U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-11-2018, 02:35 PM
 
1,802 posts, read 419,615 times
Reputation: 2059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
There's a Thomas Perry novel where the thieves are trying to get away from the crime scene and the protagonist turns from one street to a lesser one several times. "I see the plan now," his partner says, "You're going to keep turning onto smaller and smaller roads until we disappear."

It will not be possible to avoid the coming crises by hiding out in more and more exclusive enclaves - not for any measurable percentage of the population, and not indefinitely.
Great analogy. Love it!

There are a few more states in the Southeast I'd like to live, just for the experience, before I settle down in my future lake home on the GA side of Lake Hartwell

If my career path supports my moves, great. If not, I'll break up my vacation time into several 3-4 day weekends to get me through the year
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2018, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,963 posts, read 1,305,220 times
Reputation: 5382
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
But then we have a self-propitiating conundrum… a provocation, inaccessible to solution.

This is, if memory serves, 2018. We have blogs, you-tube, etc. If you have an argument that’s too abstruse or detailed for a mere discussion-forum, you can write an essay and post it online. Or give a lecture online. Then post the link here.

Economics CAN be a science, when its questions are posed scientifically. “Why does capitalism suck” is not a scientific question. “How does the tax-deductibility of mortgage interest affect the housing-decisions of first-time buyers”, can be a scientific question (if a hard one to address).

All of science is conditional and subject to potentially being falsified… even physics. All of science is rife with error-bars, as a documentation (itself imprecise!) of uncertainty. In some cases, those error-bars are small; in others, spectacularly otherwise. Those branches of science dealing with humans and human behavior, will have more uncertainty than the “hard” sciences. Explanations will be more situational, less quantitative and less likely to offer predictive veracity. Equations can be derived and solved, but the applicability of those equations to real life, or for that matter knowledge of the boundary-conditions, are both tenuous and fraught.

Nevertheless, even an untutored and biased observation can eventually reveal patterns – if the underlying material is repeatable. And human nature is quite repeatable. Economics gives neither scientific derivation of the proper way of organizing ourselves, nor a good prediction of where the stock market will go in 20 years, nor how governments should (or should not) subsidize healthcare. But it’s not entirely useless, or bunk, or just a masturbatory exercise of publishing papers and getting tenure.



The premises may be faulty, but the logic itself is indeed impeccable. Now if you'll please excuse me, while I go grimace, pound my chest and challenge a higher-ranking male for his females.



However clever or elegant your initial observations, your thesis has degenerated to spouting insults. Not all of us are particularly intelligent, eloquent, open-minded or unbiased. I’m as guilty as any. But if you wish to air your ideas, rather than merely to tease and provoke, you ought at least to give notional outline of what you mean. Yes, economics is squishy, malleable and subjective. Let’s stipulate that. What’s next?

Science – hard or soft – requires courage…. The courage to face crowing, shrill adversaries… the courage to expose one’s ideas to potential ridicule… the courage to perhaps oneself be proven wrong. If you have a particularly prescient illumination of the truth, which to all “conventional” economists etc. is obscure, then it would be craven and sinister to keep it hidden.

Bravo! Bravo!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,963 posts, read 1,305,220 times
Reputation: 5382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
I know, and it's my fault. It's why I almost always regret letting these discussions go past a few comments in a more general sense.

I've been online since there was an online - FIDOnet, anyone? - in every format except some of the new, frothier ones where the number of silly face filters is the driving purpose. In those 30+ years I've learned to keep my personae carefully firewalled; when the first round of Growed Up Adults were having career trouble because of their drunken party posts on MySpace, I could only smirk a bit.

C-D is my hangout place where I don't much worry about what I say or to whom; I don't necessarily care to duel to the death over every barb or off-color joke. I don't want to cross the wires between these ~4000 posts of wit, wisdom and nonsense, and my three or four serious endeavors. One of which is analytical consumer economics, which is based on about a decade of some very contrarian views of how economics actually works as a socioeconomic system, for individual consumers and families.

So we can discuss this with my socky-puppet Q standing in for reality, and I'll do my best to live up to the demands of the discussion... or we can drop it and go back to arguing how F-150s rule the earth and bottled water is a gift from the gods.

