Why does America Suck at Everything? - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15234638
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. I do not think that over abundance of homes caused the 2008 financial crisis. This seems like something you made up just now.


There would have been no crisis if home prices hadn't gone down, despite the lack of regulation. Of course, assuming the price of an asset - any asset - will always go up is folly, and one would expect agents and the government will pass regulation as to make sure an unexpected price decrease will not lead to systemic risk.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. So you think builders will unintentionally start a new financial crisis or housing bubble that will bring down home prices?


Just that they'll build more to take advantage of the short term profits, which will help bring prices down.

Short-term thinking often dominates, be it under capitalism or socialism. Why do you think we keep polluting the environment? Why do some people refuse to go on diets or stop doing some drugs (legal or not) even if they know it's not healthy? Why do governments often spend beyond their means?

There's even a biological basis for preferring immediate over future rewards.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. Quote the relevant text.


From?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I ignored the rest since it was loaded questions, refusal to support claims, or based on misunderstanding.


:roll:

Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n seems to have gone from arguing that rent control causes homelessness to arguing.that increasing supply will lower prices if demand stays the same, and other basic mechanisms in economics.

This basic mechanism is the kernel of truth around which is wrapped the libertarian myth of rent control causing homelessness.

This is a classic libertarian debate tactic: identify a logical and accepted economic maxim and assume it is the only relevant factor..


Rent control suppresses residential investment (i.e. construction) so, yes, it does cause homelessness. At least some people who are homeless wouldn't be if housing was cheaper, and housing isn't cheaper because supply is being suppressed.

People who can't access rent-controlled property are clearly losing out, since their rents are showing the effects of suppressed construction and are higher than they would be without rent control. Let's not even get into the discussion of who's getting access to rent-controlled properties and who isn't, or which property owners are forced to charge lower rents and which ones are not, because selecting both by lottery need not happen in real life.

Potemkin wrote:I don’t agree with it, and I don’t think that’s what @wat0n is saying. He is simply saying that if there is more profit to be made from building houses and condos, then they will build more of them. This seems uncontroversial to me. Capitalists will invest their money where they expect a good return on investment. Increase the profitability, and they will invest more money in it. More houses and condos will get built. Will this solve the problem of homelessness? No, because capitalism always prices some people out of the marketplace. This is an inevitable consequence of using the price mechanism to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand. I repeat: only socialism can solve the problem of homelessness.


Yet for this residual population, governments can subsidize housing or even build it themselves (or both). This is the reformist approach that can be (and is) used, even in the US, yet governments won't do it if their own local zoning laws don't allow it.

Of course, governments will try to do this as cheaply as possible, like some private developers would. As such, this type of housing will often be subpar, but it's better than homelessness.

Here's an example from NYC:

NBC NY wrote:NYCHA
NYCHA Needs $40 Billion in Extra Capital, New Boss Says

Greg Russ was appointed CEO last year to turn the housing authority around after a federal settlement

By Andrew Siff • Published January 14, 2020 • Updated on January 14, 2020 at 10:24 am

New York City's scandal-plagued housing authority needs $40 billion for an effective turnaround, new chairman Greg Russ says.

Russ became chairman and CEO of NYCHA last August, with a mandate to turn the authority around under the eye of a federal monitor. He made the comment at Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum Tuesday.

That deal came after the city and federal housing officials settled a lawsuit in early 2019, one filed by the federal government on behalf of NYCHA's 400,000 residents.

The deal required the city to spend billions fixing chronic problems with lousy living conditions, lead paint and lack of heat -- but Russ seemed to indicate Tuesday that the fixes would cost orders of magnitude more.

In fact, he said, it would be the largest infusion of capital in a public housing system in U.S. history. His estimated figure would represent roughly $100,000 worth of repairs per resident of the country's largest public housing authority.

Tenants in the system have complained for decades about rodents, mold and heat and hot water outages. A past Authority chairwoman, Shola Olatoye, left in 2018 after an investigation revealed years of falsified reports about lead paint inspections.

In late 2018, U.S. District Judge William Pauley suggested the federal government should take over the authority. The 2019 deal was seen as a bid to avert that federal takeover.


