Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The room the economy can't see

wilsoniumite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 296 posts

Re: The room the economy can't see

#231

Post by Windchaser »

appplication wrote: post #111
kubb wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wartime production mobilization, public health (vaccine procurement, disease eradication), natural monopolies like power grids. Public transport, water and sewage systems, infrastructure like roads and bridges are more of a hybrid model with a strong planning component, and private contractors (who consume a lot of public funds and often misuse them).

These are good examples and it’s even worth noting that the net impact of these can be a huge boost to the market. But it is a local and greedy optimizer. It doesn’t think “would having public transit improve the economy long term” it thinks “could I make enough on fares to justify the investment” (which is almost always no, at least relative to other investments). This is the nature of positive externalities. They a…

I’d have thought that ‘the free market doesnt make subways’ is a market coordination problem, not an externality one?

Meaning, I think that ticket sales can a good job of capturing the costs and benefits of transportation - the benefits to the consumer and the costs to the producer. It’s worked well in other areas of transportation, like passenger boats and planes, and the market mostly works well in those areas.

So I’d have guessed that issue with subways, different from planes and ships, is that you have to buy the rights to large portions of underground land in order to build your lines in contiguous fashion. It’s hard for private developers to get the rights to these lands, if one landowner refuses to sell, it can block the construction of an entire line. This is why rail, dam, and highway projects tend to be coordinated by the state. They all suffer this problem, which doesn’t apply to transport by air or sea, as air and sea lack similar private property issues to trip over.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#232

Post by frameset »

infecto wrote: post #187
frameset wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The simpler explanation here is that board games are still a niche hobby The article says "games", which I took to be more likely to be video games. These are teenagers after all. And if they're safe and goofing around gaming in a youth club, they're less likely to be doing antisocial behaviour on the street.

Ok video games then. I am not sure video gaming in person in a group setting is popular with modern youth. Same outcome to me.

You think that hanging out playing video games with friends lacks an appeal for young people?

Are you for real?

Re: The room the economy can't see

#233

Post by xg15 »

clickety_clack wrote: post #16
ixtli wrote: post #9

Very good and well-written. I wish we would also acknowledge that the market, by disincentivizing spend on stuff like this, is performing well. It is optimizing. The reason it matters to acknowledge this up front is so that we can, as the article says, get to the rule below all this which is that the market is default. This is a clear and thorough example of how the profit motive does not lead to the life any of us w…

An alternative view is that rooms like these would be a lot more feasible if market pricing of real estate was not being artificially driven up by planning restrictions. Historically, communities were able to afford their own versions of this in their own localities, but this isn’t possible anymore because of property prices. There was a community hall where I grew up that was funded like this along with a local spor…

Not an American, so maybe I'm underestimating the insanity of US zoning laws, but I always thought "residental ares" means "no businesses". Admittedly unpleasant if it means there can't be any grocery store or even café reachable by foot, but at least I get the rationale.

But if the zoning restriction is "absolutely nothing except single-family homes", this becomes insane. So even if there is a local neighborhood who would like to build a sports field or a community center, they can't because of zoning? This makes no sense for me at all.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#234

Post by hollerith »

xg15 wrote: post #233
clickety_clack wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative view is that rooms like these would be a lot more feasible if market pricing of real estate was not being artificially driven up by planning restrictions. Historically, communities were able to afford their own versions of this in their own localities, but this isn’t possible anymore because of property prices. There was a community hall where I grew up that was funded like this along with a local spor…

Not an American, so maybe I'm underestimating the insanity of US zoning laws, but I always thought "residental ares" means "no businesses". Admittedly unpleasant if it means there can't be any grocery store or even café reachable by foot, but at least I get the rationale. But if the zoning restriction is "absolutely nothing except single-family homes", this becomes insane. So even if there is a local neighborhood who…

"this isn’t possible anymore because of property prices"

Re: The room the economy can't see

#235

Post by xg15 »

cousin_it wrote: post #38
clickety_clack wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative view is that rooms like these would be a lot more feasible if market pricing of real estate was not being artificially driven up by planning restrictions. Historically, communities were able to afford their own versions of this in their own localities, but this isn’t possible anymore because of property prices. There was a community hall where I grew up that was funded like this along with a local spor…

Well, the planning restrictions don't just come from nowhere. People pay for them (with their lobbying time, lost rent and so on) because they want them. There's a market for "no poors in the neighborhood", an unpleasant market, but a market nonetheless. Add to that the fact that there's plenty of cheap housing in places with no jobs. So, what should we do? Should we fight against the "no poors in the neighborhood" m…

I mean, one of the main takeaways from the article was that "there is a market for X" is something fundamentally different and sometimes even the opposite of "X is a good thing".

