CDs vs. NIMBY

By Bryan Caplan | August 26, 2026

The Great CD Depreciation

I possess a massive library of approximately 4,000 music CDs, an acquisition that cost me roughly $40,000 over the years. However, a recent trip to Amoeba Music (in both Berkeley and LA) revealed a harsh reality: most of these discs now sell for about ** $3**. If I tried to sell them, I doubt the store would even offer me$ 1 per disc—if they agreed to buy them at all.

From a ~~NIMBY~~ narrow perspective, one might argue that the rise of streaming services has "hollowed me out" financially.

The "Loser" vs. The "Winner"

Whether I am a "loser" in this scenario depends entirely on my behavior:

Scenario	Outcome	Financial Impact
The Static Listener	I only listen to my existing 4,000 albums.	Pure capital loss of ~$40k.
The Active Explorer	I want to discover new music.	Massive consumer surplus for decades.

For me, the latter is true. I don't want to be trapped in a loop of the same 4,000 albums forever. Thanks to streaming, I have free access to an infinite library. For instance, the Lebendige Vergangenheit vintage opera collection on YouTube is easily worth $5,000 to me, considering I used to pay$ 13.99 per premium import.

Applying the Logic to NIMBYism

This isn't just a quirk of music collecting; it is a direct critique of the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) mindset. Many homeowners oppose housing deregulation because they fear it will lower their property values.

Let's look at the math using $\LaTeX$ : Suppose you own a home worth $V_{initial} = \$ 1,000,000 $. Deregulation occurs, and the value drops to$ V_{new} = $500,000$.

While this looks like a loss of $\$ 500,000$, consider the offsetting gains:

Upgrading: If your "dream home" dropped from $\$ 2,000,000 \rightarrow $1,000,000 $, your consumer surplus potentially increases by$ $1,000,000$.
Downgrading: A home that cost $\$ 500,000 $now costs only$ $250,000$.
Lifestyle: You save money every time you book a hotel or a vacation rental.

The Intergenerational Perspective

Even if a homeowner is in their "forever home" and never intends to move, there is a massive benefit for their offspring.

Inheritance: Children inherit slightly less equity (e.g., $10k less per child).
Lifetime Cost: Children enjoy significantly cheaper housing for their entire lives.

The trade-off is clear: a small loss in a one-time inheritance in exchange for a lifetime of affordable living.

The Polar Case: Imagine housing deregulation drove the price of all housing to zero. You would lose the entire market value of your current home, but you could move into a palace anywhere on Earth—or own a palace in every city you visit—for free.

Community Discussion

User

Dave92f1: "Oh come on. A price drop matters only if you were planning to sell (as with a house)."

Carrie-Ann Biondi :

I'm a bit puzzled by this claim: *If I were totally set in my ways, I really would be $40,000 poorer with no offsetting gain.* Even if you didn't use streaming, you had the experience of listening to that music for decades. Only you know if that was worth the$ 40k. For me, the soundtrack of my life on vinyl and CDs is a value I'll never regret. That said, I totally agree with you about housing deregulation; I don't feel entitled to any specific home valuation.