@Pants-of-dog thinks that just because governments could do things differently, it means they will. No, it doesn't, just as for-profit developers will minimize costs so will governments, even honest governments will (corrupt ones will just pay inflated prices to well-connected for-profit developers who will, in turn, build them as cheaply as possible, quality be damned).

Just because he can cherry pick examples of governments building high quality properties at some point, which might have still been the cheapest option at the time, it doesn't mean that will always happen. Even worse, it's also far from clear such property will be properly maintained by the future governments either. It seems governments are far more enthusiastic about enforcing maintenance regulations on private landlords than on themselves although, to be fair, it would often come with a refusal to hike rents or wouldn't evict renters who don't actually pay rent which is obviously not something a private landlord would do.

You could then say it could be better for the governments to build the properties and sell them at cost, with subsidized mortgages for the homeless - but this would then open the questions of "what happens if the homeless person doesn't pay? Will the government evict him, which goes against solving homelessness? Will the government force this person to work to pay for rent?" I think the Soviet approach was, in fact, to charge these guys for parasitism and sentence them to hard labor. But then @Pants-of-dog would probably cry "slavery!!1!!one!"
#15234656
Wellsy wrote:@noemon

QUick question out of curiosity, what is your understanding of the origins and difficulty with overcoming clientelism in Greece?


I've been thinking about this question.

wat0n was right to argue that Greco-Roman social groups like the Latins, Greeks, Balkaners and others like Georgians, Armenians & Lebanese have a cultural affinity to patronage which people like the Germans for example do not. Corruption/Clientelism in Germany takes place at high levels like the Volkswagen scandal. In Greece and the Latin countries, clientelism has been part of every day life even after the success of the modern nation state and its structures.

In Greece, Balkans and M-E, more particularly, clientelism is a bit higher due to the Ottoman period when people could not rely(that is being diplomatic, in actuality it is more like people would avoid the state like a plague because bothering the Pasha could get your head chopped off) on the state but had to rely on inter-personal relationships and patronage to go about their daily business.

I have been really curious to understand how Israel has been dealing with this issue because the Sephardi for example can be said to be a "Latin people also" in this context as they have been living parallel lives with Greek, Turks, Italians and Latins for centuries.


-----------

Earlier Tainari made a point about corporations failing in Mexico, like McDonalds for example.

I also made a point that Greek tax evasion was not really an issue because of the enormity of tax receipts that the Greek state enjoyed prior to the financial collapse.

I think this is an opportunity to tie these in.

Corporations in Greece like McDonalds also failed because they paid taxes and contributions while local & smaller competitors didn't.

This is the same reason why they failed in Mexico.

A large corporation will employ people with a contract, health benefits, insurance, etcetera. Small private operators in Mexico and Greece instead rely on slave immigrant conditions giving them an edge over larger corporations. That is also why the reason Mexico is claimed to be "welcoming" to migrants because they can be taken advantage off quite extremely.

The idea that socialism or central planning will solve these issues by concentrating power on a few individuals in the state is the biggest bollocks I have heard and keep on hearing.

Honestly, how can Potemkin assert such a thing with a straight-face is beyond me.

The fact that this assertion is being repeated without a single argument to that effect is quite mind-boggling.

How does socialism deal with human greed? How does socialism prevent corruption when it is fundamentally set-up to encourage it by destroying all independent organizations while subsuming everything to the state and its handful of operators?
#15234660
The internet says you pay for apartments ahead of time in Korea. The entire value of the apartment is like a security payment you have already put down and its like the only way to live over there I figure. I figure that underrates the net wealth of Koreans which tends to be on the side of having a debt.
#15234666
@wat0n

1. You seem to have abandoned your argument that increased supply will solve homelessness.

2. Quote the relevant text from your study about zoning laws.

3. The NYC argument you are making assumes that private landlords did not need to spend an even bigger sum than $40 billion for the same number of units or people housed.
#15234687
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. You seem to have abandoned your argument that increased supply will solve homelessness.


No, I didn't.

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. Quote the relevant text from your study about zoning laws.


I'd say all of it is - do you want me to quote a 37-page long paper?

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. The NYC argument you are making assumes that private landlords did not need to spend an even bigger sum than $40 billion for the same number of units or people housed.


Not really. It's $40 billion necessary to fix the public housing back in 2018.

