This raises the question of why do people want to live in and/or visit a particular area.
I think lifestyle/aesthetics are often factors that come in. This creates a condrumn doesn't it. Some cities have very iconic looks and cultures (I don't think DC is one of these cities) that is part of their appeal in an unquantifiable way. Would people still want to move/live in those cities if their looks changed?
I don't have an answer to this question but I think it is worth raising. I imagine San Francisco would take a hit if it lost its iconic housing look.
Lots of things are illegal and still happen. Though I admit that we can have constant back and forth debates about this sort of stuff. Drugs and Prostitution and Gambling will happen whether legal or not but there are still many people against those things (on all sides of the political spectrum) even if they happen.
I don't know if faith is the right word but I prefer systems that acknowledge the vast compexities of the human brain and society. Many (but not all) economists seem to have trouble with incorporating emotions and psychology into their concepts.
I agree that these thoughts can very well be irrational and might often be bad but they also exist and need to be accounted for.
This goes beyond the unacceptable bigotry and racism mentioned by North above but to the simple fact that people don't like feeling cheated or bilked or that someone is taking advantage of an unfair situation/need.
With the exception of close to the Financial District, there are not really many (or any) high rise residential buildings. I think there would be a revolt if a developer tried to tear down low-level apartment buildings in a neighborhood like mine and build a high rise.
I think a little (just a little) Nimbyism is always going to be around and this is largely okay.
In short, not every city in New York needs to be Manhattan. In fact, most people move to cities like Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle (or even into Brooklyn) because they are not Manhattan and filled with high-rises.
What people want and aesthetics are also important.
Who are these people on the left who think that economic liberty is only an illusion?
I don't think that economic liberty is an illusion but I think it means something different than Republicans/conservatives think it means.
When I listen to conservatives/Republicans talk about freedom and liberty, it seems to be the same message that they have been sprouting since The New Deal with the Liberty League. They are against any form of welfare state/safety net. Any sort of safety net feature was a march towards tyranny.
This is bullshit. I see no reason, nor has anyone ever pro-offered to give me one about why you can't have a capitalist economy and a strong welfare state. I think Google and Universal Healthcare can exist in the same nation.
I am more interested in arguments like the one you made about building height restrictions. Presuming it is safe, I have no problem with allowing taller buildings. But I would like the right to shut up about how decency and social welfare is a march towards chain and oppression. It really isn't.
True but I don't believe in humans as economical or rational actors.
I believe that humans are social, emotional, and largely irrational actors and will always inject things where they don't make sense.
One of my biggest problems with Matt Y (and most traditional economists) is that they are thinking in pure hypothetical land of pure rationalism. People are not rational. We can be from time to time but largely we are emotional. Poets know more about how humans act than economists. And I would trust a poet more to come up with an accurate hypothetical on what would happen if a certain policy were introduced.
As a completely unrelated example, let's use Hurricane Sandy and Price Gouging. Matt came out with a series of articles that allowing price gouging would solve the shortage problem. When people dissented, he doubled down.
The rationalist/economist variant on price gouging seems to be that by allowing price gouging, these results would happen:
1. People would only take as much as they need and this will free up resources.
2. People will see that there is money to be had and rush in with the necessary items and this will decrease the price
Never mind that NJ had plenty of gas, the problem was a lack of electricity and ability to get the pumps working.
You need to inject the human and psychological element to understand that items one and two will probably not happen. People might rush in with the desired resources but the prices would remain high and I would bet good money that people would still horde if they could afford it, and those that could not afford the high prices will still suffer. Also price gouging can cause damage in the long term for a business. People will remember being bilked and probably stop going to said business when the crisis time is over.
It also doesn't help as Felix Salmon points out that most arguments for price-gouging come from wealthy people to afford it.
In short, most economists seems perfect for Vulcans but not people. I am a bit amazed that economists still feel largely uncomfortable with acknowledging that people are not rational. Behavorial economists excluded of course.
Somewhat, I think that private credentialism can be more exclusionary along racist, homophobic, sexist, religious bigotry lines.
The original ABA code of ethics was largely designed to keep poor immigrants (especially "Russian Jewboys") from competing with older and established WASPs. Some of the prohibitions included no advertising about rates. It took until the 1970s for the Supreme Court to say that this violated the First Amendment.
Public/Government credentialism at least provides avenues for challenges along equal protection lines in court.
Probably a bit but some professions need credentials and training. If you are going to be doing something that can cause injury to a person somehow, you should be credentialed.
