|
Indeed, let's look at some other points, shall we? I've already pointed out that your own link shows that 0% of economists agree with the Laffer curve idea of lower taxes = more revenue, while 71% disagree. Do mainstream economics, those doyens of neoliberal bias, in fact think the minimum wage kills economies? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV quote:Question B: What about government spending, what do they think? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9yTmaqlHpp1JzH7 quote:Question A: Because the US has underspent on new projects, maintenance, or both, the federal government has an opportunity to increase average incomes by spending more on roads, railways, bridges and airports. (The experts panel previously voted on this question on May 23, 2013. Those earlier results can be found here.) What about discrimination against minorities? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_ahhcfL33JZHnCqV quote:Question A: Employers that discriminate in hiring will be at a competitive disadvantage, if their customers do not care about their mix of employees, compared with firms that do not discriminate. In the past years, after from a few pet economists of the right, mainstream economic opinion has been overwhelming in support of the left's positions. Why are we allowing anti-intellectualism to stop us from leveraging this? Why are we playing the right wing's game, by pretending its all about ideology, when actually people doing research say the facts are in general on our side?
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
We're discussing tax cuts, which is basically the same thing as rent control, for the following reasons:
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
side_burned posted:that has been very well established, but gentrification is not a good thing by any stretch. Gentrification is a good thing for society, but a bad thing for individuals. People and families suffer loss of homes, neighborhoods, and social networks because of gentrification. However, it is a good thing that the decades-long trend of suburbanization is reversing. e: Gentrification is a consequence of white flight, so when that cooled off gentrification was inevitable without strong government action. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
It's not anti-intellectual to oppose a specific strand of thought that happens to be just plain wrong (to a disastrous degree) about many, many things and is about 50 years behind behaviorial psychology in its understanding of how humans behave. If you think they're at all progressive, look at the austerity policies pushed by the World Bank and IMF, their blind adherence to free trade orthodoxy when the historical record doesn't remotely support it, their reliance upon marginal utilty, equilibrium, methodological individualism, etc. This doesn't mean that there isn't great research being done (even by neoclassicals), it's just that we need to acknowledge that economics is inherently political and that the framing used by undergrad textbooks tends to support a rather right-wing view. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Disregarding an entire area of research into the very subject you are pretending to be open mindedly exploring would be funny enough, but treating economists of all people as monolithic on all things is what really takes it to the next level. Economists disagree about pretty much everything past the the intro textbook. Which is why them being united on the intro textbook stuff is so striking. Economics is the study of these very things and topics. You should look into it. It's interesting. "Actually I'm smarter than an entire field of study because, uh, the IMF. Now, someone please do some research into the same things this field of study is about" is like, peak D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Disregarding an entire area of research into the very subject you are pretending to be open mindedly exploring would be funny enough, but treating economists of all people as monolithic on all things is what really takes it to the next level. Economists disagree about pretty much everything past the the intro textbook. Which is why them being united on the intro textbook stuff is so striking. Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Sorry that the mainstream of the macroeconomics has been completely discredited by the crisis and is flailing around trying to find minor gotcha's with Piketty. I'm not treating all economists as the same, but the worthwhile economists like Steve Keen and Ha Joon Chang are pretty far from typical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism You joke, but They also throw around $500k at random grad students doing work they like and make multi-million dollar donations to multiple schools , which I'm sure doesn't allow them to influence anyone or anything. Of course most academic economists are honest people and will have nothing to do with these people if they can help it. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Sorry that the mainstream of the macroeconomics has been completely discredited by the crisis and is flailing around trying to find minor gotcha's with Piketty. I'm not treating all economists as the same, but the worthwhile economists like Steve Keen and Ha Joon Chang are pretty far from typical. Rent control raises costs is like chapter 2 of the intro stuff, maybe chapter 1, it is completely uncontroversial. There are also studies and stuff. People have looked into this. If you were actually exploring this topic instead of going rah rah for team crazy you would have found this out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:There are also studies and stuff. People have looked into this. If you were actually exploring this topic instead of going rah rah for team crazy you would have found this out. Did I ever disagree with any of that? I simply suggested you should post the actual studies and data instead of a poll of economists. The first one is science, the second thing is a weak appeal to (significantly diminished) authority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Look, I understand that most physicists believe gravity exists, but if you don't actually demonstrate it and teach me phys 101 here in this D&D thread, I'm just not going to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
