how to turn NIMBYists to YIMBYists, how to change public policy.
This may be the most pressing issue of our times!
No matter how much regulation you typically support, the case for housing deregulation deserves earnest consideration.
fun, easy, and quick to read like all of Bryan Caplan's graphic novel's.
This book lists the best YesInMyBackYard arguments for deregulating housing construction.
Read this book for a new perspective on urban development which fundamentally changed how I view urban development in all of its aspects, not just housing.
One characteristic of housing and cities which this book really made me appreciate is population DENSITY. I now think it is a wonderful phenomenon kept down by housing regulation and NotInMyBackYard sentiments.
Housing prices stay high in desirable areas because most governments strictly regulate new construction. In a free market developers would indeed respond to high prices by building TONNES OF NEW HOUSING. But we do not have a free market in housing. Not even close. Since regulation keeps quanitity low, prices in the most desirable areas stay high. This is Econ 101.
Real-estate agents often say the most important feature of any house is its location, and that this is what determines its demand and subsequent price.
So, why don't developers respond by building tonnes of homes in the most popular locations?
Knee-jerk reactions to this question are wrong.
KJR1: there isn't enough land.
A: Space is three-dimensional. If you can't build out, you can build up instead.
KJR2: we've already built as high as we can go.
A: Absurdly false. Look at San Francisco. It's a handful of skyscrapers surrounded by stubby little buildings. New York is not as desolate but you could easily ring Central Park with hundreds of sky scrapers as tall as the new 95 story Central Park Tower. Dubai's Burj Khalifa has 163 floors.
KJR3: people don't want to live in skyscrapers.
A: Doesn't that depend on the price? Most suburban developments contain single family homes and use only slivers of their total land area. There's ample room out there to build more houses and apartments, not just skyscrapers.
KFR4: You've got too much faith in competition. Monopolists must be choking off supply.
A: There are lots of competing builders in Lubbock (Texas) which is much smaller than the Bay Area of San Francisco or New York City. If any industry is competitive, it's construction in big population centres.
If these knee jerk reactions are all wrong, what is the story behind housing developers not building tonnes of homes in massively in demand areas?
Building homes is regulated. So developers can't respond to demand is massively popular areas by building tons of housing in the most popular locations.
Developers are chomping at the bit to build new skyscrapers, but regulators fight them tooth and nail (You're building too tall!). Developers hate to leave valuable land vacant. But regulators force them to do it anyway (You're building too dense!). Developers love to erect multi-family structures, but regulators zone most residential land for detached single-family homes (You're building too tall and too dense!).
It's true, I rarely see governments demolishing buildings. Instead, they simply deny permission to build in the first place. And especially in desirable areas of the country, this permission is VERY hard to get.
Housing prices stay high in desirable areas because most governments strictly regulate new construction. In a free market developers would indeed respond to high prices by building TONNES OF NEW HOUSING. But we do not have a free market in housing. Not even close. Since regulation keeps quanitity low, prices in the most desirable areas stay high. This is Econ 101.
If moving from cheaper and denser hopusing is so good why haven't we? Because housing regulation is very popular. NIMBYism is popular with home owners for "protecting property values", with renters "for protecting low cost housing, with environmentalists "for protecting the environment", and with preservationists for "saving these lovely 19th century victorian buildings".
It's tempting to declare this purely as a matter of taste and say "face it, people don't want to live in a freakish overbuilt utopia".
But, the popularity of housing regulation rests on ill-examined THEORIES about its effects.
Yet researchers left and right have tested these theories and found them wanting.
Laymen neglect the negative effect of housing regulation on housing affordability (more expensive housing) and exaggerate the negative byproducts of freer development (less crowded central park).
Laymen overlook cheaper and more humane ways (toll roads instead of free roads, people affording to live walking distance from work, public mass transport) to handle negative byproducts of cheaper and denser housing like traffic.
Laymen also ignore many positive byproducts of freer development. Deregulation lets ordinary folks combine spacious living with urban upsides like vibrant and walkable/cyclable downtowns, short commutes, convenient mass transit.
The book talks about the 'manufacture of scarcity' and shows a picture of paris where homes are 20 metres high and the Eiffel tower is 324 metres high.
Our society faces a housing problem (known as the housing crisis). Back in 1982 a San Francisco median existing single family home already cost $125'000, six years of income for the typical American family. By 2019 this price had multiplied to 18 years of income for the typical American family.
