|
Peven Stan posted:Lisbon's rent control is pretty awesome and long time residents pay like 30 euros a month for rent in a hot area. It also gives the city a distressed and authentically shabby look. A win-win in my book. Rent controls aren't an economic policy but a political one designed to reward incumbent renters at the expense of new residents coming in. I am very doubtful about legislating to help fix people geographically in place, if that is the effect. That seems like the recipe for economic death spirals where people are in locations where there aren't any jobs or investment, but can't leave because they risk losing their rent benefits. I am not in principle opposed to the idea of rent control, but I think it is also foolish to reject the reservations of the vast majority of economists as 'neoliberal bias'. I suspect it is much more effective for the state to just build houses than futz around with price controls.
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Fortunately for politicians (and unfortunate for the aspergers ridden economics discipline) rent is only one factor in why people move to or away from a particular city. Almost like real life is not full of frictionless surfaces???? .... Is it truly necessary to look at things in black and white terms? I am not in fact saying that it is impossible for people to leave. I am however saying that the idea has a negative consequence in that it makes it more difficult for poor people to move in search of work and opportunities, and that I find it difficult to see why societies should favour people who don't travel over people who do. Thanks for the strawman and autism shaming?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Lmao if you think the only thing holding back the working poor in Detroit or East St. Louis is because they're staying due to rent controls. Man you people have to have brain damage or something. Lisbon, NYC, SF are all places where the jobs go, not the other way around. I already told you this is a strawman. Freaking hell. Rent control does not have to be the 'only thing holding back the working poor' to make legislation that promotes staying in the same geographic location a bad thing that exacerbates inequality. Reducing the financial costs of moving around is something that in general softens one of the main advantages that the rich have over the poor. Jobs go to these places, then jobs leave those places - thus we need to help poor people to follow around changes in the job market. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:If you're going to quote polls of mainstream economists, let's find out what other opinions are popular: 1. That is because the question is proposing a tax cut *without* a spending cut. A tax cut is a direct, albeit inefficient, stimulus measure. The core point is that economists agree, because economists think increasing the deficit is not as bad as the media think, and while a tax cut fueled boom might lead to a bust down the line, it would not be within 5 years, probably. I will note that NOT A SINGLE economist agreed with part B of the question - the Laffer curve argument that lower taxes increases government revenue. 2. I don't know enough about the US public schools system to comment. It might well be the case that the current system is sufficiently broken that vouchers would be am improvement in the short term. 3. Economists think price controls are dumb, news at 11. Especially during a severe weather emergency where you are not going to be able to spare law enforcement to police people for selling their flatscreen tvs too expensively. Despite your cherry picking, these opinions seem pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Indeed, let's look at some other points, shall we? I've already pointed out that your own link shows that 0% of economists agree with the Laffer curve idea of lower taxes = more revenue, while 71% disagree. Do mainstream economics, those doyens of neoliberal bias, in fact think the minimum wage kills economies? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV quote:Question B: What about government spending, what do they think? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9yTmaqlHpp1JzH7 quote:Question A: Because the US has underspent on new projects, maintenance, or both, the federal government has an opportunity to increase average incomes by spending more on roads, railways, bridges and airports. (The experts panel previously voted on this question on May 23, 2013. Those earlier results can be found here.) What about discrimination against minorities? http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_ahhcfL33JZHnCqV quote:Question A: Employers that discriminate in hiring will be at a competitive disadvantage, if their customers do not care about their mix of employees, compared with firms that do not discriminate. In the past years, after from a few pet economists of the right, mainstream economic opinion has been overwhelming in support of the left's positions. Why are we allowing anti-intellectualism to stop us from leveraging this? Why are we playing the right wing's game, by pretending its all about ideology, when actually people doing research say the facts are in general on our side?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
So your proposal is to use mass eminent domain to seize properties, apparently arbitrarily, in city centres. I'm sure this would work out well......
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 09:53
|
|