I have a massive collection of music CDs, about 4,000 in total. Over the years, I probably spent about $40,000 acquiring them. Now, thanks to streaming, they’re virtually worthless. While perusing the used CD section at Amoeba Music (both the LA and Berkeley locations), I discovered that most of my discs now retail for about $3. I doubt Amoeba would pay me $1 a disc, assuming they’d take them at all.

Applying familiar NIMBY logic, you might insist that streaming “hollowed me out.” Sure, kids can now enjoy unlimited music free of charge. But I’m $40,000 poorer. A victim of cruel progress. A clear-cut “loser.” If I had zero interest in listening to any new-to-me music, that would be a fair, if self-pitying, verdict. Fortunately, I am not dead inside. I want to hear the albums whose release I overlooked, from before my time, and new music. Thanks to streaming, I can now consume infinite new-to-me music gratis, yielding massive consumer surplus for decades.

The lesson is not that everyone in my position gains from streaming. If I were totally set in my ways, I really would be $40,000 poorer with no offsetting gain. The lesson is that NIMBY negativity is not automatic for everyone who experiences a capital loss. Most enjoy some upside with their downside. Some, like me, enjoy a net gain despite a large gross loss. This fully applies to the archetypal NIMBY who opposes housing deregulation because he already has a valuable home.

Suppose you own a $1M home, then deregulation halves its value. Yes, someone with zero desire to live elsewhere suffers a $500k loss. But if they want to upgrade, the dream home that cost $2M now costs $1M, raising consumer surplus by $1M. The offset is even larger if they plan to buy a second home or rent. For those who love their children, the upside is greater: cheaper housing for kids, even if inheritance is less. If housing prices drop to zero, you lose home value but gain access to palaces everywhere.