|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yikes. And after 2008, I don't know how seriously you should take the neoclassical synthesis Econ 101 textbooks which often treat the Laffer Curve as something other than a joke, argue that minimum wages and unions kill economies, and promote trickle-down garbage that has been thoroughly discredited. Neoclassical synthesis Econ 101 textbooks were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
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???? For sure rent is just one factor among many in where people decide to live. It's like one of the top 1-3 reasons for most people though, and if getting an equivalent housing somewhere else is going to cost $1000/month more than where I'm living now because I won the vaginal lottery on where I was born I might just decide to stay in the same place forever. Typo fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:If you're going to quote polls of mainstream economists, let's find out what other opinions are popular: It's stuff like this why it's so difficult to take D&D leftists seriously. People in this very thread have cited plenty of reasons other than "economists say so" in arguing against rent control, and they are good and valid reasons, and yet the pro-rent control side seems to be spouting "well mainstream economists agree with this so it must be wrong because 2008" line of argument. The only conclusion you can really make is that rent control sounds ideological appealing to you and you don't care about practicalities because socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I'm actually not arguing for rent control right now, just against some bad arguments in opposition to it. The record of what happens when you remove rent controls is pretty mixed, as you can see in Boston 1993-present: higher rents for low wage people, more homelessness, increased construction of complexes (but many for high-end renters), and better maintenance, showing that both sides have a point. People have made good arguments against rent control in this thread, but "look at what my econ textbook says" is not one of them. Didn't Britain tried public housing in that period as well and it turned into ghettos?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:I'll ask a bit in the UK megathread about Thatcher's impact on council houses, "right to buy", making council housing something exclusively for the poorest of the poor rather than 1/3 of the population, etc. to answer your question, Typo. Thank you, I would genuinely be interested in an answer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Economics is actually p bad and economists basically are 24/7 paid shills for capitalism Ah there we go Everyone who disagrees with my political opinions are either dumb or are paid shells, nothing is better than my leftist ideology It's refreshing to see anti-intellectualism coming from the left rather than the right though imo
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:That's the loving problem. Your taking what is essentially a political policy and doing the magic handwave of "ceteris paris this is bad markets rule governments drool" when in real life rents are a complex issue that can't be boiled down to a single supply and demand curve. Has there ever being a single case when rent control ever worked?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Did I ever disagree with any of that? I simply suggested you should post the actual studies and data instead of a poll of economists. The first one is science, the second thing is a weak appeal to (significantly diminished) authority. Again, people for the first 2-3 pages of this thread has posted real arguments of why rent control is bad. You guys are the ones who brought up the economists neoliberal evil thing, it's kinda rich to accuse the other side of appealing to authority when you are the one making the ad homenins in the first place. Typo fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:You joke, but You guys realize this is literally the exact same argument right-wing climate change deniers use against academia acknowledgement of climate change as a real phenomenon right? Remember, only academic studies validating my worldview is valid.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No, right wingers cannot in fact point to a group of immensely wealthy people who have a financial interest in promoting the idea of climate change and socialized medicine, who have in fact funded fraudulent research (Heartland Institute) and influenced hiring decisions at public universities. I'm not talking about people just to the right of yourself btw, I'm talking about people who consistently vote Republican and like the Tea party. Because I have and you can pretty much just find-replace some words from some of your posts ITT and get exactly what their arguments are when arguing against government regulations or what not. The "academia is controlled by liberal/conservative finance!" is just the most obvious one. Typo fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Oct 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yes, they're not uncommon. Please examine the context of my post: I thought Peven was joking around about a big conspiracy of economists, and I basically said, "funnily enough some people are actually trying to do that now at a few universities". That's a fairly modest and well supported claim, and nothing like alleging that the bulk of mainstream of academic economists have been paid off for decades. Here are some studies btw: http://www.frpo.org/documents/Gilderboom-30YearsRentControl-JUA-May2007.pdf http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jkbrueck/course%20readings/gyourko%20and%20linneman2.pdf http://www.gonzalo.depeco.econo.unlp.edu.ar/EU1UTDT/gyourko-linneman90.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Responding to Typo's post about UK public housing turning into ghettos, some obviously did but it was predictably cramped high rise housing in poorer neighborhoods. There are ways to provide housing that are far more sustainable and at one time, even in the US, public housing was for people of mix ranges of income and could easily be so again. It was a genuine question about public housing, not an argument against it. Just because I'm against one form of government intervention doesn't mean I'm against it in all its forms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Yes. Incidentally that seems to be exactly what China is doing. quote:Typo is a good poster and I like him or her.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 23:27
|
|