Priced out of Paris • Hacker News Board

Re: Priced out of Paris

#171

Post by icebraining » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 11:21 PM UTC

pdog wrote: post #157

rm999 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are parasites because they are spending money (that they didn't earn by producing anything) in an inefficient manner. That three floor apartment could house many people, instead it is wasting a very rare commodity in NYC: housing. I'd be much more sympathetic if she actually spent time in that apartment. She produces no wealth and destroys wealth through inefficiency - good use of the word "parasite". Usually I'…

I understand and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. It's a bit counterintuitive, but I'll try to elaborate more on the points you've made: > They are parasites because they are spending money Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it. > (that they didn't earn by producing anything) The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it. Wh…

Parasites are people who take from the system; she's contributing by putting money into it.

Unless she owns a fractional-reserve bank, she probably just moved the money around, while taking wealth from the system, which is what "spending money" means.

By your argument, a thief who spends the spoils of his crime is contributing to the system!

The source of her money is irrelevant to the question of how she should spend it.

Not in a discussion about ethics, it's not.

One dollar is perfectly interchangeable with another, and the fungibility of money makes it one of the most neutral substances on earth.

Red herring; nobody is arguing about the particular dollars she owns, but the amount of them.

She's buying luxury properties, probably spending a token amount to fund her lifestyle, and letting professionals manage the rest. That's may be a pretty efficient allocation of capital for her situation.

Efficient for whom? For her? Why is she the only one who matters?

Again, when she's spending "inefficiently", she's contributing to the system.

How is putting money in the system by itself a (positive) contribution? Should we applaud counterfeiters?

Re: Priced out of Paris

#172

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 11:45 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #94

jjsz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old-money lifestyle is _designed_ to sit back, enjoy, and let the investment bankers handle the rest- exactly what she's doing so they're not parasites, they're living an elite's way of life. If you would get closer to her she would produce a lot of good times and memories. Just because you will travel, stay in the house and read more doesn't mean someone is going to sit down and become an inventor / iterator lik…

1) I'm not envious, and somehow you take my disapproval of the elites wasting valuable space as envy. It is not. If I express disapproval at someone who dumps toxic waste in a river, do I envy them also? 2) Your comment made zero contribution to the conversation. Do you think I haven't hung out with my cousin and had a good time? I have. This changes nothing. Every person on the planet is capable of "producing good t…

[deleted]

Re: Priced out of Paris

#173

Post by nerdo » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 11:46 PM UTC

jjsz wrote: post #135

JPKab wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I'm not envious, and somehow you take my disapproval of the elites wasting valuable space as envy. It is not. If I express disapproval at someone who dumps toxic waste in a river, do I envy them also? 2) Your comment made zero contribution to the conversation. Do you think I haven't hung out with my cousin and had a good time? I have. This changes nothing. Every person on the planet is capable of "producing good t…

In some type of way you're longing for her money to change the world. I hope, instead, you long to change her mind, convince her that she needs to start donating. That was the point of me commenting, for you to treat this as a reminder to call her and put your perspective down. Not in casual way, she won't take you seriously. Throw a form of guilt, cause obviously that's what she needs. Value your principles man. She…

Donates to NPR, no?

Re: Priced out of Paris

#174

Post by davidf18 » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 11:54 PM UTC

victorNicollet wrote: post #136

kiba wrote: post #3

Why is Paris really expensive? Constricted supply and high demand. Why is the supply constricted? Because Paris refuse to build anything in the center. That's because the center is a historical preservation district writ large. If you build anything modern, it would "ruin" the image of Paris. So, Paris would need to change its policy and start demolishing old buildings, and build higher density buildings. Certainly,…

The preservation district does exist, but it's certainly not a major issue. There are plenty of places that are not subject to preservation, often within a five-minute walk of preserved ones. The real problem in Paris is the transport infrastructure. As it stands, the morning and evening commutes already saturate several subway and bus lines, non-taxi cars only have access to a subset of all available lanes (and most…

What you say is wrong because much of the traffic on the subway and busses are commuters who travel from the suburbs.