It's tempting to say that "this is supply and demand at play, we can't all have court-side seats".
But something funny is going on with supply and demand if we take a closer look. San Francisco has limited housing supply and sky high prices. So why isn't the whole city sky high too? Whoever owns one of the short stubby buildings of SF is sitting on a gold mine. If they tear their little house down and build a skyscraper they'll make a fortune. So, why hasn't it already happened? You really think you're the first person to think of that? Because the government won't let you. San Francisco city hall (the SF government) has allowed the construction of a dozen new skyscrapers since 2013, and has been strangling skyscraper construction since the 1980s.
And all that stands between us people and a nice home in SF isn't just the regulation of skyscrapers. Even if the rules against SSs were scrapped, gov can hinder construction in other ways. For example, by zoning the project out of existence ("you're free to build once you get this huuuge mountain of paperwork done"), by making the builders leave lots of land vacant ("you can only build on 1% of your land), by demanding expensive changes ("you're free to build if you make it single family housing"), by denying critical services ("you're free to build but you can't have a septic tank or public sewer"), by making them fix the neighbourhood ("you're free to build bu we need you to build a park too"), by making them fix society ("you're free to build but half the units have to be low income housing").
You might think that builders would make more money with less regulation. But you might ask:
"I don't see why less regulation means lower prices for me? What makes me sure the builders would share these gains? Aren't they trying to maximise profits?"
I know this is really hard to believe but: "BUILDERS TRY TO MAXIMISE PROFITS BY CUTTING PRICES". Supply and demand curves are hard to understand so let's switch to plain English!:
Builders ALREADY charge the highest prices they can get right?
Yes.
So, if the government allows new construction, how will the builders entice new customers to buy new homes?
Cut the price.
Fine, cut the price, but barely! So, new builders still earn fat profits!
Yes.
Then, anyone who builds yet another building makes huge profits, too. So, what do builders do next?
Build again?
And prices fall a little more. As long as building stay profitable...
Builders keep building? And prices keep falling?
Yes, until housing is so cheap that new building ceases to be profitable.
As long as new buildings are profitable a builders makes as many as they can. Because if they didn't, some other builder would build their buildings instead. So, builders try to maximise profits by cutting prices.
You might say: "fine, now the yuppies (A young city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle) can afford San Francisco. How does this help the rest of us?"
Through a simple chain reaction. When the yuppies move to San Francisco who moves into THEIR old lodgings?
Other yuppies?
Poorer yuppies. Who get replaced by, say, teachers, and so on:
Picture a game of musical chairs with a twist: instead of subtracting a chair every turn, we ADD ONE. What happens? The fastest players will still win, just like the richest win in the housing market. At first, every time you add a chair the competition gets easier. If you add enough chair, we're all winners. A dull game, but a nice way of life.
But how much is regulation jacking up home prices? Fames housing economists Ed Glaeser and Joe Gyourko have tried to guess. Starting with costs, every homes requires land and and construction physically. But legally every structure requires approval from the (local) government. Since we can measure land and construction costs, and construction is a highly competitive industry the simplest way to measure regulatory costs is to look at the DIFFERENCE between market price and physical cost. How much can it costs to fill out some approval forms? When approval is a formality not much. If approval is expensive or impossible however, regulatory approval quickly becomes the MAJORITY of the cost of housing. How does a local government raise costs of construction for builders by saying 'no'? It really doesn't matter is you make builders jump through extra hoops or flatly refuse permission to build, either way, you are MANUFACTURING SCARCITY. Inflation adjusted housing prices has roughly doubled since 1980 even though building costs have stayed about the same. The upshot is that DEREGULATION COULD PLAUSIBLY CUT HOUSING PRICES BY 50%.
One of the main reasons land is so expensive is because regulation forces builders to WASTE so much land through minimum parking requirements. These regulations lead to so called 'egg' development: a 'yolk' of buildings dwarfed by an 'egg white' of parking spots. This pushes up the price of the land throughout the region. Which means higher home prices even in neighbouring areas with less regulation.
So, save the planet, eh? Hardly, people have to live somewhere. When you waste the best land, they spread out, and make a BIGGER footprint. Who said anything about wasting land? Waste means using more than necessary. If you could build two 20 story buildings or one 40 story building the first plan needlessly uses twice as much land.