For the private sector, I doubt things would have gotten to that level because ordinances protect tenants from that type of thing, yet they aren't enforced when it is the cities themselves who violate them.
#15234722
wat0n wrote:No, I didn't.

I'd say all of it is - do you want me to quote a 37-page long paper?


Since you are no longer supporting these claims, I will assume that you concede that rent control does not cause homelessness, and neither do zoning laws.

Not really. It's $40 billion necessary to fix the public housing back in 2018.

For the private sector, I doubt things would have gotten to that level because ordinances protect tenants from that type of thing, yet they aren't enforced when it is the cities themselves who violate them.


You often assume things that could plausibly be incorrect.

This is one of those cases. Please note that I do not think that your assumptions describe reality, especially when they are simply convenient for your argument.

Your article does not even refute my point nor support your claim, since there is no indication that the costs incurred are as a result of government choosing to make lower quality housing. You do not know, for example, what percentage of that $40 billion is due to government taking over privately constructed buildings and thereby absorbing the cost created by private industry.

With equally strong logic, I could argue that this $40 billion represents the level of externalities imposed on the public by privately built housing.

Instead, you assume that 100% of the costs are due solely to government mishandling and ineptitude.
#15234724
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you are no longer supporting these claims, I will assume that you concede that rent control does not cause homelessness, and neither do zoning laws.


I even provided you with a paper to read.

This trick of pretending otherwise is boring.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You often assume things that could plausibly be incorrect.

This is one of those cases. Please note that I do not think that your assumptions describe reality, especially when they are simply convenient for your argument.

Your article does not even refute my point nor support your claim, since there is no indication that the costs incurred are as a result of government choosing to make lower quality housing. You do not know, for example, what percentage of that $40 billion is due to government taking over privately constructed buildings and thereby absorbing the cost created by private industry.

With equally strong logic, I could argue that this $40 billion represents the level of externalities imposed on the public by privately built housing.

Instead, you assume that 100% of the costs are due solely to government mishandling and ineptitude.


The $40 billion are the result of neglect by the NYCHA, a type of neglect that is illegal for private landlords. This is mentioned in the article I cited - they are the result of the lack of constant maintenance of NYC's public housing stock.
#15234754
wat0n wrote:I even provided you with a paper to read.


Yes, but now you have to read it.

Please let me know when you have done so. Thank you.

The $40 billion are the result of neglect by the NYCHA, a type of neglect that is illegal for private landlords. This is mentioned in the article I cited - they are the result of the lack of constant maintenance of NYC's public housing stock.


No, it is not mentioned in the text you quoted.
#15234765
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but now you have to read it.

Please let me know when you have done so. Thank you.


How about you discuss what part of that paper, or the article I cited from Brookings, do you disagree with and why?

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is not mentioned in the text you quoted.


"The deal required the city to spend billions fixing chronic problems with lousy living conditions, lead paint and lack of heat -- but Russ seemed to indicate Tuesday that the fixes would cost orders of magnitude more."

Hmmm? It's city property, as such, NYC is in charge of maintenance of those buildings.
#15234830
wat0n wrote:How about you discuss what part of that paper, or the article I cited from Brookings, do you disagree with and why?



"The deal required the city to spend billions fixing chronic problems with lousy living conditions, lead paint and lack of heat -- but Russ seemed to indicate Tuesday that the fixes would cost orders of magnitude more."

Hmmm? It's city property, as such, NYC is in charge of maintenance of those buildings.


Note that the quoted text does not say that the problems are due to government cutting costs during construction. In fact, the quoted text makes no indication at all that government caused the problems.

And it also points out that the $40 billion is not an official estimate, but instead was a number thought up by one guy to make headlines and make a point.
#15234832
I sometimes wonder how far I need to back the truck up, before I start.

Gonna go all the way. People are not a priority in this country, they are a resource to be exploited. You can see it in the zoning laws. Rents are kept artificially high by keeping the supply limited. You can see it in lots of other places, as well. Clinton tried to bring our food regs up to where much of Europe was in the 1970s. Republicans fought it, and eventually won.

Suburbs are a lot like a pyramid scheme, as soon as growth stops, trouble starts. The costs go up faster than what taxes can cover. That's despite heavy subsidies. Biden coughed up a trillion for infrastructure, we're 7 trillion behind, and that is gonna get worse.