This includes law (bad legal advice can be disastorous and there are plenty of bad lawyers with law schools and credentials), medicine, and some aesthetics work (applying chemicals or wax to the human body and massage, or do old-school shaves). It probably should not include people who strictly cut hair, taxi drivers, and people who do manicures/pedicures.
Plus as my brother points out, there is plenty of unofficial credentialism in fields that do not require it by law. Dance Studios are a good example. The government does not require a license to run a dance studio but there is a private association that seems to be join or die. As in if you are not approved by said group, you will not find employees or students.
By big government, I basically meant the welfare state. I think universal healthcare, universal pre-K/pre-school and other safety net programs can encourage more risk taking by people economically.
The general conservative/libertarian points against social safety net/welfare state policies is that such policies destroy communities. During the healthcare debates, many conservatives pitched an alternative of friends, families, and neighbors looking out for each other. Tom Coburn did this in a town hall.
We see that the Republican Party is essentially an exurban/rural party now. They control the least urban parts of the United States. Many seem to still have the pathological fear of cities that drove the 1928 election against Al Smith. Many seem to believe in the fantasy of small-town America still.
However, we are no longer a nation of small towns and walking to work in a very small area. We drive 30-40 minutes if not more to work in cities, office parks, other towns, etc. These are not jobs where you can go home for lunch. Often they are not jobs that allow people free time to do errands in the middle of the day.
The modern economy is complicated and demands a lot from people. So much that I believe we do not have the time to be Mayberry anymore. If someone suffers a dehabilitating stroke, it is simply not possible to have neighbors look after him the same way. Also medicine is much more complicated and Doctors largely no longer make housecalls. Medicine was cheaper when it did less.
So I think free trade is fine but that it needs to be backed with a social safety net that only the government can provide. Private charity cannot help. Things are a little better for people who can work remotely.
In short, I think we can have a capitalist economy that offers nice things like European economies do like universal pre-school. I'm rather tired of the conservative arguments on how this is "tyranny"
Luckily, I think the election shows that people are starting to feel the same way. Sadly the Republican Party refuses to break their fever dream
Unlike some people on the far left, I generally do believe that trade and credit are net goods and that globalization is a bit of an inevitability.
That being said my problem with many conservatives and some libertarians is that they want globalization without anything to impact the damage caused. Some to many seem to extoll the virtues of a Jeffersonian-Agarian state: lots of self-sufficient yeoman farmers/producers and small towns where people look out for each other without realizing that globalization requires big cities, people who spend much time at work, and not a lot of self-sufficient yeomanery. The Jefferosian ideal is great for small government and no welfare state but it is horrible for a globalized economy.
Globalization requires big government and an abandonment of pastoral ideals.
The United States has over 300 million people. The days of an industrial economy are probably over but we need to find a decent paying solution for the displaced unskilled workers. I think that extreme income inequality or a society that is split between a relatively large upper-middle class/educated class and a huge number of people in poverty and working for low pay/no benefits is only going to produce social unrest and pain.
We might even be seeing the end of a college degree or grad degree being a sure-fire road to the middle class because our mass educated class has grown too big. It is true that only 30 percent of Americans have college degrees and fewer have advanced degrees but there still seems to be a lot of struggle in this community as well for jobs at a decent wage.
That being said: Walsh is out, Watts is out, Grayson is back in, California turned three formally safe GOP seats blue, Bachmann barely held on, and GOP rising star Mia Love could not unseat Matheson despite being a Republican running in Utah during a Presidential election year.
On “Economic Liberty after Obama”
This raises the question of why do people want to live in and/or visit a particular area.
I think lifestyle/aesthetics are often factors that come in. This creates a condrumn doesn't it. Some cities have very iconic looks and cultures (I don't think DC is one of these cities) that is part of their appeal in an unquantifiable way. Would people still want to move/live in those cities if their looks changed?
I don't have an answer to this question but I think it is worth raising. I imagine San Francisco would take a hit if it lost its iconic housing look.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid, Ctd. : How we deal with the peccadillos is actually pretty important, too”
Well you post made me laugh.
"
Concurred.
Really, I don't understand is view at all. He needs some therapy.
On “Trade Sequence Part 2 – They Took Our Jobs!”
at North:
Lots of things are illegal and still happen. Though I admit that we can have constant back and forth debates about this sort of stuff. Drugs and Prostitution and Gambling will happen whether legal or not but there are still many people against those things (on all sides of the political spectrum) even if they happen.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid, Ctd. : How we deal with the peccadillos is actually pretty important, too”
This guy seems like a class act:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/eric-dondero-boycott-democrat-libertarian.html
Some of his answers were unintentionally funny though.