Don't taller buildings cost more to build? Less than you think. Most estimates actually find FALLING marginal costs per floor at first. You often see big cost jumps at 4, 6, or 9 stories. Followed by a flat cost range. Then cost per floor slowly creeps up.. So, if it's worth building 9 stories it's probably worth building a fully-fledged sky-scraper. When builders don't do so you should probably blame housing regulation.
What about suburbia? The regulations waster tonnes of land too! Outside of city centres regulations HEAVILY favour single-family homes. So developers can't save land or construction costs by building apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and so on.
The share of residential land reserved for single-family homes is 75% in LA, 94% in San Jose and 38% is San Francisco.
The status quo stifles other options to single-family homes, which wastes lots of land, which drives up the cost of all options.
There was a section on how markets are quite resilient, so they spring back to life when government regulation stops crushing it, unlike a person whose been run over.
Deregulating housing has a wonderful and predictable consequence: DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE PRICE OF HOUSING.
Housing is roughly 20% of an American's budget (much more of Londinian's budget). Simple estimates suggest that serious housing deregulation would but average US housing prices by 50% and this reduces overall cost of living by 10%, which raises living standards by 11%.
This is not a one time gain. it's +11% year after year.
Some parts of the country are more productive and therefore higher paying than others.
Historically, this has led Americans to migrate from declining regions to booming ones, enriching the country and themselves. In recent decades, however, housing regulation has CRUSHED this natural process. Why move to a 'better' job in California if extra housing costs eat up all the gain?
End result: Housing regulation traps talent in low-productivity regions, thereby imporverishing the whole economy.
So, what's the damage? Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti wrote a 2019 paper on the topic. Between 1964 and 2009 Total Factor Productivity (measures how much value businesses can create with a GIVEN amount of labour and capital) crashed in the Rust Belt and skyrocketed in New York City and the Bay Area as the high-tech sector eclipsed traditional manufacturing. Chang and Enrico use data on 220 US cities to model how workers would have responded to these massive TFP shifts if housing regulation hasn't exploded at the same time. Workers predictably flee the Rust Belt in favour of good jobs and ample housing in the Bay Area and NYC enriching themselves and the world. What's most striking from their model is just how large the payoff is. A conservative estimate is +14% US GDP and optimistic estimate is +36% US GDP. If we add these productivity gains to consumer gains the average americans is made anywhere from 25% to 47% richer. That's not just huge in itself, it has huge implications for a long list of social ills.
While we almost always use the words panacea and cure all sarcastically, housing regulation is the closest things to a bona fide panacea policy I've ever encountered. Panacea was the goddess of universal remedy.
A panacea policy than cures all social ills? Absurd!
Fine, I'll show you. Name a social problem:
inequality
When housing gets cheapers, who gains the most?
People who spend a high income share on housing and renters, i.e., the poor.
And who gains less when housing prices fall?
People who spend a lower income share on housing.
Who might actually lose?
Homeowners and landlords who both tend to be rich.
Society gets richer, and the poor gain more than the rich. Sounds like housing deregulation is a fix to inequality to me.
When you look closer housing costs explain rising inequality. Net capital share has increased since 1948, but once disaggregated this increase comes entirely from the housing sector. The contribution of net capital income from all other sectors has been zero or slightly negative.
social mobility
The regulations don't just making quality housing and nice neighbourhoods less affordable. They create a castle like system, where you have to be pretty rich to even live near the rich.
Deregulation makes moving to opportunity affordable. Sometimes that means a move across town. Sometimes that means a move across the country. This is less common than it used to be, especially for the poor. Let's see why. Say the year is 1960. You're a lawyer or a janitor. You move from the deep south to the tri-state area. How much do you gain subtracting housing costs? Lawyer +39% and janitor +70%. Now in 2010, how much do you gain subtracting housing costs? Lawyer +29% and janitor -7%.
Researchers Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag use these cases as springboards to analyse how housing regulation distorts US migration and blocks social mobility.
Until 1980 rich and poor alike tended to move from poor states to rich states. Thanks to crazier and crazier housing regulation though, this is no longer true. Richer workers still move in the classic poor to rich direction because their extra pay outweight their extra rent. The opposite holds true for poorer workers who now tend to flee high-pay states to get cheaper housing.
