• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
studyguy said:
DJyvPjmXkAAJqW3.jpg:large


Statement by Skeletor

Scott passing the buck. What a fucking shit.
Click to expand...
Literally all he has to do is lie and say emergency services were swamped; then apologize; then we all move on with our lives. But he has to put his dick out there because he's Rick Scott.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
If you're interested in perspective on inequality that's different from the standard "capitalists are screwing everyone else" narrative, see:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/802.pdf

Makes the case that slowing growth, rising inequality and climate change are all linked to the lack of housing supply in our most successful cities. Basically there's a large-scale transfer of wealth happening from workers to a few lucky landowners in places like San Francisco.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
wutwutwut said:
If you're interested in perspective on inequality that's different from the standard "capitalists are screwing everyone else" narrative, see:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/802.pdf

Makes the case that slowing growth, rising inequality and climate change are all linked to the lack of housing supply in our most successful cities. Basically there's a large-scale transfer of wealth happening from workers to a few lucky landowners in places like San Francisco.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Whether or not this is true, frankly, we should be doing something about housing supply in successful cities anyway.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
wutwutwut said:
If you're interested in perspective on inequality that's different from the standard "capitalists are screwing everyone else" narrative, see:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/802.pdf

Makes the case that slowing growth, rising inequality and climate change are all linked to the lack of housing supply in our most successful cities.
Click to expand...

Slowing growth is structural. It's because the easy fruit has been picked clean and it's harder to find now. I could see the case for housing being a bottleneck (it's definitely stopping more people from moving to economic engines like Seattle, Boston, New York, and the Bay Area).

I tend to be a believer in Piketty's thesis on this.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
wutwutwut said:
If you're interested in perspective on inequality that's different from the standard "capitalists are screwing everyone else" narrative, see:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/802.pdf

Makes the case that slowing growth, rising inequality and climate change are all linked to the lack of housing supply in our most successful cities. Basically there's a large-scale transfer of wealth happening from workers to a few lucky landowners in places like San Francisco.
Click to expand...

A. Why not both
B. The concept of owning buying land with capital to rent out or sell as an investment is wholly capitalist

I will give this a read later when I get home.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
Fenderputty said:
A. Why not both
B. The concept of owning buying land with capital to rent out or sell as an investment is wholly capitalist
Click to expand...
There people like me who believe that capitalism generally works, but recognize that land should have special rules applied to it. If you want to learn more, you could start off by reading about the economic theory behind land value taxes.
 
S

studyguy

Member
Yeesh, you'd think these companies would react faster.
https://twitter.com/JuliaAngwin/status/908806048525451264

Julia Angwin (@JuliaAngwin)
Automation FAIL:

Facebook auto-emails me urging me to buy an ad to promote my post about their Jew-hating ad category.
DJy6BDWW4AEzKJn.jpg:large
Click to expand...

In other troubling polling news...
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...s-even-as-majority-oppose-white-supremacists/

14% of all respondents both 1) agreed that white people are under attack and 2) disagreed with the statement that nonwhites are under attack.

Nearly one-third of respondents (31%) strongly or somewhat agreed that the country needs to ”protect and preserve its White European heritage." Another third (34%) strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement, and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on mixed-race marriage in Loving v. Virginia, about one-sixth of respondents (16%) agreed with the statement that ”marriage should only be allowed between two people of the same race" and an additional 14% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, while 4% said they didn't know. In total, about a third failed to express tolerance of interracial marriage. Among whites, 17% agreed that marriage should be restricted to the same race, with 15% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This was slightly higher than nonwhites (15% agreed, 12% neither agreed nor disagreed).
Click to expand...

I urge you guys to dip into this poll, it's fucked.

Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on mixed-race marriage in Loving v. Virginia, about one-sixth of respondents (16%) agreed with the statement that ”marriage should only be allowed between two people of the same race" and an additional 14% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, while 4% said they didn't know. In total, about a third failed to express tolerance of interracial marriage. Among whites, 17% agreed that marriage should be restricted to the same race, with 15% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This was slightly higher than nonwhites (15% agreed, 12% neither agreed nor disagreed).
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
Welp
Click to expand...
Don't take this the wrong way but I don't know how you're able to function day to day. It must be agonizing.

We beat this bill before, we can do it again. The GOP has no room for error, and the CBO score and Byrd bath are likely to devastate its chances.

And if it does pass, that's going to suck but the inevitable recession will just make it even likelier we win back Congress. Luckily we have a ready-made replacement plan raring to go.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
I guess people (can)support racism if it is not attached to groups that are already defined as racist and have a history.

I think these beliefs are going to get worse because of the increasing diversity. If racism in Brazil is still pretty bad like some stated, then we have long way to go.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Don't take this the wrong way but I don't know how you're able to function day to day. It must be agonizing.

We beat this bill before, we can do it again. The GOP has no room for error, and the CBO score and Byrd bath are likely to devastate its chances.

And if it does pass, that's going to suck but the inevitable recession will just make it even likelier we win back Congress. Luckily we have a ready-made replacement plan raring to go.
Click to expand...
I made an acknowledgement that it's back and there's no denying it! So I'm not taking it, like, any way. Lol

Not freaking out at all, I'm out celebrating right now...
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Isn't that a backslide on opposition to interracial marriage? I thought it was actually lower than that before, but I could be wrong. Also kind of interesting that disapproval is only slightly higher for whites than nonwhites on that, would have assumed it would be a bigger disparity with #WhiteGenocide people or whatever.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
Isn't that a backslide on opposition to interracial marriage? I thought it was actually lower than that before, but I could be wrong. Also kind of interesting that disapproval is only slightly higher for whites than nonwhites on that, would have assumed it would be a bigger disparity with #WhiteGenocide people or whatever.
Click to expand...
It seems to be one of those ugly near-universal problems no matter what ethnic/racial group you're part of to some degree, unfortunately.
 
E

East Lake

Member
wutwutwut said:
If you're interested in perspective on inequality that's different from the standard "capitalists are screwing everyone else" narrative, see:

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/802.pdf

Makes the case that slowing growth, rising inequality and climate change are all linked to the lack of housing supply in our most successful cities. Basically there's a large-scale transfer of wealth happening from workers to a few lucky landowners in places like San Francisco.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that statement kind of negate itself? What I take from your statement is that if we'd had better housing policy capitalism would work, or at least function better, but why is one city successful and another isn't? They take Detroit as an example for a cheap housing city. But Detroit isn't doing well economically and people are leaving it, so Silicon Valley has something economically relevant to success and higher income external from whatever is going on with their housing situation.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
East Lake said:
Doesn't that statement kind of negate itself? What I take from your statement is that if we'd had better housing policy capitalism would work, or at least function better, but why is one city successful and another isn't? They take Detroit as an example for a cheap housing city. But Detroit isn't doing well economically and people are leaving it, so Silicon Valley has something economically relevant to success and higher income external from whatever is going on with their housing situation.
Click to expand...
Yes, why SV is doing better than Detroit economically is a separate discussion. But SV could be even more successful if local housing policy weren't such a drag on its economy. SV's wealth would be more equitably distributed if more people could move here.

Every time someone gets a higher paying job in the Bay Area but decides not to move there because of housing prices, the economy as a whole suffers and inequality rises. This hurts people everywhere on the income spectrum, but of course it hurts poorer people the most.
 
K

kirblar

Member
wutwutwut said:
Yes, why SV is doing better than Detroit economically is a separate discussion. But SV could be even more successful if local housing policy weren't such a drag on its economy. SV's wealth would be more equitably distributed if more people could move here.

Every time someone gets a higher paying job in the Bay Area but decides not to move there because of housing prices, the economy as a whole suffers. This hurts people everywhere on the income spectrum, but of course it hurts poorer people the most.
Click to expand...
Yup. Blue cities/areas fuck themselves w/ this shit.
 
