Why does America Suck at Everything? - Page 11 - 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.
#15234894
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, but that does not refute any claim I have made.


But it does back mine up. No, governments are hardly guaranteed to provide a good solution. Their incentives can be as bad as those of the private sector.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Most historically significant neighbourhoods already have near optimal levels of density.


Optimal under what view? I'd say that depends on the society at hand.
#15234986
wat0n wrote:But it does back mine up. No, governments are hardly guaranteed to provide a good solution. Their incentives can be as bad as those of the private sector.


No. It does not support this claim.

Optimal under what view? I'd say that depends on the society at hand.


I see.

Well, when you have read as many books and articles about densification, urban design, architecture, and construction, you may be able to have this conversation with me.

Until then, please have a good day.
#15234992
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. It does not support this claim.



I see.

Well, when you have read as many books and articles about densification, urban design, architecture, and construction, you may be able to have this conversation with me.

Until then, please have a good day.

@Pants-of-dog - master debater extraordinaire. :up:
#15234997
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. It does not support this claim.


Please show that landlords are not legally responsible for the maintenance of their property.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

Well, when you have read as many books and articles about densification, urban design, architecture, and construction, you may be able to have this conversation with me.

Until then, please have a good day.


Given the reading comprehension you've shown ITT, I doubt one can trust whatever nonsense you think you've read

Have a good one!
#15235022
wat0n wrote:Please show that landlords are not legally responsible for the maintenance of their property.


So you are no longer arguing that government built housing will have as many defects as buildings built by private developers for sale.

Instead, you are now arguing that landlords have an obligation to maintain their property.

I will concede the latter. I assume you concede that government built housing tends tobe of higher quality.

Given the reading comprehension you've shown ITT, I doubt one can trust whatever nonsense you think you've read

Have a good one!


People do not trust me. Instead, my construction project work is overseen by many eyes, totalling decades of experience.

I have previously explained to you the economic incentives that differ between a builder who also must pay for maintenance and repair and a builder who can offload costs on to a subsequent buyer. I even alluded to it in this thread.

I also explained why the NYC story does not show that government built projects are built as badly as private homes.

Please address either of these arguments.
#15235029
@Pants-of-dog but your explanation has little to do with why NYC failed to properly maintain its housing stock, something it was responsible for since it was the landlord.

What it does show is that governments need not get property maintenance right. This is despite the fact that, as you said, they do have a financial incentive to do so in the long run. That's because of the short term incentives to deviate from the long run optimal decision I alluded to earlier.

I think even a rat infested apartment with no heating on winter is probably better than homelessness. But it's obviously a stretch to claim this is a solution to the problem.
#15235043
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog but your explanation has little to do with why NYC failed to properly maintain its housing stock, something it was responsible for since it was the landlord.


I am not repeating my point about how this is am argument from ignorance on your part.

What it does show is that governments need not get property maintenance right. This is despite the fact that, as you said, they do have a financial incentive to do so in the long run. That's because of the short term incentives to deviate from the long run optimal decision I alluded to earlier.


1. The article actually shows that government is under the microscope when it comes to building maintenance while private owners are not.

2. You are still ignoring my argument about incentives.
#15235065
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog I'm not ignoring your argument about incentives. I'm showing however governments face other incentives too.

The fact that the NYCHA had to settle with the federal government implies an admission of guilt.


Please describe a financial incentive to do shoddy labour that government has that private industry does not.

Thank you.
#15235174
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please describe a financial incentive to do shoddy labour that government has that private industry does not.

Thank you.


Not financial, ultimately political. Shirking on maintenance can be politically expedient since someone else will have to deal with the problem in the future. Instead of spending on maintenance, which doesn't get votes, governments can decrease taxes or spending the money on something else without raising taxes.

In fact, that's exactly the problem: Governments face strong non-financial incentives that conflict with their long-term financial goals. Particularly local governments.
#15235176
Pants-of-dog wrote:
So you are no longer arguing that government built housing will have as many defects as buildings built by private developers for sale.

Instead, you are now arguing that landlords have an obligation to maintain their property.

I will concede the latter. I assume you concede that government built housing tends tobe of higher quality.



People do not trust me. Instead, my construction project work is overseen by many eyes, totalling decades of experience.

I have previously explained to you the economic incentives that differ between a builder who also must pay for maintenance and repair and a builder who can offload costs on to a subsequent buyer. I even alluded to it in this thread.

I also explained why the NYC story does not show that government built projects are built as badly as private homes.

Please address either of these arguments.



We need regs that keep landlords from twisting the arms of local government to restrict the supply of rental housing.

They need to discover a little something called competition..
#15235181
late wrote:We need regs that keep landlords from twisting the arms of local government to restrict the supply of rental housing.

They need to discover a little something called competition..


Voters themselves are the ones passing those restrictions, by referendum.
#15235182
wat0n wrote:Not financial, ultimately political. Shirking on maintenance can be politically expedient since someone else will have to deal with the problem in the future. Instead of spending on maintenance, which doesn't get votes, governments can decrease taxes or spending the money on something else without raising taxes.

In fact, that's exactly the problem: Governments face strong non-financial incentives that conflict with their long-term financial goals. Particularly local governments.


No.

Your article actually contradicts this claim.

Note how it describes how the government of NY is on the hook for this money.
#15235184
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Your article actually contradicts this claim.

Note how it describes how the government of NY is on the hook for this money.


Yes it does. NYC settled and admitted guilt, so it's on the hook. It did so because it would have not only been controversial but also futile to keep litigating against the federal government.

The refusal to maintain their public housing stock suggests they had other goals in mind, despite the evident financial costs associated.

Revealed preference and all.
Last edited by wat0n on 25 Jun 2022 17:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15235187
wat0n wrote:
Voters themselves are the ones passing those restrictions, by referendum.



We have millions of homeless, and that is getting worse.

So what % of the population should we allow to be homeless before we do the obvious?
#15235192
late wrote:We have millions of homeless, and that is getting worse.

So what % of the population should we allow to be homeless before we do the obvious?


We have ~580,000 homeless, not "millions".

But leaving that aside, you're right and it's not just about homelessness. Young Americans have trouble becoming independent, a rite of passage to adulthood their parents had been able to perform by their age (often, they'd already been living independently for several years, be married and have kids by then). And yet, most people would refuse to deal with the costs of fixing the housing supply issues.
#15235198
wat0n wrote:Yes it does. NYC settled and admitted guilt, so it's on the hook. It did so because it would have not only been controversial but also futile to keep litigating against the federal government.

The refusal to maintain their public housing stock suggests they had other goals in mind, despite the evident financial costs associated.

Revealed preference and all.


Leaving aside your incorrect legal claims, you are agreeing that government is forced to pay maintenance. And it logically follows that government has an incentive to lower maintenance costs. It then follows that government would invest in higher quality construction to reduce maintenance costs.

Since it was not the case that "someone else will have to deal with the problem in the future", the government is still on the hook for maintenance even if some conservative party thought "Shirking on maintenance can be politically expedient".
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 15

We have thousands of colleges and universities, an[…]

Absolutely. The best mean would be giving up th[…]

Miners from China

Fraud what else. Do not klick the link or you ris[…]

A bank robber was asked why he robbed banks. &quo[…]