How exactly will cheap housing in the country's tech and finance centres help working class males that the new economy has been especially bad for? About 10M americans, 90% male, work in construction. Millions more work in infrastructure. These jobs are practically working class by definition. The building boom unleashed by deregulation could easily double such employment for decades. Anne Case and Angus Deaton (nobel prize) are eminent researchers who blame rising deaths from drugs, alcohol, and suicide on lack of meaningful work for working-class males.
If they are right, housing deregulation won't just boost the standard of living of deindustrialised workers, but deregulation will actually save lives.
Deregulation can help the homeless too. It won't help someone who spends all their money on bad habits, but high rents are one of the best predictors of a city's homelessness rates. In a dirt cheap city even people with serious issues can afford to get off the street. And the whole point of housing deregulation is to drive down prices by increasing supply.
falling birthrates
Having a baby is tough when you have to save for a decade to buy a cramped starter home.And raising a large family in such a house could easily drive parents crazy.
crime
about 15% of US land is vacant or abandoned. A striking Philidelphia experiment confirms that cutting out vacant lots cuts crime because crims concentrates in these locations. Randomly assigning some vacant lots for landscaping, fencing, and mainenance saw the neighbourhoods perceived crime fall by 37% and police reported crime fall by 9%. If sprucing up a vacant lot takes a big bite out of crime, actually buidling something on it would probably slash crime even more.
Housing deregulation unlocks massive economic growth, slashes inequality, speeds social mobility, enriches and uplifts working-class males, counters 'deaths of despair', helps the homeless, makes babies, and fights crime.
Other sections on traffic, other ills, french economist Bastiat's 'What is seen and What is not seen', consilience (different political ideologies reaching the same conclusion: hous. dereg.), traffic, commutes, keyhole solutions, how to turn NIMBYists to YIMBYists, how to change public policy.
May 2, 2024
Build, Baby, Build : The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation (2024) written by Bryan Caplan and illustrated by Ady Branzei is a marvelous comic book introduction to the Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) movement and the economic ideas behind it. Caplan is an economist at George Mason University.
The book starts with the economic fundamentals of supply and demand and why houses cost a different amount in different places. Then Caplan explains how scarcity is created by rules that don’t allow for the full potential economic use of land. Here the Glaeser and Gyorko paper on the impact of zoning is introduced. Nicely, Caplan introduces in comic form the actual authors. This method is continued throughout the book and some surprising characters appear. Caplan then describes how reducing restrictions can help. The objections to zoning changes are next to be addressed. The French economist Bastiat is introduced and his concept of missing possibilities is very well added. After touring more economists freeing up zoning is described as a ‘consilience’, that is position that can be reached from different starting points and values. Finally the YIMBY path is outlined and the way it can be realised is described.
YIMBYism has a pretty strong base and is fairly popular across different political views. Caplan does really well putting the argument into comic form and Branzei’s illustration’s are excellent. For housing wonks the book references many of the major economic writers on the subject and there is an extensive notes section. It’s hard not to be delighted when someone like ‘Bernard Siegan’ is mentioned and brought to life. It’s really a very well done book. It’s surprising just how well a comic can be used to introduce so many ideas. It’s also fun how so many figures from economics and philosophy are brought to life.
Build, Baby, Build is a fantastic book that a lot of people will enjoy and get a lot out of. It’s a tremendous use of comic books and a good short read to understand why so many people support zoning deregulation. After reading it Nolan Gray’s also excellent ‘Arbitrary Lines’ would make a very good follow on.
The book starts with the economic fundamentals of supply and demand and why houses cost a different amount in different places. Then Caplan explains how scarcity is created by rules that don’t allow for the full potential economic use of land. Here the Glaeser and Gyorko paper on the impact of zoning is introduced. Nicely, Caplan introduces in comic form the actual authors. This method is continued throughout the book and some surprising characters appear. Caplan then describes how reducing restrictions can help. The objections to zoning changes are next to be addressed. The French economist Bastiat is introduced and his concept of missing possibilities is very well added. After touring more economists freeing up zoning is described as a ‘consilience’, that is position that can be reached from different starting points and values. Finally the YIMBY path is outlined and the way it can be realised is described.
