Tax on land value only, excluding improvements. This encourages landowners to build to the limit of marginal construction costs, which benefits both the local economy and tenants.
The more important question is: can we have growth in economic output (which is what we actually want) without growth in economic input (which is purely instrumental)?
Short-term - maybe, though past history isn't exactly positive about that.
Long-term : no, as this would reduce economic input to an arbitrary small fraction of the overall wealth, which anyone would be able to corner. So it's either self-limiting or unstable.
In order to crack water, you need water, which is in short supply in the desert. Desalination + massive pumps and pipelines from the ocean would soak up any increase you get in price efficiency compared to batteries or even compressed air.
I wonder what the breakeven cost would be of a monthly subscription to ad-free journalism on the quality level of the New York Times (or your preferred equivalent). Something like $200-300 maybe? If it were actually ad-free and zero-clickbait, 100% high quality journalism, I'd be willing to pay about that much.
I wouldn't be willing to pay that much, maybe 10% of that. But the actual cost to the newspaper would be far higher. What you pay could be as low as that cost / # subscribers, or higher if there's no competition.
NIMBYism is pretty much a de facto campaign against internal migration. It's not much of an issue in the fastest growing states, but certain states with hot economies but stagnant or declining populations, like Massachusetts or California, are affected by it.
That's the difficult part--the insulin spikes from ultraprocessed food will make you hungrier and eat more as well as lower your basal metabolism. "Calorie range" is a moving target.