In Manhattan where I live, commuters nearly double the daytime population from 1.6 million to 3.1 million.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/commuters-nearl...

increasing the building density would simply enable those people who are less fortunate than many of us on HN to also live in Paris.

Moreover, I can't speak for Paris but for certain I know in NYC/Manhattan the subways are not running nearly at their capacity. IIRC, the capacity could double if they automated the systems (which they are taking a very long time to do). The same may be true of Paris.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#175

Post by reedlaw » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 12:33 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #122

reedlaw wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the world deflationary currencies lead to--referring to the real world where inflationary currencies reign? Seeing how inflation doesn't prevent mis-allocation of resources, I don't see how this example is a good argument against deflationary currencies.

Even in a world of inflationary currencies, there are supply-limited assets like real estate in Manhattan or Paris. The phenomenon you see with respect to those assets: hoarding, little incentive to risk assets by putting them to use, young people pushed out simply for being unlucky enough to be born later, dynastic wealth, etc, are just what happens when you have assets that are tightly limited in supply and appreci…

Hoarding real estate in Manhattan or Paris only works as long as those assets continue to appreciate in value. Assuming demand for those properties is always increasing, how would you propose to put a curb on their prices?

As far as making a currency behave this way, I would say it's entirely unprecedented to have a currency that is both deflationary and infinitely divisible. The incentive to hold on to the currency may be strong, but there will always be incentive to take risks for even greater gains. Just look at how ASICMINER shares have risen.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#176

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 1:19 AM UTC

reedlaw wrote: post #175

rayiner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in a world of inflationary currencies, there are supply-limited assets like real estate in Manhattan or Paris. The phenomenon you see with respect to those assets: hoarding, little incentive to risk assets by putting them to use, young people pushed out simply for being unlucky enough to be born later, dynastic wealth, etc, are just what happens when you have assets that are tightly limited in supply and appreci…

Hoarding real estate in Manhattan or Paris only works as long as those assets continue to appreciate in value. Assuming demand for those properties is always increasing, how would you propose to put a curb on their prices? As far as making a currency behave this way, I would say it's entirely unprecedented to have a currency that is both deflationary and infinitely divisible. The incentive to hold on to the currency…

As long as the overall economy continues to grow, Manhattan real estate continues to appreciate.

Infinite divisibility is irrelevant. That's not the problem. The problem is that the first people on the scene (I.e. Old people) end up with all the wealth.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#177

Post by glenra » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 3:12 AM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #152

glenra wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, let's raze all historical cities, and build stell and glass cubes. If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. People HATED the Eiffel Tower when it was fir…

> If redevelopment were generally allowed in cities like Paris and New York some of ugliest, least unique buildings would tend to get replaced with something newer and possibly better. And fifty or a hundred years later some of those new buildings would themselves also be prized by preservationists. This is completely unfounded. There is no guarantee that new construction would be more aesthetically pleasing and we'v…

THere's no guarantee, no. But it's a pretty safe bet. Yes, buildings built in the 1880s have a certain style to them, but so do buildings built in the 1970s, 1990s, and today. By the end of the century people will undoubtedly have some nostalgia for the old-fashioned building style of 2013. Not all buildings built today will stand the test of time, but some will. More will if there are more to choose from.

Think about the original Twin Towers. By objective measure they were boring and hideous, but people liked them anyway - it grew on the populace. Like the Eiffel Tower did on Parisiens.

As for gentrification, the newest buildings will tend to have high prices, but if enough of them are allowed to come on the market eventually there will be a glut and prices will collapse. Maybe the price collapse will be more in the older buildings as upscale tenants move to the new ones.

(Getting rid of rent control would help a lot too, of course. Right now new buildings specialize in high-end in part because anyone who chose to specialize in low-end would quickly lose the flexibility to set their own rent and choose their own tenants.)

Re: Priced out of Paris

#178

Post by reedlaw » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 5:36 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #176

reedlaw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hoarding real estate in Manhattan or Paris only works as long as those assets continue to appreciate in value. Assuming demand for those properties is always increasing, how would you propose to put a curb on their prices? As far as making a currency behave this way, I would say it's entirely unprecedented to have a currency that is both deflationary and infinitely divisible. The incentive to hold on to the currency…

As long as the overall economy continues to grow, Manhattan real estate continues to appreciate. Infinite divisibility is irrelevant. That's not the problem. The problem is that the first people on the scene (I.e. Old people) end up with all the wealth.

There's no easy way to sell one square foot or one square inch of Manhattan property. First movers will always be at a competitive advantage in nearly any endeavor.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#179

Post by contingencies » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 8:42 AM UTC

CmdrKrool wrote: post #148

contingencies wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting tangent! Any refs on the tax situation?

Here's an article: http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporati...

Cheers. That one was 'By Nicholas Shaxson Published 24 February 2011', conclusion:

UK Uncut, the spontaneous protest movement opposing offshore tax avoidance by multinationals, has had an impact and now pledges to move against the banks. A big "One London" campaign to merge a divided capital into a single democratic entity may seem far off, but groups such as London Citizens are now thinking about the fairer division of London. The Tax Justice Network, and others, are helping build an intellectual edifice for understanding tax havens. Some of their goals - such as country-by-country reporting by multinationals - are already being partly met. The unions, too, and big NGOs, especially those working in international development, are engaging with the matter. An anti-haven mobilisation is under way in France; something similar may be starting in the US. The IMF, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the EU and other agencies are now at least debating issues they ignored before. Around the world, legislators, regulators and ordinary people are starting to see the toxicity of Britain's role in protecting offshore business that drains billions out of developing countries each year.

I wonder if there's been any positive development.

Re: Priced out of Paris

#180

Post by roel_v » Tue, Jun 18, 2013, 9:47 AM UTC

hilko wrote: post #169

roel_v wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting that dense cities drive people crazy (sorry if you aren't), but it's not clear whether it's like that, or that crazy people tend to gravitate towards center with high population densities.

It's not, and that's a good point. But it sounds more logical to me. Could you give some reasons why people with 'mental illness' would gravitate towards centers? (mind, I'm asking this with the assumption that mental illness is much broader than just homeless schizophrenics, so to speak. I can definitely see why they might gravitate towards heavily populate areas. But they usually don't pay rent.)

Yes, homeless moving to centers where it's easier to find shelter and people to give you money while begging were my first example; of course 'the homeless' includes many subgroups like the schizophrenics who don't have the mental ability to live a 'stable' life, over the alcoholics and drug addicts whose sanity is affected by chemicals, to people who are just down on their luck (usually combination of illness, no job, no family, etc.)

But other drivers might be that certain demographics are more prone to living in cities as well as developing mental problems: immigrants who are under a lot of stress because of having to adapt to a new language and environment; people in high-pressure jobs like lawyers and people in finance; criminals; etc. (being a criminal is very stressful and most non-psychopath criminals who have been living such a lifestyle for several years or more develop stress-related physical (ulcers, ...) and mental problems because of it, potentially on top of the mental problems they had before).

Or maybe people with mental problems find it easier to be anonymous in a city, where they don't have to (or at least less) deal with the social pressures that outsiders in small communities are under.

Furthermore, while statistically there are more people with mental problems in cities, some classes of problems (like depression) happen more in more rural areas.

I'm not saying one or the other; we don't know. Every now and then there is a study in the popular press with a populist headline like 'cities cause mental problems', and it's also an idea that fits nicely with people's preconceptions about cities=bad, country life=good. The papers those articles are based on are not conclusive though, and the literature shows a much more nuanced image. I work in academia and peripherally work with social scientists who study cities and people living in studies, and they are much more uncertain about the health implications of cities. There are sometimes unexpected feedbacks in complex systems that can cause very unintuitive dynamics.