YIMBYism has a pretty strong base and is fairly popular across different political views. Caplan does really well putting the argument into comic form and Branzei’s illustration’s are excellent. For housing wonks the book references many of the major economic writers on the subject and there is an extensive notes section. It’s hard not to be delighted when someone like ‘Bernard Siegan’ is mentioned and brought to life. It’s really a very well done book. It’s surprising just how well a comic can be used to introduce so many ideas. It’s also fun how so many figures from economics and philosophy are brought to life.
Build, Baby, Build is a fantastic book that a lot of people will enjoy and get a lot out of. It’s a tremendous use of comic books and a good short read to understand why so many people support zoning deregulation. After reading it Nolan Gray’s also excellent ‘Arbitrary Lines’ would make a very good follow on.
May 14, 2024
A fun and surprisingly detailed graphic novel--with frequent appearances in the panels of various other scholars and figures from history providing appropriate quotations--that makes Caplan's typically no-compromises-libertarian argument, this time as it applies to the distortive effects which zoning has had on the housing market in America. In isolation, I don't disagree with a single one of his many claims; but when you put them together, his complete equation of the YIMBY position with some kind of absolute individual freedom, with only very few and occasional acknowledgments of different ways of address the realities of housing, becomes a little grating.
May 8, 2025
Bryan Caplan fanboy here. I picked up this book from Amazon back in March, 2024. Last October I drove up to the University of New England in Biddeford, Maine to see Bryan participate in its President’s Forum and I got him to sign it. And now I finally got around to reading it.
It is a (literal) comic book, and I mean no disrespect by that; its fantastic, clever illustration is by Ady Branzei. Bryan appears as a chacter, explaining his thesis to the reader.
And that thesis is straightforward and ably presented: deregulation of housing policy is pretty close to a panacea. It would not only solve the obvious problem (often described as a "housing crisis" here in New Hampshire), but also help ameliorate a host of associated social woes. Although the book is published by the libertarian Cato Institute, Bryan notes that such deregulation should appeal to other factions in the political landscape: egalitarians, for example, should like that it gives the less well-off a better chance at decent shelter. It has environmental benefits! It would facilitate people moving from low-productivity, low-wage areas to better their economic situation! It would make having babies more practical, staving off demographic collapse! ("It slices! It dices!")
Of course, the deregulation Bryan champions has its problems with political feasibility. Making housing "more affordable" translates to, for existing homeowners, a decline in their property values. And homeowners tend to vote their pocketbooks. (This March 2025 story from our local TV station shows how this is playing out in New Hampshire.)
December 1, 2024
This is a good book for understanding the moral and political case for housing deregulation. It does a great job of framing deregulation as beneficial from a variety of political perspectives and delivers its arguments in a refreshing, fun way. The proposed policies are defended well against theoretical critiques - most of the time.
That said, some issues get hand-waved away. For example, road taxes, which are essentially a regressive tax, are justified by saying the entire deregulated package is better for the poor - without any supporting data. This happens more than once, leaving me wondering if all the "sacrifices for the greater good" actually add up to something meaningful.
My main issue is that the book focuses too much on the theory and moral framing and not enough on what actually works. Show me examples with data! Tell me what’s been tried, what succeeded, and what failed. The case studies lack specificity. Instead of really digging into what deregulation looks like in practice, the book relies on blanket statements and "San Francisco bad." I wish it had explored a city where deregulation has been successful in as much detail as it dives into San Francisco's failures.
That said, some issues get hand-waved away. For example, road taxes, which are essentially a regressive tax, are justified by saying the entire deregulated package is better for the poor - without any supporting data. This happens more than once, leaving me wondering if all the "sacrifices for the greater good" actually add up to something meaningful.
My main issue is that the book focuses too much on the theory and moral framing and not enough on what actually works. Show me examples with data! Tell me what’s been tried, what succeeded, and what failed. The case studies lack specificity. Instead of really digging into what deregulation looks like in practice, the book relies on blanket statements and "San Francisco bad." I wish it had explored a city where deregulation has been successful in as much detail as it dives into San Francisco's failures.
June 23, 2024
I recently picked up a few books on housing because I believe that housing is at the root of most of society's problems. And I think that government is the cause of high housing prices, and government is the solution to high housing prices. This book dramatically agrees, and walks through why deregulation of housing is the answer. Allow housing to be built in more places, denser, and higher.
The book's answer is deregulation. For common complaints like it blocks my view or traffic or schooling they simply say pay an additional tax to cover the externalities of these things and let the government figure out the right solution with that extra money. But make it clear, and easy, and fast to build.
