> When 98% of available homes are used that is a shortage.
I anticipate that 98% of available jets are used. And I certainly can't afford one. Does that mean there is a shortage of jets? What isn't there a shortage of?
> Your definition of shortage seems very different to mine so there's no point in continuing.
What, then, was the point of continuing earlier? We have been discussing the technical definition since the onset.
I respect your freedom to make up definitions on the spot as you see fit, but there is nothing that can be discussed about such definitions. Clearly you saw value in discussing what surrounds the technical definition earlier, as demonstrated by multiple replies. Why the change of tune now?
> You seem to ignore the technical definition of unmet demand.
How so? I acknowledged it and even agreed that there is probably some unmet demand in houses not being able to built fast enough. But, with time, they are being built:
> [What isn't there a shortage of?] Things which supply can increase to meet that demand.
Housing supply is increasing. We build new houses every day. Now you're contradicting yourself. The folly of trying to make up your own definition on the spot. The formal definition already carefully considered these issues. Why stray from it?
But, as before, there is nothing to suggest that the unmet demand is a big problem. Having to wait a year or two for the house you want to be built, while perhaps a little frustrating, isn't the issue under discussion.
The issue we're talking about is those who are unable to join the demand group because prices are too high. That's not unmet demand. They are not demand in the first place. They can't afford to be. Demand requires desire _and willingness_. Desire alone is not demand. Desire alone is simply dreaming.
The whole concept of demand wouldn't make any sense if you counted anyone who wished to have something. The entire fundamental basis of supply and demand is that higher prices stimulates an increase in supply and a reduction in demand. The reduction in demand happens because willingness starts to disappear as the price runs higher. In other words, people start tapping out when they can no longer afford something, thus a decrease in demand.
As discussed earlier, the political will is to see an increase in demand as we have a collective dream to allow more people with only desire to join the demand group — ultimately by lowering prices such that their willingness is gained in those lower prices. We don't talk about a reduction in demand in those political contexts because that runs entirely contrary to what is trying to be achieved. High prices already reduced demand. That's the exact opposite of what the people want to see.
I anticipate that 98% of available jets are used. And I certainly can't afford one. Does that mean there is a shortage of jets? What isn't there a shortage of?
> Your definition of shortage seems very different to mine so there's no point in continuing.
What, then, was the point of continuing earlier? We have been discussing the technical definition since the onset.
I respect your freedom to make up definitions on the spot as you see fit, but there is nothing that can be discussed about such definitions. Clearly you saw value in discussing what surrounds the technical definition earlier, as demonstrated by multiple replies. Why the change of tune now?