Re: The room the economy can't see

#236

Post by hombre_fatal »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #173
hombre_fatal wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a place for people, especially teens, to gather without a bunch of woo woo baggage. I found church incredibly isolating as a kid because we weren’t there just to be, we were there under this expectation that we were partaking in some superstition. The article already points out a room that the kids were enjoying without religious crap imposed on them. We need solutions beyond bolting on these things t…

I think you misunderstand, the 3rd space should be at a church. One in my community does this for teens where they just hang out and do homework after school for 2 hours.

My megachurch growing up had all sorts of teen events including sand volleyball in the summer.

But there was always this underlying, uncomfortable "threat" that an adult would approach you to talk about your relationship with god or whatever since that's the whole motive of the place existing.

If you're not into that, then you feel out of place. Like being a straight guy at a gay bar who's only there for the happy hour. Or hanging out at a cafe without wanting to buy anything.

We need to come up with something without any motive other than "here's a place to just be".

Re: The room the economy can't see

#237

Post by xg15 »

cousin_it wrote: post #69
bluGill wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a market for "no poors in the neighborhood", an unpleasant market, but a market nonetheless. I place freedom as a higher value than the market. Thus while I recognize that market exists, I don't allow anyone to serve it. Your ability to keep poor people away ends at your property line. They can walk on the sidewalks in front of your house because roads (a sidewalk is just another road) are not your property…

You're simplifying to the point of nonsense. Freedom you say? How about the freedom to have a say in government of the place you're living in? That seems a pretty fundamental freedom. When the rich folks of a town vote for planning restrictions and the vote goes through, that's an expression of freedom. Sure, we both don't like it. We both agree it has bad consequences. But what I'm trying to say is that there's a re…

Well, how about the freedom to invade a country you don't like? Or how about that country's freedom to invade your country?

One person's freedom always ends at the point where another person's begins. That's not exactly a new observation.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#238

Post by xg15 »

hollerith wrote: post #234
xg15 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an American, so maybe I'm underestimating the insanity of US zoning laws, but I always thought "residental ares" means "no businesses". Admittedly unpleasant if it means there can't be any grocery store or even café reachable by foot, but at least I get the rationale. But if the zoning restriction is "absolutely nothing except single-family homes", this becomes insane. So even if there is a local neighborhood who…

"this isn’t possible anymore because of property prices"

Well, ok, but then how are property prices artificially driven up by planning restrictions?

Is this just about not allowing more compact housing like condos or high-rises?

Re: The room the economy can't see

#239

Post by TeMPOraL »

mym1990 wrote: post #131
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets create the illusion of choice between monopolies. I don't like monopolies because they restrict my freedom far more than zoning codes do. Ultimately markets are not a democratic choice. You can choose a Mac or a PC, or Amazon vs Netflix. You (often) can't choose to join a union, to get affordable healthcare that won't bankrupt you, or to have a national policy that prioritises the needs of renters over the pr…

I feel like in this case, the “Amazon or Netflix” example is particularly bad because I feel like I’m actually drowning in streaming providers. You will also typically have the option to simply opt out, although this is getting less rare. I think my point is that there are typically still many options, but the best options are controlled by few players.

> I feel like in this case, the “Amazon or Netflix” example is particularly bad because I feel like I’m actually drowning in streaming providers.

It's a fake choice, because they carry mutually exclusive catalogs, and entertainment choice is not particularly substitutable (e.g. if I want to watch "Star Wars" and it's not available on services I'm subscribed to, I'm not going to be satisfied with all the rich selection of things they carry that is still not "Star Wars").

Lots of that in the economy, that's where the most money seems to be made. Smartphones are my go-to example: plenty of nearly identical options to choose from, choice entirely set up by vendors, with little to no way of users to voice their feedback. A supply-driven market. You get to choose from what's made available, not what is possible.

Re: The room the economy can't see

#240

Post by xg15 »

cousin_it wrote: post #69
bluGill wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a market for "no poors in the neighborhood", an unpleasant market, but a market nonetheless. I place freedom as a higher value than the market. Thus while I recognize that market exists, I don't allow anyone to serve it. Your ability to keep poor people away ends at your property line. They can walk on the sidewalks in front of your house because roads (a sidewalk is just another road) are not your property…

You're simplifying to the point of nonsense. Freedom you say? How about the freedom to have a say in government of the place you're living in? That seems a pretty fundamental freedom. When the rich folks of a town vote for planning restrictions and the vote goes through, that's an expression of freedom. Sure, we both don't like it. We both agree it has bad consequences. But what I'm trying to say is that there's a re…

> Rich folks will always want "no poors in the neighborhood" and will keep trying to find ways to spend money to ensure it. They'll never give up.

That's a very fatalistic take, essentially saying that rich people will always win. The entire point of a strong government is to provide a counterforce to that.

> For example, if we somehow created jobs elsewhere so that poor people wouldn't have to fight rich people for city air, then maybe that could work too.

Aha, and what kind of jobs would that be? How would the quality of infrastructure be in those areas?

Post reply on HN