It's a graphic novel, so it's obviously over-simplified. For example it suggests that you wouldn’t mind your house falling 50% in value if the house you were going to move into also fell 50% in value. But not accounting for the fact that you took out a loan on 100% of the value means you’re underwater.
I don't really think this is worth reading unless you need someone to explain to you why deregulating the housing market is a good idea.
The book's answer is deregulation. For common complaints like it blocks my view or traffic or schooling they simply say pay an additional tax to cover the externalities of these things and let the government figure out the right solution with that extra money. But make it clear, and easy, and fast to build.
It's a graphic novel, so it's obviously over-simplified. For example it suggests that you wouldn’t mind your house falling 50% in value if the house you were going to move into also fell 50% in value. But not accounting for the fact that you took out a loan on 100% of the value means you’re underwater.
I don't really think this is worth reading unless you need someone to explain to you why deregulating the housing market is a good idea.
June 10, 2024
Entertaining book on why increasing housing supply is good and how to do it: with housing deregulation. It is satisfying when addressing a problem does not require a set of galaxy brain policies but aiming to get rid of bad ones instead.
The book will appeal to readers on both sides of the political spectrum by arguing that deregulating housing is a consilient policy that looks good on reducing inequalities, increasing social mobility, reducing carbon emissions, cut businesses regulations and increase economic growth. Thank you "housing theory of everything". I liked that the book stimulate our imagination to go beyond "what is seen" to "what is not seen" to argue its case.
The book is only scratching the surface and it brushes through a wide range of arguments from economics and political philosophy, giving some of the key ideas at a very high level but I find myself craving for more depth in the justifications -- even though I find the case for housing deregulation very compelling and wish that we take that direction as a society.
The book will appeal to readers on both sides of the political spectrum by arguing that deregulating housing is a consilient policy that looks good on reducing inequalities, increasing social mobility, reducing carbon emissions, cut businesses regulations and increase economic growth. Thank you "housing theory of everything". I liked that the book stimulate our imagination to go beyond "what is seen" to "what is not seen" to argue its case.
The book is only scratching the surface and it brushes through a wide range of arguments from economics and political philosophy, giving some of the key ideas at a very high level but I find myself craving for more depth in the justifications -- even though I find the case for housing deregulation very compelling and wish that we take that direction as a society.
August 25, 2024
I did not imagine the book to be a cartoon, but in a funny way the message was so straight forward and simple that the cartoon was a great way how to communicate the message. The book creates a very strong case why housing deregulation will improve pretty much every life quality standard in the US and why it’s a no-brainer to fight for deregulation in that area. The book created a very clear picture why zoning laws deregulation is the biggest lever to creating more economic opportunity in the US right now. The book also proposed overturning Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co to be one of the fastest ways how to regulate zoning laws all across the US. Fascinating throughout, even when rather simplistic.
March 9, 2025
Finished the book in one sitting. Nothing I haven’t seen before. Generally fine. I already support YIMBY and massive housing deregulation.
The book had no emotional punch that I feel would actually change hearts and minds. Additionally, Caplan doesn’t address how the political parties of the US create policy. I would have preferred a more technical read of how to undo housing regulations and how to balance special interests groups.
Nitpicks: the art style is quite cold and flat
I do think this housing regulation is the most important issue of our time, so I feel bad giving this a 2-star review.
“The rent is too damn high” by Matthew Yglesias is a much better starting point and more compelling.
The book had no emotional punch that I feel would actually change hearts and minds. Additionally, Caplan doesn’t address how the political parties of the US create policy. I would have preferred a more technical read of how to undo housing regulations and how to balance special interests groups.
Nitpicks: the art style is quite cold and flat
I do think this housing regulation is the most important issue of our time, so I feel bad giving this a 2-star review.
“The rent is too damn high” by Matthew Yglesias is a much better starting point and more compelling.
May 30, 2025
The sexiest book on zoning law you'll ever read. Similar to De Sade, Caplan (author) and Branzei (illustrator) have created a work that maintains a reader's attention despite dry subject matter. Caplan does a wonderful job with the pacing, and lets his imagination run wild with unique characters and scenarios, which Branzei then illustrates. There's loads of humor, and the entire text is layperson-friendly because change can only happen when everyone understands the situation. Readers will be hit with both economic and quality-of-life arguments for deregulation that are compelling regardless of your political leanings. Seriously, if I taught a political science course, this would be required reading. It's that good.