* * *


Only in the same way meteorology can: When a massively chaotic system can be understood well enough write genuine laws of behavior. Meteorology as a predictive and analytical science is still wobbling around on pipecleaner legs; even unimaginable processing power can only handle feeble models of real weather, and under very limited conditions. The only reason meteorology has evolved at all since about the 1960s is satellite imagery - which is cheating; you don't have to develop accurate laws and models if you can literally just look out the window. There certainly is a determined core of meteorology working towards that solid grasp of these systems, but overall the field has been deflected because it can deliver what 99% of the audience wants, highly accurate weather forecasts. "Highly accurate"... but not perfect, even with those eyes in the sky.

Economics is even further back on the curve, because it has those fraggin' people in the mix, you know. It can simulate science and accuracy as long as nothing strays too far from the modeling. One chaotic pebble, and the theories turn to something between jello and garbage. It's those damned people - which is why econ bears a stronger resemblance to behavioral psych than any other field, aside from the dry mechanics of accounting.


I wouldn't disagree. However, I'm completely uninterested in either question - one is just online/barroom provo, and the other is at a mundane level of economic exchange. Neither defines the system nor has much to do with serious economic theory - how would your second question, for example, play out in 1958 Poland, 1975 China or even most of the modern era in Norway? It's a pocket, subsidiary question that defines nothing in the greater system. (Fascinating to mortgage banks and home buyers, though.)


Yes, and just to bypass a long and fairly irrelevant side argument, note that I'm a fan of Asimov's "The relativity of wrong." It's an essay in which he pointed out that describing Earth as a sphere is a far smaller error than saying it's a plane, and that in the genuine sciences, error and misunderstanding tends to be at the outer edges of understanding, not in the validated core laws and facts.

Econ simply doesn't qualify except in that each body of theories tends to hold and be workable tools until, well, the next crisis they fail to address, followed by a new body of theories - repeat. That's not a science; that's steering a car careening down an endless rocky hillside. Every smooth stretch convinces the driver he's got it this time, and then it's OH SH*T! time again. (And a few more Nobels are handed out.)

All of this is an aside to the basic idea, which is simply this: If you cannot let go of current economic theory and can only interpret a new idea in terms of that framework, there's really no point in going any further in this discussion. The vast amount of economic discussion, at all levels, is of how we can make minor changes to our current system and achieve nirvana. (We can't. It's like diet books that promise you can lay on the couch, eat chocolate, lose weight and make a fortune doing so, only it's a promise that This Secret Trick will create a jobs boom, stock market rise, corporate profit increase, tax cut and consumer spending jump all in one go.)

This would all be wonderfully theoretical, suitable for endless debate in a nice club or faculty lounge somewhere, were we not facing a couple of crises of multi-national and global scale like absolutely nothing civilization has seen before. We are far past any point where a theory of the past, or some successful experiment from the 1950s, or an idea that's worked on smaller-scale crises can be somehow blown up to address these problems. We need... well, we need a lot of things, but it's not too pompous to say that at the bottom of all of it, we need a national, international and global economic system that actually addresses these problems, instead of trying to cube it up and fit it in existing pinholes.

I'm perhaps a bit too fond of analogies, but I started lo these many years ago as a writer; sue me. Consider that in 1939, Poland had what may have been the finest cavalry to ever exist on Earth, at least in modern times. Germany, using tactics, techniques and theory radically different from almost everything that had come before, turned it into dog food in about two weeks.

We may have a damned fine cavalry in our economic assumptions and practitioners, but the coming triad of problems won't even bother using them for pup chow. And my great fear is that we're going to cling to this pompous, outdated, self-important, misrepresented non-science until the only "economics" needed is "How many rocks for that crock of water?" (Answer: "Lots.")

* * *

Okay, so the last exit's coming up here, and we can go talk about how Jeeps are the pinnacle of automotive evolution and gas will be cheap forever, or you can chaw on this:

1) We will spend at least the next century coping with climate change, and we haven't even begun to feel the political, economic and everyday impact of this disaster. Our feeble school of economics, for all the changes it's adapted to, makes certain almost-unstated assumptions about world conditions - that it's more or less a steady-state situation, with X amount of wealth around and X amount of resources, and the game is just to figure out where those X's are going to go. Devise a socioeconomic system that accommodates reality and guides us to 'best choices' etc. when that assumed baseline is kicked to Mars. (No amount of tinkering with corporate tax levels and tariffs and fiat money is going to do it.)

(Oh, interjection I didn't get in above: I don't believe socio/political systems and economics systems can be differentiated outside of a classroom. So solutions have to consider the societal issues in lockstep with the pure economic ones, and keep a sharp eye on those damned politicians while you do it.)