What you want is an econ course and that's great and you should take one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Rent control raises costs is like chapter 2 of the intro stuff, maybe chapter 1, it is completely uncontroversial. That's the loving problem. Your taking what is essentially a political policy and doing the magic handwave of "ceteris paris this is bad markets rule governments drool" when in real life rents are a complex issue that can't be boiled down to a single supply and demand curve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Decreasing incentives for supply can in fact be boiled down to a supply and demand curve. If this was actually an extremely complex issue you would have a better case than "uh, actually, economics is a lie, and also, like Reagan, man." You would have examples, studies, and also economists, because economists love to argue over ambiguous data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism Ah there we go Everyone who disagrees with my political opinions are either dumb or are paid shells, nothing is better than my leftist ideology It's refreshing to see anti-intellectualism coming from the left rather than the right though imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:That's the loving problem. Your taking what is essentially a political policy and doing the magic handwave of "ceteris paris this is bad markets rule governments drool" when in real life rents are a complex issue that can't be boiled down to a single supply and demand curve. Has there ever being a single case when rent control ever worked?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism The word 'capitalism' is used by leftists to describe literally all economic systems except for utopian fantasies by dead dudes from the 1800s and the USSR, everything from Ayn Rand libertopia to state directed development to welfare social democracy to oil states like Saudi Arabia to gradualist democratic socialists. So, in a sense, yes, economists who aren't Marxists are all shills for capitalism Peven Stan posted:That's the loving problem. Your taking what is essentially a political policy and doing the magic handwave of "ceteris paris this is bad markets rule governments drool" when in real life rents are a complex issue that can't be boiled down to a single supply and demand curve. And you're saying "The IMF did bad things 40 years ago so therefore you aren't allowed to criticize rent control" Typo posted:Has there ever being a single case when rent control ever worked? He's just going to redefine what "worked" means and say "well CAPITALISM is worse, therefore you can't say that"
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Did I ever disagree with any of that? I simply suggested you should post the actual studies and data instead of a poll of economists. The first one is science, the second thing is a weak appeal to (significantly diminished) authority. Again, people for the first 2-3 pages of this thread has posted real arguments of why rent control is bad. You guys are the ones who brought up the economists neoliberal evil thing, it's kinda rich to accuse the other side of appealing to authority when you are the one making the ad homenins in the first place. Typo fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Typo posted:Again, people for the first 2-3 pages of this thread has posted real arguments of why rent control is bad. And I didn't object to any of those good posts, did I?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You joke, but You guys realize this is literally the exact same argument right-wing climate change deniers use against academia acknowledgement of climate change as a real phenomenon right? Remember, only academic studies validating my worldview is valid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Typo posted:You guys realize this is literally the exact same argument right-wing climate change deniers use against academia acknowledgement of climate change as a real phenomenon right? No, right wingers cannot in fact point to a group of immensely wealthy people who have a financial interest in promoting the ideas of climate change and socialized medicine, who have actually funded fraudulent research (Heartland Institute) and influenced hiring decisions at public universities. quote:Remember, only academic studies validating my worldview is valid. I have not rejected or disparaged any academic studies that people have posted in this thread. In fact I suggested that Best Friends post one himself instead of doing what he's doing, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No, right wingers cannot in fact point to a group of immensely wealthy people who have a financial interest in promoting the idea of climate change and socialized medicine, who have in fact funded fraudulent research (Heartland Institute) and influenced hiring decisions at public universities. I'm not talking about people just to the right of yourself btw, I'm talking about people who consistently vote Republican and like the Tea party. Because I have and you can pretty much just find-replace some words from some of your posts ITT and get exactly what their arguments are when arguing against government regulations or what not. The "academia is controlled by liberal/conservative finance!" is just the most obvious one. Typo fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:In fact I suggested that Best Friends post one himself instead of doing what he's doing, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Best Friends posted:What you want is an econ course and that's great and you should take one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Yes, they're not uncommon. Please examine the context of my post: I thought Peven was joking around about a big conspiracy of economists, and I basically said, "funnily enough some people are actually trying to do that now at a few universities". That's a fairly modest and well supported claim, and nothing like alleging that the bulk of mainstream of academic economists have been paid off for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yes, they're not uncommon. Please examine the context of my post: I thought Peven was joking around about a big conspiracy of economists, and I basically said, "funnily enough some people are actually trying to do that now at a few universities". That's a fairly modest and well supported claim, and nothing like alleging that the bulk of mainstream of academic economists have been paid off for decades. Here are some studies btw: http://www.frpo.org/documents/Gilderboom-30YearsRentControl-JUA-May2007.pdf http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jkbrueck/course%20readings/gyourko%20and%20linneman2.pdf http://www.gonzalo.