August 14, 2025
Good introduction to the argument of deregulation which I already am an advocate for. However, some solutions to the problems that would arise from deregulation were overly simplified. I also think more alternative solutions should have been presented by the author. He relies on consumer use of public transportation. The city I am from is the largest city without a comprehensive railway system. There are some holes like these in his argument.
I am appreciative of anyone that works to simplify complex societal issues. A lot of my hesitancy on deregulation came from its environmental impacts but the author did a great job of debunking that popular argument
The author is such a genius. It would be a dream to hear one of his lectures one day
I am appreciative of anyone that works to simplify complex societal issues. A lot of my hesitancy on deregulation came from its environmental impacts but the author did a great job of debunking that popular argument
The author is such a genius. It would be a dream to hear one of his lectures one day
October 9, 2024
Bryan Caplan returns with another thought-provoking graphic novel! This time he explores how expanding the supply of housing could substantially reduce rents and improve living standards, especially within major cities. The illustrations are entertaining, with a standout chapter featuring Caplan debating the undead twins from “The Shining.” While I mostly align with YIMBY (Yes In My BackYard) values, I don’t feel this work is as strong as Caplan’s debut graphic novel on immigration. It certainly has merit, but if I were trying to introduce someone to the YIMBY cause, I would be hesitant to recommend this as a starting point.
July 26, 2024
Homelessness in America need not exist. Parents living in desirable areas need not have to see their children move away because those cities are no longer affordable. Housing regulation has been astonishingly costly -- not just in terms of money but human suffering. This graphic novel (if I can call it that; it deals in fact, not fiction) does a brilliant job of explaining in clear (often humorous) language the myriad benefits deregulation would trigger. Saying YES in my back yard – and backyards everywhere – would hugely benefit us all.
October 9, 2024
Met Dr Caplan at UT and had a chance to discuss this book in detail with him. Dr Caplan is about the fun-nest public intellectual I've met. His arguments on deregulation in Housing have been talked about by multiple economists in the past, one example being Thomas Sowell. Having lived in NY, SF and Houston, it is patently visible what strict vs unregulated zoning laws do to the living standards of a city. This book goes into further details on the same issue in the graphic novel format and is a must read
January 6, 2025
Good read and shorter than I expected. I would suggest this book to anyone wondering about why housing has gotten so expensive as of late and good solutions to fix this. It's actually timely seeing Austin follow in the footsteps of this book and began deregulated housings in a significant way has now lead to apartments that were $1500-$2000 just 18 months ago now being $944 with some apartment complexes offering 8 weeks free and many tenets who have renewed their leases have found their rent decreased by $200 a month.
January 22, 2025
This is a great introduction to the housing crisis facing most communities across the country. Caplan does a great job introducing complex economic topics in a fun and interesting way. While he does a great job of explaining a problem, he doesn't offer as much context in terms of solutions.
Still worth a read.
Still worth a read.
May 2, 2024
Another great overview of the benefits of housing deregulation in an easy to read and enjoyable comic format. Part of me would like to see him write a more technical edition, similar to his book on education.
abandoned-or-paused
May 31, 2024I loved Bryan’s work on open borders, a graphic novel. Picked this up mainly because of his contrarian views. But as an India, I couldn’t connect with the topic of urban regulation and YIMBY. May be some other day, will give it a try
August 8, 2024
A clear, unapologetic explanation why high housing prices are caused solely by government regulation. It's even in comic-book format, for those who hate to read about economics. I can't wait to pass this book along, as soon as I see the right way to do so.
December 23, 2024
Helpful graphic novel to understand housing deregulation. Researched (notes at the end) and succinctly but persuasively explained. Didn't love the drawings, but colorful and the art does help explain the concepts.
March 28, 2025
Creative, engaging, and concise. Bryan Kaplan’s graphic novel visually guides the reader through why housing regulation is the culprit behind high housing costs. I learned a lot, had some of my intuitions corrected by clear economic analysis, and now agree with his stance! YIMBY!
May 5, 2024
Makes a fine case for housing and against zoning. Unlike some other books I have read, this book makes some effort to grapple with arguments for the status quo.
May 14, 2024
I enjoyed it but he didn't remotely convince me.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews