Steve Cortez

So for once, I really agree with The Economist.

I do agree with them on the

gravity of the situation right now.

And I agree with them that those are the only real plausible outcomes.

But the way to avoid four and five is to, in fact, those first things and including, by the way, number three, which we're not doing, which is that we should be taxing the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher level.

We should be.

closing the carried interest loophole.

Not only does it make sense economically, but it would also pay great political dividends.

I wish we'd done it last year, but it's not too late to do that during this Trump term.

The wealthy need to pay a higher share, especially the super wealthy.

It's an economic imperative, and it will also reap political benefits.

Yes.

So look, think about real estate is a lot like gold, meaning there's a finite supply, right?

We add very little gold to the global market at any one time.

There is no adding of land, right?

Zero.

Land gets added to the total supply.

On top of that, because of unfortunate regulations, you know, onerous zoning all over the country, a lot of hindrances, it's very hard to develop land, right?

To build on land.

So limited supply of land, very difficult to add additional housing, additional apartments in the United States.