On “Trade Sequence Part 2 – They Took Our Jobs!”
I don't know if faith is the right word but I prefer systems that acknowledge the vast compexities of the human brain and society. Many (but not all) economists seem to have trouble with incorporating emotions and psychology into their concepts.
I agree that these thoughts can very well be irrational and might often be bad but they also exist and need to be accounted for.
This goes beyond the unacceptable bigotry and racism mentioned by North above but to the simple fact that people don't like feeling cheated or bilked or that someone is taking advantage of an unfair situation/need.
On “Economic Liberty after Obama”
True but mainly in the downtown/business area.
With the exception of close to the Financial District, there are not really many (or any) high rise residential buildings. I think there would be a revolt if a developer tried to tear down low-level apartment buildings in a neighborhood like mine and build a high rise.
"
I think a little (just a little) Nimbyism is always going to be around and this is largely okay.
In short, not every city in New York needs to be Manhattan. In fact, most people move to cities like Boston, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle (or even into Brooklyn) because they are not Manhattan and filled with high-rises.
What people want and aesthetics are also important.
"
Noted.
It doesn't answer my other question though. I just don't buy the Liberty League/Freedom Works logic.
"
Who are these people on the left who think that economic liberty is only an illusion?
I don't think that economic liberty is an illusion but I think it means something different than Republicans/conservatives think it means.
When I listen to conservatives/Republicans talk about freedom and liberty, it seems to be the same message that they have been sprouting since The New Deal with the Liberty League. They are against any form of welfare state/safety net. Any sort of safety net feature was a march towards tyranny.
This is bullshit. I see no reason, nor has anyone ever pro-offered to give me one about why you can't have a capitalist economy and a strong welfare state. I think Google and Universal Healthcare can exist in the same nation.
I am more interested in arguments like the one you made about building height restrictions. Presuming it is safe, I have no problem with allowing taller buildings. But I would like the right to shut up about how decency and social welfare is a march towards chain and oppression. It really isn't.
On “Trade Sequence Part 2 – They Took Our Jobs!”
True but I don't believe in humans as economical or rational actors.
I believe that humans are social, emotional, and largely irrational actors and will always inject things where they don't make sense.
One of my biggest problems with Matt Y (and most traditional economists) is that they are thinking in pure hypothetical land of pure rationalism. People are not rational. We can be from time to time but largely we are emotional. Poets know more about how humans act than economists. And I would trust a poet more to come up with an accurate hypothetical on what would happen if a certain policy were introduced.
As a completely unrelated example, let's use Hurricane Sandy and Price Gouging. Matt came out with a series of articles that allowing price gouging would solve the shortage problem. When people dissented, he doubled down.
The rationalist/economist variant on price gouging seems to be that by allowing price gouging, these results would happen:
1. People would only take as much as they need and this will free up resources.
2. People will see that there is money to be had and rush in with the necessary items and this will decrease the price
Never mind that NJ had plenty of gas, the problem was a lack of electricity and ability to get the pumps working.
You need to inject the human and psychological element to understand that items one and two will probably not happen. People might rush in with the desired resources but the prices would remain high and I would bet good money that people would still horde if they could afford it, and those that could not afford the high prices will still suffer. Also price gouging can cause damage in the long term for a business. People will remember being bilked and probably stop going to said business when the crisis time is over.
It also doesn't help as Felix Salmon points out that most arguments for price-gouging come from wealthy people to afford it.
In short, most economists seems perfect for Vulcans but not people. I am a bit amazed that economists still feel largely uncomfortable with acknowledging that people are not rational. Behavorial economists excluded of course.
"
Somewhat, I think that private credentialism can be more exclusionary along racist, homophobic, sexist, religious bigotry lines.
The original ABA code of ethics was largely designed to keep poor immigrants (especially "Russian Jewboys") from competing with older and established WASPs. Some of the prohibitions included no advertising about rates. It took until the 1970s for the Supreme Court to say that this violated the First Amendment.
Public/Government credentialism at least provides avenues for challenges along equal protection lines in court.
"
Probably a bit but some professions need credentials and training. If you are going to be doing something that can cause injury to a person somehow, you should be credentialed.
This includes law (bad legal advice can be disastorous and there are plenty of bad lawyers with law schools and credentials), medicine, and some aesthetics work (applying chemicals or wax to the human body and massage, or do old-school shaves). It probably should not include people who strictly cut hair, taxi drivers, and people who do manicures/pedicures.
Plus as my brother points out, there is plenty of unofficial credentialism in fields that do not require it by law. Dance Studios are a good example. The government does not require a license to run a dance studio but there is a private association that seems to be join or die. As in if you are not approved by said group, you will not find employees or students.
By big government, I basically meant the welfare state. I think universal healthcare, universal pre-K/pre-school and other safety net programs can encourage more risk taking by people economically.
"
The general conservative/libertarian points against social safety net/welfare state policies is that such policies destroy communities. During the healthcare debates, many conservatives pitched an alternative of friends, families, and neighbors looking out for each other. Tom Coburn did this in a town hall.
We see that the Republican Party is essentially an exurban/rural party now. They control the least urban parts of the United States. Many seem to still have the pathological fear of cities that drove the 1928 election against Al Smith. Many seem to believe in the fantasy of small-town America still.
However, we are no longer a nation of small towns and walking to work in a very small area. We drive 30-40 minutes if not more to work in cities, office parks, other towns, etc. These are not jobs where you can go home for lunch. Often they are not jobs that allow people free time to do errands in the middle of the day.
The modern economy is complicated and demands a lot from people. So much that I believe we do not have the time to be Mayberry anymore. If someone suffers a dehabilitating stroke, it is simply not possible to have neighbors look after him the same way. Also medicine is much more complicated and Doctors largely no longer make housecalls. Medicine was cheaper when it did less.
So I think free trade is fine but that it needs to be backed with a social safety net that only the government can provide. Private charity cannot help. Things are a little better for people who can work remotely.
In short, I think we can have a capitalist economy that offers nice things like European economies do like universal pre-school. I'm rather tired of the conservative arguments on how this is "tyranny"
Luckily, I think the election shows that people are starting to feel the same way. Sadly the Republican Party refuses to break their fever dream
"
Unlike some people on the far left, I generally do believe that trade and credit are net goods and that globalization is a bit of an inevitability.
That being said my problem with many conservatives and some libertarians is that they want globalization without anything to impact the damage caused. Some to many seem to extoll the virtues of a Jeffersonian-Agarian state: lots of self-sufficient yeoman farmers/producers and small towns where people look out for each other without realizing that globalization requires big cities, people who spend much time at work, and not a lot of self-sufficient yeomanery. The Jefferosian ideal is great for small government and no welfare state but it is horrible for a globalized economy.
Globalization requires big government and an abandonment of pastoral ideals.
The United States has over 300 million people. The days of an industrial economy are probably over but we need to find a decent paying solution for the displaced unskilled workers. I think that extreme income inequality or a society that is split between a relatively large upper-middle class/educated class and a huge number of people in poverty and working for low pay/no benefits is only going to produce social unrest and pain.
We might even be seeing the end of a college degree or grad degree being a sure-fire road to the middle class because our mass educated class has grown too big. It is true that only 30 percent of Americans have college degrees and fewer have advanced degrees but there still seems to be a lot of struggle in this community as well for jobs at a decent wage.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid: Despite what you might hear, the voters sent a clear mandate to Washington”
One wonders whether colleges and universities in Colorado and Washington are going to see a serious uptick in applications.
"
A plus!
"
Okay.
You and the rest of the Republican Party remind me of what was once said about the Bourbons: You remember everything and learn nothing.
On “Post-Election Instapundrity: Do the Democrats Have a New Coalition?”
I think my tribe will stay Democratic.
"
The city is spelled Jerusalem. You wrote "Jewrusalem" Israel is a Jewish state. W is no where near u on a standard keyboard.
Of the ones above, guess which definition I am going with. It certainly sounds like a disparaging remark to me about the composition of the city.
On “It’s the Party, Stupid: Despite what you might hear, the voters sent a clear mandate to Washington”
You understand absolutely nothing. Nothing.
"
That being said: Walsh is out, Watts is out, Grayson is back in, California turned three formally safe GOP seats blue, Bachmann barely held on, and GOP rising star Mia Love could not unseat Matheson despite being a Republican running in Utah during a Presidential election year.
"
Gerrymandering largely. The House is not very competitive for both sides.
"
He is also an illustration of why the GOP will be possibly/hopefully howling in the wilderness for a while.
"
Perhaps they give him internet access at Akrham Asylum already.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.