Europe was a lot more bike friendly than us before Covid. I've biked across Italy, and it takes a while to get used to people being nice to you when you're on a bike. But now, they are putting serious money into cycling infrastructure. Their bike boom dwarfs ours, and nearly half the bikes sold are ebikes. While ebikes are more expensive, that are damn handy for commuting and other things like getting groceries.

Having been to Europe, I wanted our cycling infrastructure to be more like theirs. That ran me straight into city design, and zoning.

#15234848
Pants-of-dog wrote:Note that the quoted text does not say that the problems are due to government cutting costs during construction. In fact, the quoted text makes no indication at all that government caused the problems.

And it also points out that the $40 billion is not an official estimate, but instead was a number thought up by one guy to make headlines and make a point.


Who's in charge of maintenance of government property?

@late Europe has similar problems with regards to zoning, and for similar reasons as the US. Westerners in general are just not willing to densify their neighborhoods.
#15234850
wat0n wrote:

@late Europe has similar problems with regards to zoning, and for similar reasons as the US. Westerners in general are just not willing to densify their neighborhoods.



In some places, but just some places.

#15234857
late wrote:In some places, but just some places.



Sure, it's a local matter for the most part. But you can perfectly find Europeans who live 100km from their workplace solely due to unaffordability, just like in the US.

Local government power needs to be checked by higher levels of government when it comes to zoning. There need to be national/regional laws on how cities and localities in general regulate zoning, national/regional governments should be less sensitive to these densification concerns - even more so since national governments in particular will often have to deal with the consequences.
#15234860
wat0n wrote:
Sure, it's a local matter for the most part. But you can perfectly find Europeans who live 100km from their workplace solely due to unaffordability, just like in the US.

Local government power needs to be checked by higher levels of government when it comes to zoning. There need to be national/regional laws on how cities and localities in general regulate zoning, national/regional governments should be less sensitive to these densification concerns - even more so since national governments in particular will often have to deal with the consequences.



Not that we will do anything, but the economics of suburbs are a part of why we suck.
#15234861
late wrote:Not that we will do anything, but the economics of suburbs are a part of why we suck.


I don't know.

I agree with you suburbs are definitely inefficient, and possibly unsustainable in the long run. But it's also true that for many, they represent an example of good quality of life.

There are also suburbs in Europe, Canada, Australia and Latin America. It's definitely not an US thing, at all.

Personally, I prefer to live in cities.
#15234863
wat0n wrote:
I don't know.

I agree with you suburbs are definitely inefficient, and possibly unsustainable in the long run. But it's also true that for many, they represent an example of good quality of life.

There are also suburbs in Europe, Canada, Australia and Latin America. It's definitely not an US thing, at all.

Personally, I prefer to live in cities.



We are several trillion behind in infrastructure. Not chump change; it's stagnation for chumps.
#15234867
wat0n wrote:Who's in charge of maintenance of government property?


I do not know who you think does it.

Please explain how this supports your claim.

wat0n wrote:@late Europe has similar problems with regards to zoning, and for similar reasons as the US. Westerners in general are just not willing to densify their neighborhoods.


In Europe, such public sentiment is less significant since most urban environments were built prior to the invention of the car.

Consequently, dense living was already a thing before the debate about suburbs and cars ever started.
#15234878
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not know who you think does it.

Please explain how this supports your claim.


Cities are responsible for maintaining their property, just like with any property owner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In Europe, such public sentiment is less significant since most urban environments were built prior to the invention of the car.

Consequently, dense living was already a thing before the debate about suburbs and cars ever started.


True, yet in practice you can still find the same tendencies, often in terms of conservation of historical neighborhoods and architecture.
#15234883
wat0n wrote:Cities are responsible for maintaining their property, just like with any property owner.


Yes, but that does not refute any claim I have made.

True, yet in practice you can still find the same tendencies, often in terms of conservation of historical neighborhoods and architecture.


Most historically significant neighbourhoods already have near optimal levels of density.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

So we have 400 million guns in the hands of our l[…]

We're in good hands :lol: https://i.i[…]

Why does America Suck at Everything?

But it does back mine up. No, governments are har[…]

So says the person from Mexico. :lol: This is n[…]