> “The moneychangers in the Temple were a housing problem!” objects the YIMBY. “If first-century Jerusalem had been vertically denser, there would have been room for banks in the commercial district. The only reason they had to invade the Temple grounds was because of artificial land scarcity.“
Believe it or not, I have heard nearly this exact sermon preached at an Eastern Orthodox Church. Not the bit about "room for banks in the commercial district," but the rest of it. The thrust of the argument was that the Sadducees, the Jewish faction that controlled the temple (and the rivals of the Pharisees, the other major Jewish sect, from whose tradition both Christianity and modern Judaism descend), interpreted the law in an incredibly strict way, particularly the bit about not travelling on the Sabbath. The upshot was that in order to live up to the strictures of the law to the Sadducee standard, you essentially had to be very rich, and you had to live close to the temple. This had a predictable effect on housing prices close to the temple.
Further, the bit about the money-changers had to do with the monopolization of a scarce non-produced asset, e.g. Hasmodean currency from before the Romans took over (you couldn't use pagan money with the Emperor's image in the temple, but you could exchange it for these ancient coins, at exchange rates the moneychangers set. And then give the ancient coins right back when you made your purchase). So in addition to an economic struggle over literal land, you also had one over a scarce non-produced monopolized asset (Hasmodean coins).
> “The moneychangers in the Temple were a housing problem!” objects the YIMBY. “If first-century Jerusalem had been vertically denser, there would have been room for banks in the commercial district. The only reason they had to invade the Temple grounds was because of artificial land scarcity.“
Believe it or not, I have heard nearly this exact sermon preached at an Eastern Orthodox Church. Not the bit about "room for banks in the commercial district," but the rest of it. The thrust of the argument was that the Sadducees, the Jewish faction that controlled the temple (and the rivals of the Pharisees, the other major Jewish sect, from whose tradition both Christianity and modern Judaism descend), interpreted the law in an incredibly strict way, particularly the bit about not travelling on the Sabbath. The upshot was that in order to live up to the strictures of the law to the Sadducee standard, you essentially had to be very rich, and you had to live close to the temple. This had a predictable effect on housing prices close to the temple.
Further, the bit about the money-changers had to do with the monopolization of a scarce non-produced asset, e.g. Hasmodean currency from before the Romans took over (you couldn't use pagan money with the Emperor's image in the temple, but you could exchange it for these ancient coins, at exchange rates the moneychangers set. And then give the ancient coins right back when you made your purchase). So in addition to an economic struggle over literal land, you also had one over a scarce non-produced monopolized asset (Hasmodean coins).