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar/EU1UTDT/gyourko-linneman90.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:Didn't Britain tried public housing in that period as well and it turned into ghettos? If there's anything to be taken away from Britain's experiences with social housing, it's that for it to work well, it must appeal to a wide cross-section of society; you can't try to use it as a safety net that only caters to the poorest and most vulnerable because then all you end up doing is concentrating people with serious social problems in a small area and creating new slums.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Also, Owlbot, since you approvingly cited Steve Keen as a 'good' economist (shortly after dismissing Krugman as some kind of neoliberal shill!), you may be interested in this exchange from his blog: http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/dont-revive-the-first-home-vendors-grant/ quote:Thomas Bergbusch January 22, 2013
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
If you believe it is a supply issue then the solution is going to have to also be government intervention in supplying housing stock. The UK actually has a wide variety of public housing, the housing with the most crime predictably enough is the worst housing stock with the poorest population. There are actually middle class/lower middle class people in council housing in the UK. This is not to mention other European countries have wide varieties of public housing that aren't "vertical ghettos." Then there is also the issue of, if you don't want rent control, public housing or any government intervention, what is your solution? Right now government intervention is rather minimal and is clearly creating wide disparities among the population. Kick people off into poor suburbs with minimal services and no public transportation is pretty much classism and if not racism at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Then there is also the issue of, if you don't want rent control, public housing or any government intervention, what is your solution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Who ITT has argued against "public housing or any government intervention"? Lots of people have said that rent control specifically tends to be dumb and bad but I don't think anybody has said that governments should have no role in the housing market. Responding to Typo's post about UK public housing turning into ghettos, some obviously did but it was predictably cramped high rise housing in poorer neighborhoods. There are ways to provide housing that are far more sustainable and at one time, even in the US, public housing was for people of mix ranges of income and could easily be so again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 11:21
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Also, Owlbot, since you approvingly cited Steve Keen as a 'good' economist (shortly after dismissing Krugman as some kind of neoliberal shill!), you may be interested in this exchange from his blog: Fairly close to my own position, actually (as I hinted at in a previous post). To be more explicit, I think rent control is a half-measure that doesn't provide any real control over the housing situation. Sure, you can by definition create more affordable housing if you simply force the prices of current unaffordable units below that level, and it can stabilize some neighborhoods, but in the long term it's too weak a policy: landlords can decide not to maintain the property, developers can move to cities without rent control, etc. As I mentioned, I'd far prefer massive investment in modern public housing system with aesthetics and amenities that would appeal to a wide section of society. Krugman's not nearly as bad as he used to be (not praising sweatshops or sounding like a slightly smarter Thomas Friedman) and I have a few of his books. Krugman's no Mankiw. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
It's not exactly hard to find places with cheap rent. For example, if you wanted to live someplace with cheap housing, you could move to Detroit, where a house can literally be purchased for less than $1,000. Of course, would you really want to live in a city where the local economy has apparently collapsed, and crime might be rampant? Similarly, one could almost understand "white flight" in some places, like Ferguson, where the inhabitants seem to riot when the laws are enforced. Even though the Boondocks (tv show) attempts to explain this kind of behavior and make it seem funny, it probably isn't all that desirable for folks that don't want to have to deal with that kind of drama. VVVVV - Does the evidence support your statement? Besides, generally speaking, if you don't want to get shot by a white police officer, you shouldn't physically attack him and try to steal his gun. In many parts of the USA, that is considered common sense. The "victim" was also shown robbing a store before the incident. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:Similarly, one could almost understand "white flight" in some places, like Ferguson, where the inhabitants seem to riot when the laws are enforced. Laws like "black people don't have the right to not get shot by police".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If you believe it is a supply issue then the solution is going to have to also be government intervention in supplying housing stock. Yes. No public housing with income restrictions on who can live in it, since they won't raise the entire supply. No super efficient housing, since many people just plain aren't interested, either. The government should just build a shitload of condos - enough of them that they could realistically be bought (with a 30-year mortgage) by a family with a houseold income of like $60k/y or something. Just raise the supply until the price crashes. Why wouldn't this fix everything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Yes. I don't think two people earning minimum wage will be bringing home $60k/y... Also, for reasons unknown, I think crime increases in areas where there is unusually cheap housing. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:I don't think two people earning minimum wage will be bringing home $60k/y... Could two people making minimum wage afford to maintain a condo even if one was cheap enough for them own it? Once housing is that cheap, two people making minimum wage should easily be able to rent one. Though I would be fine with the housing supply being raised until even two people making minimum wage could own their home, so I'm not really sure what you're saying. quote:Also, for reasons unknown, I think crime increases in areas where there is unusually cheap housing. That's why you don't build it all in one area. Or in an unusually cheap area. Nothing about this is supposed to be cheap. The only part of it done with lower-income people in mind is the supply - not the area, not the amenities, not the size of individual units. Buy some property in an expensive area with a short building on it. Demolish it and build a much taller one that is just as nice. Repeat in another expensive area. Once you've done this for all the expensive areas, do it again until you've hit some important metric, like a 90% occupancy rate instead of a 97% occupancy rate. EB Nulshit fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:It's not exactly hard to find places with cheap rent. For example, if you wanted to live someplace with cheap housing, you could move to Detroit, where a house can literally be purchased for less than $1,000. Oh, a live one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Could two people making minimum wage afford to maintain a condo even if one was cheap enough for them own it? Once housing is that cheap, two people making minimum wage should easily be able to rent one. Though I would be fine with the housing supply being raised until even two people making minimum wage could own their home, so I'm not really sure what you're saying. Why should they necessarily have to own the home? Why can't we bring back what was once known as "indentured servitude"? Most people spend the vast majority of their lives working anyway, so why not create a system where in exchange for working a certain number of hours a week, the employees get free housing, food, water, clothing, and maybe some wooden coins that they can use to buy things (from the company store) that entertain them when they aren't working. It really wouldn't be all that different from how some people already live. quote:That's why you don't build it all in one area. Or in an unusually cheap area. Nothing about this is supposed to be cheap. The only part of it done with lower-income people in mind is the supply - not the area, not the amenities, not the size of individual units. But if you have a lot of low-income folks in a high-income area, living in low-income housing, wouldn't that decrease the value of the high-value homes? If you were bringing home $200k a year, would you really want to live next door to a convicted felon that is living there because section 8? Or even if they weren't convicted felons, would you want someone to build section 8 housing next to your $2 million dollar house? I guess it's easier for everyone else to do that, but God forbid that they should do that in YOUR neighborhood. Also, I think it would make more sense to buy cheap land and put a bunch of cheap housing in it. That would be more cost-effective, don't you think? Unless you are spending someone else's money, in which case it doesn't matter. SedanChair posted:Oh, a live one. Yes, I am not dead. I am alive. Thank you for informing me of that, Captain Obvious. I wasn't sure that I could have figured that out for myself. mugrim posted:I'll give you a hint, the protesters are mad because the law was NOT enforced. So they were upset that the law was not enforced, so they rioted and looted stores. I'm white and if my daughter assaulted a cop, and tried to steal his gun, I would not be happy, but I would not be surprised if she was shot and killed as a result. I'm not even going to continue debating the Ferguson thing anymore, because I just don't understand the logic. lurker1981 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
lurker1981 posted:But if you have a lot of low-income folks in a high-income area, living in low-income housing, wouldn't that decrease the value of the high-value homes? It's not low-income housing. There is nothing that makes it low-income housing. It would probably take a decade before enough of it was built for it even middle-income people to afford it, let alone low-income people, since construction takes time and we auction off each condo as its building is completed. Of course, doing it one building at a time probably wouldn't be fast enough to make a difference. But basically, I'm saying that the approach should be to pick out the top N most expensive neighborhoods, build a huge, modern (what some laces refer to as "luxury") building in one at the same time, sell each condo to the highest-bidding individual or family (perhaps restricting only to those with less than $X net worth, or less than M properties already), and repeat. All the "high-income" areas get more housing simultaneous, so none of them change in value relative to the others. And initially, all the new property will simply be bought up by high-income earners, since we're auctioning it off to the highest bidders. quote:Also, I think it would make more sense to buy cheap land and put a bunch of cheap housing in it. That would be more cost-effective, don't you think? Unless you are spending someone else's money, in which case it doesn't matter. Solving problems is expensive. Buying cheap land and putting a bunch of cheap housing gets us to exactly the problem we're talking about now. If your idea of cost-effective is to spend a shitload of money just so that you can fail to solve a problem, then sure. That's more cost effective. I guess you don't mind wasting money like this, since you're spending someone else's money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
lurker1981 posted:Yes, I am not dead. I am alive. Thank you for informing me of that, Captain Obvious. I'll give you a hint, the protesters are mad because the law was NOT enforced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:32
|
|
