U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [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 02-12-2012, 12:34 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,260,244 times
Reputation: 7824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I have a question for you because it doesn't seem that you are willing to understand the point I am trying to make, you say you own an apartment building, was the neighborhood in that condition when you purchased the building or has it gotten worse in the time you have owned it?
hilltopjay, I am still curious about this question I asked you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2012, 06:51 AM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,519,513 times
Reputation: 1906
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
hilltopjay, I am still curious about this question I asked you.
Its gotten worst. When I purchased the building in '78 the majority of my tenants were either jewish or irish. None of them were on Section 8 or on the government nipple. Very family friendly environment. The 80's and early 90's is when the majority of those tenants fled from my building and neighborhood because ghetto people started to take over the neighborhood. Graffiti was everywhere, gun shot can be heard frequently and empty crack viles on the street.

I am very intense and passionate in fixing up my neighborhood where my building is located. I've done my part by not renting to ghetto people or anyone that comes across remotely ghetto or into that hood/street hip hop culture. I blacklist those losers. I rent to young professionals who make a good living and bother no one. They keep to themselves which is just what I want.

I just wish other landlords on my block were as passionate as I am in keeping the neighborhood ghetto free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,260,244 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
Its gotten worst. When I purchased the building in '78 the majority of my tenants were either jewish or irish. None of them were on Section 8 or on the government nipple. Very family friendly environment. The 80's and early 90's is when the majority of those tenants fled from my building and neighborhood because ghetto people started to take over the neighborhood. Graffiti was everywhere, gun shot can be heard frequently and empty crack viles on the street.

I am very intense and passionate in fixing up my neighborhood where my building is located. I've done my part by not renting to ghetto people or anyone that comes across remotely ghetto or into that hood/street hip hop culture. I blacklist those losers. I rent to young professionals who make a good living and bother no one. They keep to themselves which is just what I want.

I just wish other landlords on my block were as passionate as I am in keeping the neighborhood ghetto free.
Yep, it definitely sounds like you are dealing with the lasting effects Robert Moses had on the Bronx. Which sorry to hear that and I hope you are working with other owners and those within the community that care about the area and wish to see it be better.

I have always thought the Bronx should be a middle class family burrough rather than what it is today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 04:59 PM
 
460 posts, read 511,766 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So Republicans want a vague amount of government control?
Not vague. It's pretty straightforward: Is this regulation necessary to maintain fair competition and/or equal opportunity? If yes, then good - keep it. If no, then toss it. That's easy to say and hard to implement, of course, as all philosophies are. But I believe it is far more straightforward and simple than trying to determine what constitutes the "correct" amount of favoritism and welfare.

Basically, there are two major philosophies in American politics from a moral standpoint:

1) Republicans/classical liberals: Only what is needed for fair free market competition and equal opportunity, so that everyone succeeds or fails based on their own merits.

2) Democrats/progressives: Only enough so that everyone "feels" equal.

Which do you think is more finite and straightforward? Which do you think is actually possible? #1 is definable, understandable, enforceable. The problem with #2 is that "enough" keeps getting larger and larger.

One might even put it another way:

The given: government is required to keep the markets free and fair.
When there are economic problems,
-Democrats assume capitalism is fundamentally broken, or that there's some great conspiracy.
-Republicans assume the government messed up. Since mixed capitalism has proven to be the only sustainable large-scale economic system that is compatible with human rights, it would seem to me as obvious that they're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
because it seems like they are always against any form of regulation
That's probably because right now they're fighting the biggest increase in government size and reach in the history of Planet Earth, with the possible exception of the USSR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I am curious what party you do support
None. I think they all have strengths and weaknesses (mostly weaknesses). I vote based on an individual politicians merits, not which party they affiliate with.

The Republicans, for instance, tend to be more sensible on economic issues but completely stupid on social issues. There's no one-size-fits-all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:11 PM
 
460 posts, read 511,766 times
Reputation: 354
I realize I'm writing a lot but I've been thinking about this lately anyway.

Another way of looking at the Republican vs. Democrat divide is the disparity with which they each look at central planning. An excellent description of this is here: Random Observations: Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong's "Reality-Based" Economics

Republicans look to the market and away from centralized power, Democrats look to the government and towards centralized power.

"The real reason central planning fails, and failed even under Stalin, is because the central planners never have enough information."