2) Global and national populations are reaching completely unprecedented levels, and any system has to accommodate this reality. That econ theories and practice have tended to scale to a certain point is irrelevant; the signs are clear that we are reaching a cusp in the matter - that point where a certain overpopulation of grassyhoppers suddenly turn into bigger, stronger, more voracious forms and lay waste to an ecosystem; where a certain overcrowding of rats starts battling and eating each other; where a crowd of dimwittus consumerus starts crushing itself because there might not be a Black Friday TV for all of them. We are reaching a crowding and resource-demand level where tinkering with production levels and tariffs won't keep things in balance any longer. Devise a socioeconomic solution that acknowledges and manages this fact instead of treating it as a localized, temporary problem.

3) An entire field of mechanization, automation, robotics and AI has progressively reduced the need for human labor, across the spectrum of jobs. The first inroads into automation of intelligence jobs are already being made; huge tiers of basic desk jobs are about to disappear. It is already clear that there are not "jobs for everyone who wants one," even with the extreme assumptions of "any job for any worker" and any degree of relocation or adaptation. This is the tip of the iceberg. No amount of "job creation" or industry subsidies will fix the problem this time. Devise a socioeconomic system that takes as a baseline assumption that a great majority of people cannot - not "will not" - cannot work to support themselves.

Ready for the punchline?

I believe there is a bright future for individuals, families and the species as a whole if we understand these problems (and their many kittens) and adapt our social, economic and political systems to address this reality instead of burying our heads in the sandbox of Smith, Veblen and Bernanke. But it all hinges on an economic system that fully embraces these changes and takes the lot of the individual as the primary goal.

Otherwise... It'll be 65 of the shiny red rocks for this can of water, bud.
Actually, this is good too. Getting popcorn. This should be good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,367 posts, read 13,466,837 times
Reputation: 14309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Yep, yep, yep - Econ/Biz/BizEthics 101, right out of the package. Well, maybe 102, where the tips of the fangs are allowed to show to the already indoctrinated. A business's concern for its customer ends with their ability to pay. Got it.
Totally non-responsive, as is par for the course with you.

"Hyper-Capitalism" is the shrill cry of Socialists and Communists, who think they know better.

You're just chaffing at the fact that this is another example demonstrating that Capitalist Property Theory paired with the Free Market Economic System is superior to all others.

Individuals who own Capital are more responsive to the needs of the Market, and a Market exists whenever any class of consumer (government, businesses, households or individuals) generates Demand.

Apparently, there are people with 45 minutes of free-time. It's not up to you to decide how those people should use that 45 minutes of free-time. You are not the arbiter.

If those people want to spend that 45 minutes napping in a safe quiet place that is conveniently located, then that is exactly what they should do.

If someone who owns or controls Capital wants to create a space for such people, and such people are willing to voluntarily enter into a consumer transaction to use that space, then that is what should happen.

The fact that you don't personally benefit from said voluntary consumer transaction is not a reason for you scream "Hyper-Capitalism." There are Millions of voluntary consumer transactions everyday from which you derive no personal benefit, but you're not screaming shrilly about those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 07:26 PM
 
1,802 posts, read 419,615 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Totally non-responsive, as is par for the course with you.

"Hyper-Capitalism" is the shrill cry of Socialists and Communists, who think they know better.

You're just chaffing at the fact that this is another example demonstrating that Capitalist Property Theory paired with the Free Market Economic System is superior to all others.

Individuals who own Capital are more responsive to the needs of the Market, and a Market exists whenever any class of consumer (government, businesses, households or individuals) generates Demand.

Apparently, there are people with 45 minutes of free-time. It's not up to you to decide how those people should use that 45 minutes of free-time. You are not the arbiter.

If those people want to spend that 45 minutes napping in a safe quiet place that is conveniently located, then that is exactly what they should do.

If someone who owns or controls Capital wants to create a space for such people, and such people are willing to voluntarily enter into a consumer transaction to use that space, then that is what should happen.

The fact that you don't personally benefit from said voluntary consumer transaction is not a reason for you scream "Hyper-Capitalism." There are Millions of voluntary consumer transactions everyday from which you derive no personal benefit, but you're not screaming shrilly about those.
Capitalism also allows for me to write an article on underemployment, and the fact that there are people who have nothing better to do than sleep for 45 minutes in the middle of the day. Then, I'll sell you a self-help product that teaches you marketable skills in just 45 minutes a day...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,963 posts, read 1,305,220 times
Reputation: 5382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Look for such bars, "clear rooms," very fashionable brands of oxy-breathers that fit in a... what's that super-expensive peasanty handbag? and filtration masks all to become part of the landscape in the burn zones. Now that's capitalism... feeding on itself.
Sigh...capitalism failed. The masks were all sold out in the region by the time I went to look for them. True mega capitalists would have jacked up the prices so only the richest could buy them.

I'm not sure which handbag you're talking about. My wife used to like Louis Vuitton, but they've gotten rather...off in recent years. Currently she likes Chanel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Against what? Certain kinds of product-based injury and fraud? Do you see that as adequate, or is it a bit like Ford guaranteeing to replace the paint on your Taurus after faulty engineering causes a serious accident?
Well, my roommate a few years back used to talk about a cheaply made bicycle people would buy in China, where she was from. The materials were so shoddy that there was a tendency for the handlebars to break off, snapping forward. The rider falls forward and there were several deaths.

Anything medical must be approved by the FDA, and subsequent changes must be approved by the FDA. Meat is inspected. Electronics generally need to be UL certified or face every local municipal zoning ordinance in the country. Permitted construction is inspected. Implied warranty carries rights even if attorneys are too expensive to allow them to be enforced most of the time.

The reality is that, if you're going to sell in America, your product has to be safe, and you should expect to be reviewed both scientifically (Consumers Digest) and anecdotally (Yelp) if your company is to achieve any meaningful size.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Ah. Praise be. So Godzilla craps rubies and Mothra craps diamonds as they level the city. Win!
More like Wikipedia has a free encyclopedia. Google will let you search for information on anything. Various distribution channels need to invest in getting product knowledge accessible. Even crappy furniture sets may feature a redo of instructions from an individual that thought it may be helpful on YouTube. I'm paying 8x for a cup of coffee now, but it does taste better and I can get free wifi with it.

The things getting leveled were the scams and rip-offs that are coming to light more and more quickly. There's no way Trump would be in trouble in the 60s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
True, but does that justify a system that wrongs us in the deepest possible ways, on a mass basis, at every major juncture in our lives? I don't think you can be quite that casual about the bigger problem and simply equate it to getting bumped in the subway.


In complete seriousness, you seem to have a better grasp of the discussion, but keep retreating to a very conventional, very limited notion of economic practice and benefit. So in your view, the choices are... what we have, or some vaguely imagined socialist-communist antimaterialist commune? Did you happen to notice that I am not anti-capitalist and in fact said it's the only economic system that works?

Thank you, and I do enjoy writing with you even if we spar from time to time. However if we look at the anecdote in a basic level, I think we can agree it applies to most.

I'm not starving. I'm not getting shot at. I'm not in constant risk of criminal activity. I have a network of roads that I can use for free or low cost. I can love any gender or race I prefer. I can go to any place of worship I prefer. My property has well defined legal protections. My vote counts in determining leadership. I can leave my job or take another as I please. I have (an admittedly weak) social net to protect me if something happens, and it gets much stronger in my old age. My taxes are paid via a system of laws that I'm allowed to self-administrate for the largest portion. I have a balanced system of credit that works for me, despite being an outsider. I wasn't born wealthy, but was able to become wealthy.

I think people look at another areas success in one region and become drawn to it because they forget how much we have that others lack.

The reality is that, at least for me, those times of unfairness are bad and it's easy to focus on the wrong that was done to you. Still, when you realize you're not going to win that fight, even if you're in the right, you learn to position yourself better. How do I avoid that from happening again. An old phrase from back home was....nobody wrestles with a pig and doesn't get dirty....or something like that.

When I was young, I was left of center. There were so many unfair things I had to put up with and overcome that I thought would be so much easier if the government would simply regulate it. The one that confounded me the most was why college was so expensive. I looked at statistics and saw that a college grad made much more than a diploma holder only. It seemed obvious then that the government would have a great return on their investment by making it free... Those early days were tight, and hard sometimes...but I would have missed those lessons, or worse, learned them later on a much greater scale. On my first day as a true professional at a firm, I was on work experience year 8, my cube mate was on Day 1. We both had the same job. She was struck by how unfair things were, I was amazed at how much better they were. Her parents bought her a new sportscar that she parked in a garage to her condo and had a monthly pass to the building. She didn't have a cent of debt. I drove an old Escort with 200000 miles on it on the street outside of my SRO and meticulously budgeted each paycheck while I took the subway.

To get to that same point job wise, the two of us had an unequal amount of work to do. However, the law treated us equally. We were both able to get there. That's what is most important. More centrally controlled economies tend to prejudge much earlier.

That path I took...is gone. Nobody hires 14 year olds anymore, much less 12 year olds. Mother would probably be called in for letting me run all over town collecting cans when I was even younger. Some of those jobs...we probably really don't want anymore. It would have been so easy to get stuck in some of the wrongs there. But there are ways now that I didn't have. (Ebay, YouTube etc) If you were born on the wrong side of the tracks, the best thing to do is not deceive the young and say they're fighting for the calvary to come. It's not coming. You're not going to get the perfect setup. You can still do it though...and you won't change capitalism, but capitalism allows you to change what you do, and that's important. Actually, it's vital.

You'll waste a lot of time trying to clean the pig sty and teach the bad pigs to behave better. No doctrine or creed to apply to all is going to change that. People individually need to find their own path and go forward. Capitalism is honestly the poor man's best friend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 06:22 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
27,048 posts, read 58,735,268 times
Reputation: 29663
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
Capitalism is honestly the poor man's best friend.
So long as he has a functional civil/criminal law system.


Less than 10 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-da3CFh5g


About an hour:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nco18FWM85E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 09:43 AM
 
799 posts, read 521,967 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
It's just simplistic and canned, like most 101 classes. The problem is that most people evolve past English 101, and some even learn beyond History 101, but far too many people take the simplistic, tinker-toy, joy-joy nonsense of Econ 101 as gospel and spend the rest of their lives - even as money people of one sort or another - fitting the socioeconomic reality in front of them into those Duplo-block pigeonholes. That it's an arbitrary structure and that there are complete alternatives is... worse than blasphemy to them, it's gibbering nonsense.
Consumer-driven economics did work, maybe not in every market and not everywhere, but it existed. It lead to businesses attracting and retaining customers based on superior services or higher quality products. Those businesses which kept those standards developed a reputation upon which their businesss thrived. As noted, at one time shopping was a pleasurable experience, and one paid not just for the article of clothing but for the entire customer service experience. And prior to more recent degradation in business practices, many brands from automakers to clothing manufacturers built their businesses around their previously highly-regarded reputations. The question is why such businesses would trash those well-earned reputations by succumbing to unethical or shady practices - for what more money? Greed may be good, but excess greed is destructive.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Props for thinking about it (at all, and with some insight) - but I disagree with your continuation. Most notions of trickle-down in an economic system are feel-good nonsense from a Have viewpoint, wishful thinking from an indoctrinated viewpoint (see: those Econ 101 tinkertoys)... and boil down to the cynical, hardcore reality that you have to let the slaves have at least some food to keep them working. At most, whatever trickles down from the top tier of an economy (and isn't biological waste) is mere pump-priming to keep consumers earning and spending.
The current state of gross wealth inequality has never really gone away, and in this cycle (last 100 years or so) was the inevitable result of what we can now nail down as hypercapitalism.
Trickle-down economics works, I can see it with my own eyes, here and abroad. I may not agree with how it's being done, but if we are to go by certain metrics, then it works. But not for everybody. The problem is that we as a society need more than trickle-down. We really need multiple cascades. We need a society of more producers (and not of services) and less consumers.

I see many business opportunities for those folks who can offer solutions to some of the problems currently vexing our society and the world - everything from environmental issues to consumer products. It is a matter of time and political will.

Last edited by mingna; 12-12-2018 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 09:56 AM
 
799 posts, read 521,967 times
Reputation: 1239
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
Props to your selective memory business. I'm sure you can capitalize on that - so many people have lasting memories that bother them and inhibit their enjoyment in life.
Why, thank you. And since everyone would be none the wiser, they will keep repeating the same mistakes again and again, a la Groundhog Day, so we will have a guaranteed self-perpetuating business model.








Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
The problem people have with "Econ 101" is when supply is artificially low, whether through controlled distribution or dishonesty/bluffing. People bid up the price on things like homes trying to live within city limits or certain developments. It devalues your own dollar worse than any inflation has in the past 50 years. The "Free Market" can put your dream home out of reach in as little as 1 year.

If the majority of people begin maxing out Debt-To-Income and Loan-To-Value ratios of their mortgages to get in the highest bid on a home, people trying to be smart with their money and maintain a budget will be left with options that are not very appealing:

1. Keep renting, keep saving (while the prices go up faster than you can save, or you're waiting until the next bust which may not be for another 10 years)
2. Overextend yourself or take the max mortgage available (better hope you have 0 credit card debt and no auto loans)
3. Buy a home smaller than what you need or 1 hour + out from your job to fit the price you planned on

Tech workers, attorneys, consultants, and other professionals whose jobs are concentrated in city centers face this battle in nearly every major city. Since dual-income is now the norm, it's no longer an advantage. Single-income is the disadvantage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separated from the main text, this is definitely going on a tangent, but I see the sharing economy (specifically Airbnb) ruining residential areas with limited parking when homeowners rent out one or two rooms to keep up with bills. Uber drivers clog access roads in front of event centers even with a momentary stop to let their passenger out.

To keep my sanity, I see myself hopping down to smaller cities if my current one gets "too big for it's breeches"
The problem with housing is that what was once a localized commodity, previously viewed primarily as a place in which to live, has now become a globalized commodity, viewed as short-term and long-term investment vehicles in which make money. Complicated by local regulatory laws, clustering of employment centers, and geographical restrictions. Hypercapitalism?

Last edited by mingna; 12-12-2018 at 10:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,963 posts, read 1,305,220 times
Reputation: 5382
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
So long as he has a functional civil/criminal law system.
Which is why I wrote the following above in that our government has done well:

"I'm not starving. I'm not getting shot at. I'm not in constant risk of criminal activity. I have a network of roads that I can use for free or low cost. I can love any gender or race I prefer. I can go to any place of worship I prefer. My property has well defined legal protections. My vote counts in determining leadership. I can leave my job or take another as I please. I have (an admittedly weak) social net to protect me if something happens, and it gets much stronger in my old age. My taxes are paid via a system of laws that I'm allowed to self-administrate for the largest portion. I have a balanced system of credit that works for me, despite being an outsider. I wasn't born wealthy, but was able to become wealthy."

That platform is important. If a government can regulate so these things exist, it's really done its job.

The temptation from time to time is to try and reduce a bedrock fundamental piece of America's structure because something doesn't seem right. In economics, the issue is with property rights.

I agree with the first article's premise (watched most) in that property rights are very important for capital formation and law and order. More recently than the video I have been looking in Africa. The lack of property rights does a few things:

1. A farmer whose family has farmed land for years but has no property cannot use their property as collateral to get a loan for seed, fertilizer and improvements.

The need for this annual cycle for agriculture is well known. Arguably its development is what lead the city states of Ur with its prototype bank system. Babylon, the NYC/London financial hub of its day has the best documented model, but every rising civilizations since then has done so, in part, with commercial credit availability for farmers. Food, it seems, is helpful for development.

2. Land disputes with neighbors cannot be solved....amicably.

For as long as there's been farms, there's been land disputes. And if my family is bigger and more connected then yours....and nothing is documented...maybe those last 3 rows are now mine. Or maybe 6. Or maybe i just kill you and your family and take it all.

3. Commercially viable scale cannot be reached.

Some of these places have "farms" the size of really big gardens. Rather than keeping everyone in hand tools and subsistence living, the better farmer should start accumulating land from the others, so they can take a job in another trade. That farmer can then use better tools to cover the additional land. However, with no title, nobody can buy each other out. I wouldn't buy my neighbor's home without title. Besides, I can't get collateral without title either.

4. The government has little interest in changing this.

So long as all of the land is undocumented, it can be much easier for, say Ethiopia's recent move, to go and evict a bunch of "illegal tenants" and then sell land rights to China. There's no reason an Ethiopian farmer couldn't have done the same thing with scale, but without property rights, there's no ability to do so.

Hence my constant attack on socialism and/or infringement upon property rights. Socialism is what happens when people have rights, but then are forced to surrender them to the government....for the good of the people. It's a giant step backwards.

It also never addresses the pride of ownership. I never fixed a single thing when I was a renter in my places. Why would I, it's not mine. Beyond that...who cares if I put grease down the drain. I'm not going to be there in a year. As an owner, I want to build up my place. Make it nice. Take care of what's there.

When you make everyone renters...nothing gets done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top