M

Mr.Mike

Member
East Lake said:
Doesn't that statement kind of negate itself? What I take from your statement is that if we'd had better housing policy capitalism would work, or at least function better, but why is one city successful and another isn't? They take Detroit as an example for a cheap housing city. But Detroit isn't doing well economically and people are leaving it, so Silicon Valley has something economically relevant to success and higher income external from whatever is going on with their housing situation.
Click to expand...

The point isn't that cheaper housing is enough to have a strong economy, but that cheaper housing in places where the economy is strong would allow more people to move somewhere with better jobs.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
There's an argument that technology changes have reduced economies of agglomeration for manufacturing industries, while they remain for "idea" industries. So that would speak to why something like Detroit struggles, while a Boston continues to thrive.

This is also somewhat what Rognlie was arguing in his critique of Piketty from memory - economies of agglomeration drive up the value of land; the value of land is what is really driving the growth in capital share of income; the value of land is (also) being driven by restrictions on land use.

But then this means the favoured prescription, soak the corporates, is wrong.
It should still be soak the rich I guess, but rather the owners of land, with something like a land value tax.

Or I guess deregulate land use more.
 
O

Ogodei

Member
shinra-bansho said:
There's an argument that technology changes have reduced economies of agglomeration for manufacturing industries, while they remain for "idea" industries. So that would speak to why something like Detroit struggles, while a Boston continues to thrive.

This is also somewhat what Rognlie was arguing in his critique of Piketty from memory - economies of agglomeration drive up the value of land; the value of land is what is really driving the growth in capital share of income; the value of land is (also) being driven by restrictions on land use.

But then this means the favoured prescription, soak the corporates, is wrong.
It should still be soak the rich I guess, but rather the owners of land, with something like a land value tax.

Or I guess deregulate land use more.
Click to expand...

I figure the Piketty formula makes sense absent any particular supply-side issues. If growth is low, then wealth accumulates faster than earned wages, which don't rise quickly in a low growth environment.

Inaccessible land ownership definitely increases a wealth gap, but it's a narrower problem than that besetting the economy as a whole.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Stinkles said:
My broke Kenyan Muslim Uber driver grudgingly admitted that Trump doesn't care about the little guy but lit up with admiration and a little awe as he explained that the best antidote to a Trump presidency would be...


Trey Gowdy.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell who has the better hair in that match up...

ThinkEmoji
 
E

East Lake

Member
wutwutwut said:
Yes, why SV is doing better than Detroit economically is a separate discussion. But SV could be even more successful if local housing policy weren't such a drag on its economy. SV's wealth would be more equitably distributed if more people could move here.

Every time someone gets a higher paying job in the Bay Area but decides not to move there because of housing prices, the economy as a whole suffers and inequality rises. This hurts people everywhere on the income spectrum, but of course it hurts poorer people the most.
Click to expand...
So the argument is that businesses are actively choosing to locate themselves in places where they can't attract workers because of high cost of living, isn't that also a failure of capitalism? If you take living God Elon Musk for example, Tesla is based in Fremont, but has manufacturing in Nevada, and Buffalo. Why wouldn't businesses just relocate to cheap housing areas?
 
K

kirblar

Member
East Lake said:
So the argument is that businesses are actively choosing to locate themselves in places where they can't attract workers because of high cost of living, isn't that also a failure of capitalism? If you take living God Elon Musk for example, Tesla is based in Fremont, but has manufacturing in Nevada, and Buffalo. Why wouldn't businesses just relocate to cheap housing areas?
Click to expand...
Because those cheap housing areas don't have people, and capitalism is based at its core off of trade with other people.

Having more trading partners is good, having a larger supply of workers in your industry is good, etc.

Cities always had economic advantages over rural areas, globalization and technology have magnified them tenfold.
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
Ogodei said:
I figure the Piketty formula makes sense absent any particular supply-side issues. If growth is low, then wealth accumulates faster than earned wages, which don't rise quickly in a low growth environment.