"[Take] the complexity of, say, making a pencil. How many pencils will we need? (How is pencil demand being impacted by, say, printers or pens?) How much graphite, rubber, wood, paint, and steel will pencil production require next year? And what about paperclips?"

"In a free market, these questions are answered by price signals. If some raw material becomes rare (say, rubber) the cost of the erasers go up, and then the cost of pencils will also increase. This causes people to cut back on pencils, or gives someone else an incentive to now think about how to replace the eraser (or pencil) with something which doesn't use rubber... This level of organization is only possible when each participant is able to make an informed choice about how best to use their own resources based on the price signals being sent by the market."

"When a centralized committee takes control, these "signals" are entirely lost. Really, how will committee members actually know if people need more or fewer pencils next year? Normally, the stores or manufacturers notice scarcity almost immediately and adjust prices upward. This, in turns, creates an incentive for more pencil production. When producers are only allowed to sell for one price, this entire set of incentives and signals disappears. Pencil production quotas will remain static*, whether people need more pencils or fewer, and innovation will be stifled entirely."

"Indeed, a friend tells me, when the USSR fell and we were able to examine their government documents, we learned they did pretty much everything by copying the West. Since they had no idea how many pencils to make, they'd look at last year's US or European pencil production as a guideline. Since there was no internal source of innovation, they'd copy evolving US production techniques. In a way, you might say that Communism hung itself with a rope it had to buy from capitalism."

"(* And if they do attempt to update pencil quotas, it will be on a yearly, or 5-yearly basis -- whenever the committee can get around to arguing about the matter. And all sorts of other incentives will be in play at said meeting, besides just doing what's best. And, of course, there are THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of such products: every last gear, every type of paper, each shoestring of a given length, every fiber crop, type of manure, brick style, light bulb, ice cream flavor, floor wax type, dessert topping, food preservative, etc. Good luck centrally setting sensible production quotas on all those, and finding the most innovative way to get each sub-product to each factory which needs it.)"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,260,244 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester2138 View Post
Not vague. It's pretty straightforward: Is this regulation necessary to maintain fair competition and/or equal opportunity? If yes, then good - keep it. If no, then toss it. That's easy to say and hard to implement, of course, as all philosophies are. But I believe it is far more straightforward and simple than trying to determine what constitutes the "correct" amount of favoritism and welfare.

Basically, there are two major philosophies in American politics from a moral standpoint:

1) Republicans/classical liberals: Only what is needed for fair free market competition and equal opportunity, so that everyone succeeds or fails based on their own merits.

2) Democrats/progressives: Only enough so that everyone "feels" equal.

Which do you think is more finite and straightforward? Which do you think is actually possible? #1 is definable, understandable, enforceable. The problem with #2 is that "enough" keeps getting larger and larger.

One might even put it another way:

The given: government is required to keep the markets free and fair.
When there are economic problems,
-Democrats assume capitalism is fundamentally broken, or that there's some great conspiracy.
-Republicans assume the government messed up. Since mixed capitalism has proven to be the only sustainable large-scale economic system that is compatible with human rights, it would seem to me as obvious that they're right.
See, we are back to our vague problem, what does "fair" mean and who decides what is fair and what isn't. What one person thinks is "fair" might be seen as over reaching by the other. This is the point I am trying to address.


Quote:
That's probably because right now they're fighting the biggest increase in government size and reach in the history of Planet Earth, with the possible exception of the USSR.



None. I think they all have strengths and weaknesses (mostly weaknesses). I vote based on an individual politicians merits, not which party they affiliate with.

The Republicans, for instance, tend to be more sensible on economic issues but completely stupid on social issues. There's no one-size-fits-all.
Now you hit on a very good point, there is no one size fits all which is why we need a government founded on compromise and doing things for the good of the American people.

Now you say Republicans are fighting the biggest increase in government size, but then you ask a Republican if we should "drug test the poor" and they will say "yes." You ask them if government should tell women what they can and can't do with their own body and Republicans will say "yes." Or if you ask Republicans if gays should marry and they would say "no." None of these are surprising issues, but each one is the government expands the government and takes away more liberties from Americans, which is wrong, yet they still support government over reaching when it seems to be in their own favor, that is my problem.

I tend to vote Democrat because the moment I hear a candidate say they are against gay marriage and would do anything they can to make it illegal, that we should drug test the poor that get government assistance but not the rich who receive government subsidies or our people in congress and any elected position (which we seriously should be drug testing Congress, but we don't), or if a candidate tries to tell me that government should be able to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, then that candidate automatically loses my vote, I don't care if that person is going to give everyone that votes for them a million bucks, they simply lose my vote because those are my deal breakers, when someone is against civil liberties then they are against me.

When a Republican wants an efficient government that holds people accountable and keeps things fair (even when it means expanding the government to give proper oversight to programs instead of focusing on "less is more" or going against their "good ol' boys") and still supports civil liberties on important issues and doesn't wish to infringe on anyone's personal freedoms, then I will vote for a Republican, but at our current crop of Republicans I think I have a better chance of receiving a unicorn for a birthday present from the king of Narnia than I do seeing a Republican act like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:37 PM
 
2,503 posts, read 3,519,513 times
Reputation: 1906
The same pencil example you mention is currently happening in NYC in the form of Rent Regulation. Controlling rent prices distorts what's really going on in the housing market and gives zero incentives to build new housing to supply the demand needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,260,244 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester2138 View Post
I realize I'm writing a lot but I've been thinking about this lately anyway.

Another way of looking at the Republican vs. Democrat divide is the disparity with which they each look at central planning. An excellent description of this is here: Random Observations: Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong's "Reality-Based" Economics

Republicans look to the market and away from centralized power, Democrats look to the government and towards centralized power.

"The real reason central planning fails, and failed even under Stalin, is because the central planners never have enough information."

"[Take] the complexity of, say, making a pencil. How many pencils will we need? (How is pencil demand being impacted by, say, printers or pens?) How much graphite, rubber, wood, paint, and steel will pencil production require next year? And what about paperclips?"

"In a free market, these questions are answered by price signals. If some raw material becomes rare (say, rubber) the cost of the erasers go up, and then the cost of pencils will also increase. This causes people to cut back on pencils, or gives someone else an incentive to now think about how to replace the eraser (or pencil) with something which doesn't use rubber... This level of organization is only possible when each participant is able to make an informed choice about how best to use their own resources based on the price signals being sent by the market."

"When a centralized committee takes control, these "signals" are entirely lost. Really, how will committee members actually know if people need more or fewer pencils next year? Normally, the stores or manufacturers notice scarcity almost immediately and adjust prices upward. This, in turns, creates an incentive for more pencil production. When producers are only allowed to sell for one price, this entire set of incentives and signals disappears. Pencil production quotas will remain static*, whether people need more pencils or fewer, and innovation will be stifled entirely."

"Indeed, a friend tells me, when the USSR fell and we were able to examine their government documents, we learned they did pretty much everything by copying the West. Since they had no idea how many pencils to make, they'd look at last year's US or European pencil production as a guideline. Since there was no internal source of innovation, they'd copy evolving US production techniques. In a way, you might say that Communism hung itself with a rope it had to buy from capitalism."

"(* And if they do attempt to update pencil quotas, it will be on a yearly, or 5-yearly basis -- whenever the committee can get around to arguing about the matter. And all sorts of other incentives will be in play at said meeting, besides just doing what's best. And, of course, there are THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of such products: every last gear, every type of paper, each shoestring of a given length, every fiber crop, type of manure, brick style, light bulb, ice cream flavor, floor wax type, dessert topping, food preservative, etc. Good luck centrally setting sensible production quotas on all those, and finding the most innovative way to get each sub-product to each factory which needs it.)"
So is this a blanket statement or a "government should not be in the business of producing goods?"

I agree, business should be left to the free market, but I personally think it should be left to the "fair" market. Information should never be private or kept behind closed doors, it should be information available to all so that everyone has a fair shot at making a product, not just the good ol' boys who figure out how to make more money for them and their billionaire friends.

But in the end I want government to be efficient, the free market could not handle paving roads, we look to our government for that because if we didn't how would our roads get paved cause I am not gonna pay for the ones I don't use, but I will let the government tax me to pay for the upkeep of all roads. This is where the private sector fails.

So we cannot look at all issues as if they are the same and that their is only one correct answer, if that was true someone would of published a book years ago on how to properly run a government for dummies and we would all be following it, but there isn't and we don't.


So yes, I agree with you, a centralized government is not always the best solution, but some times it is, and it is our job as a country to pick and choose what format is right for use for each thing, therefore allowing us to have a more efficient government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,054 posts, read 28,260,244 times
Reputation: 7824
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilltopjay View Post
The same pencil example you mention is currently happening in NYC in the form of Rent Regulation. Controlling rent prices distorts what's really going on in the housing market and gives zero incentives to build new housing to supply the demand needed.
By the way, we get it, you want to raise your rents in your building to get the most out of your tenants and rent controls and regulations prevent that.

Which another building question for you, when you bought the building in '78, were their rent regulations with your tenants then or was it later applied to your building? Obviously I am not a building owner in NYC and I am still learning more of the history of rent regulations in NYC because like NYC itself, this topic too is a very history rich topic.

Also, do you know what caused the city to begin rent regulations?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2012, 10:07 PM
 
460 posts, read 511,766 times
Reputation: 354
In about ten minutes I typed an essay so no hard feelings if you don't feel like reading all of this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
See, we are back to our vague problem, what does "fair" mean and who decides what is fair and what isn't. What one person thinks is "fair" might be seen as over reaching by the other. This is the point I am trying to address.
There will always be some question as to what exactly is ideal, in a very fine sense. But I'm talking about larger philosophical differences – large enough that there is little question. For instance, should government invest heavily in green energy or not? Tax the oil industry more than others or not? Micro-manage financial and housing markets or not? Should government be telling investors who to invest in, or who to provide loans to?

I'm not talking about relatively small differences between 10% tax rates and 15 % tax rates or how much we tax the rich. I'm talking about our basic approach to government. Between 1996 and 2016, our population will have grown by 25% but our spending will have grown by 280%. There is obviously a drastic growth of government happening – a new approach to it that increases its reach into everyone's lives. Is that right? Is that morally required in a democracy? That is the huge difference I'm talking about.

Government Spending Chart: United States 1996-2016 - Federal State Local Data

Finally, I'm talking about math. It's physically impossible for the government to run $1 trillion + budgets every single year without horribly crashing at some point. But that's what we're doing under Obama. It's simply unsustainable. But the left is treating it like it's some moral imperative, that we have to spend it in order to be fair to everyone. But the numbers don't add up.

Let me ask you: do you believe we're spending too much or too little on welfare? Of course, that's academic because the math doesn't care what you think. We are spending too much. We will have to cut back eventually, and the sooner the better. Really, morality is not an issue because there isn't enough money for us all to have as much as we want. There simply isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Now you say Republicans are fighting the biggest increase in government size, but then you ask a Republican if we should "drug test the poor" and they will say "yes." You ask them if government should tell women what they can and can't do with their own body and Republicans will say "yes." Or if you ask Republicans if gays should marry and they would say "no."
But these are all relatively small social issues. We're talking about trillions of dollars and the fiscal future of our nation and you bring up drug testing and marriage? Now, I mostly agree with you on how Republicans are foolish in this area. But I don't think we can afford to vote based on social issues right now – not with the future existence of our country quite literally at stake.

If you want to sacrifice our existence for the sake of feeling good about having supported gay marriage, fine. But I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
[out of] our current crop of Republicans I think I have a better chance of receiving a unicorn for a birthday present from the king of Narnia than I do seeing a Republican act like this.
Who do you support, by the way: Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? Or one of the others, I suppose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So is this a blanket statement or a "government should not be in the business of producing goods?"
Government should not be in the business of controlling the production of goods and services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Information should never be private or kept behind closed doors, it should be information available to all so that everyone has a fair shot at making a product, not just the good ol' boys who figure out how to make more money for them and their billionaire friends.
Well this is a discussion of patent and copyright law. Are you suggesting that we do away with such things?

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
the free market could not handle paving roads, we look to our government for that because if we didn't how would our roads get paved
Actually the free market does pave the roads - but the government pays it to do it so you're partly right. Like I said before, I'm not interested in pure capitalism. Some government is necessary. Some. But I've gone into that at length above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So we cannot look at all issues as if they are the same and that their is only one correct answer, if that was true someone would of published a book years ago on how to properly run a government for dummies and we would all be following it, but there isn't and we don't.
It's called the Constitution and we were great until the left started calling it irrelevant in this day and age (I'm only half-serious, I agree that it's not as easy as we like to pretend).

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So yes, I agree with you, a centralized government is not always the best solution, but sometimes it is
I don't think a centralized government is ever the best solution. Empowering citizens is always better than empowering bureaucrats. Centralized government is a necessary evil.

By the way, I appreciate the sane discussion we're having. There are many on this forum who couldn't stand to talk to someone who disagrees with them – at least not without resorting to constant personal insults - so thank you for that.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

İ 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