Readit Newspcaharrier commented on Perplexity AI's Motion to Dismiss Dow Jones Lawsuit Is Denied in Full [pdf] storage.courtlistener.com... · Posted by u/pcaharrier
Note that this is not really a decision on the merits of the underlying claims in the lawsuit. Perplexity moved to dismiss "pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3)" alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue (i.e., claims that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York can't assert jurisdiction over the defendants and that that court is the wrong place to sue them).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Though I guess the loop hole here is that the National Guard would in this case be acting under "state authority" given that typically state-like actions for DC are deferred to Congress. The open question being whether the Executive branch could act independently, or whether they still need explicit authorization from Congress.
Suffice to say that before this morning I had only a vague idea about how legally complicated this could get. For instance, there's an opinion from the Department of Justice (albeit an old one) that concluded that the President can use the DC National Guard for law enforcement purposes (in that case, drug interdiction) without running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/use-national-guard-suppo...
> You're saying that increasing supply (all else being equal) will increase prices?
Yep. Exactly. With the caveat: the increase happens by increasing the _density_.
> Seems like that turns standard econ on its head, so can you help me understand who you reached that conclusion?
Here's another example. Suppose you give a billion dollars to everyone. Will everyone just become rich?
Housing is similar. When you build denser housing, it increases the attractiveness of the area for employers. They get access to a larger labor pool, so companies near dense housing are long-term more competitive.
This in turn increases the housing price, as workers want to live closer to employers.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
The end result: no large city managed to lower down housing costs by increasing density. It's a simple verifiable fact.
Edit: I checked data for Western Europe, Russia, US, Japan. It's possible that some citi in India or Malaysia managed to do that. But I don't have data for them.
I see what you're saying: all else will not remain equal. Your argument is that any increase in supply will always be more than offset by a corresponding increase in demand.
>In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, landlords converted thousands of houses, hotels, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings into SROs, and by 1950, SRO units made up about 10% of all rental units in some major cities. But beginning in the mid-1950s, as some politicians and vocal members of the public turned against SROs and the people who lived in them, major cities across the country revised zoning and building codes to force or encourage landlords to eliminate SRO units and to prohibit the development of new ones.
So the greedy landlords are the would-be heroes of the story and the politicians are the bad guys?
This article is pure bullshit.
The lowest-cost housing is not in dense slums. It's in the rural areas and smaller cities. There you can buy a small single-family home for the cost of an SRO in NYC.
By adding more SROs the city housing will get MORE EXPENSIVE in the end. They won't solve anything, they'll just create more misery.
You're saying that increasing supply (all else being equal) will increase prices? Seems like that turns standard econ on its head, so can you help me understand who you reached that conclusion?