Inaccessible land ownership definitely increases a wealth gap, but it's a narrower problem than that besetting the economy as a whole.
Click to expand...
From memory, the rise in capital share of income is basically entirely driven by land.
I.e. removing housing/land capital and account for depreciation properly, there is essentially no trend in the share of income from capital, which would probably make it a central problem rather than a narrow side problem to the concept of growing inequality.
Soak the landed gentry.
 
N

Nelo Ice

Banned
Kusagari said:
Man Gillibrand is a scarily competent politician.

That spin on PSA about her past positions on immigration was whooo boy.
Click to expand...
No kidding. That was a perfect fucking spin. Just listened to the interview today and she is insanely good. I'm gonna have a tought time deciding if she and Harris both run in 2020.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
shinra-bansho said:
From memory, the rise in capital share of income is basically entirely driven by land.
I.e. removing housing/land capital and account for depreciation properly, there is essentially no trend in the share of income from capital, which would probably make it a central problem rather than a narrow side problem to the concept of growing inequality.
Soak the landed gentry.
Click to expand...
Yep. Soak the fuck out of the landed Gentry.
 
E

East Lake

Member
kirblar said:
Because those cheap housing areas don't have people, and capitalism is based at its core off of trade with other people.

Having more trading partners is good, having a larger supply of workers in your industry is good, etc.

Cities always had economic advantages over rural areas, globalization and technology have magnified them tenfold.
Click to expand...
You're conflating low price housing with rural, but that isn't what the paper is arguing.

A conservative estimate is that more than three-quarters of home owners across a wide range of 98 metropolitan areas we analyze presently live in homes that are valued around or below minimum profitable production costs. The remainder are priced well above MPPC and are concentrated in a relatively small number of metropolitan areas situated on the east and west coasts of the country. Land is very expensive in these coastal markets, but across the bulk of the country, land is abundant and cheap.
Click to expand...
In other words housing is cheap, but not cheap in certain areas.

And it's not cheap in those areas because...

The development of inelastic supply in some of our most successful metropolitan areas is a relatively recent phenomenon. As late as the 1960s, building was lightly regulated almost everywhere. Much housing was built in all high demand areas, including coastal California and New York City. However, there has been a great transformation since the 1970s, in which property rights have essentially been reassigned from existing land owners to wider communities, which have chosen to substantially reduce the amount of new building. This change reflected the growing power of anti-growth political movements and environmentalism more generally. These groups include historic preservationists in New York City, conservationists in California, and a myriad of local and state actors concerned about the costs of new development.

The fundamental nature of building is that it creates significant concentrated benefits for the land owner who is developing and widespread small harm to almost everyone else from the inconvenience of construction and downward pressure on housing values from increased supply. In a system where democracy is limited by lobbying and corruption, the interests of developers can dominate. Conversely, if decisions are made by majority vote, development projects face a considerable disadvantage, especially since many of the potential beneficiaries of a new project may not live in the jurisdiction when the project is debated. If this view is correct, then the great transformation is unlikely to be reversed unless there are means for compensating existing residents for the downsides of development.
Click to expand...
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Hillary Clinton Explains What Happened (audio)

Hillary Clinton tells David Remnick that Russia's infiltration of the electoral process is a ”clear and present danger" that Republicans should take as seriously as Democrats do. Speaking about her new book, ”What Happened," Clinton says that the media failed voters by focussing coverage on scandals rather than policies and analyzes how sexism affected voters as they judged a woman who sought the highest office in the land.

She also expresses a wish that President Obama had acted more forcefully on what was known about Russian involvement, and she lays out a plan for how diplomatic efforts could address the North Korea nuclear crisis—if the Administration were interested in pursuing such diplomacy.
Click to expand...
Shillary shilling her new book, but the bolded sounds new.

Also, related:

If Hillary Clinton Had Won: The New Yorker Cover

HRC.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom