RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive15

This is an archive page, last updated 24 November 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <16>

, (new)(back)

Shortwave

I kind of miss shortwave radio. Still have some of the recievers, and this was my go to source for different perspectives on the news. I'm old enough to remember the magical nights of AM DX, especially on the car radio traveling with family. Still do that sometimes looking for Cleveland baseball games. Fond memories of CKLW. But most of what you pick up now is evangelist crap. On occasion, on the right nighs ibn spring or fall, you can pick up music shpws frpm Latin America which sometimes repay a listen. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Eating meat associated with better mental health?

The end of the study says: "This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report." [1]

Beef Checkoff's official website says: "The Checkoff program was designed to stimulate restaurants and grocery stores to sell more beef and encourage consumers to buy more beef. This is accomplished through initiatives such as consumer advertising, marketing partnerships, public relations, education, research and new-product development." [2]

Totally not fishy at all! LongStylus (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Correlation. Meat consumption could coincide with more disposable income. Meat production IS associated with richer countries. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The article also specifies that the study cannot tell the temporal order. Maybe people with worse mental health are drawn to vegetarian diets believing meat is the cause of their issues, creating a correlation like the correlation between diabetes and diet soft drinks. Maybe western vegetarians are bullied into depression by meat eaters... 2804:431:CFC8:B8DC:5A94:F08C:D074:6B83 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More likely the other way around. IME vegetarians tend to be evangelical about it, ascribe bizarre virtues to their diets, and otherwise display histrionic personalities and various messiah complexes. Any pushback they get is likely from all of this. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

honestly find fucknuts to be equally dispersed between veggies an meat eaters. fucknuts on both sides get very tribal AMassiveGay (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In my experiences, I've seen more meat-eaters that are dogmatic about their diet. People like Jordan Peterson, his daughter and Tom Naughton think that eating more meat is super healthy and is something most people aren't doing. Nothing can be further from the truth. The average Canadian diet already contains too much meat, and perhaps the same goes for the American diet as well. LongStylus (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

yes chimbo it sure is too much even though meat consumption is declining. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:6B (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your own source says meat consumption averaged about 250 lbs per person in 1999 and 264 lbs per person in 2020, so that's an increase. Higher meat consumption (processed meat, red meat and poultry) is linked with obesity, even when controlling for lifestyle choices and calories. [3] LongStylus (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the study I forgot to add: [4] The above is a supplement. LongStylus (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Even then, there different eating fried chicken with burger and steak with salad. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:4B (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Slavery is not the origin of capitalism

Sherlocks's lack of shit aside, that's not what the article proposes or concludes. There's enough stuff to pick apart there without setting up a straw man. LondonGrump (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that in, but I'll erase it. G Man (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

article about Putin from The Atlantic

i know this is not a big deal, but it's kinda bothering me at the moment. i'm running on about two weeks of sleep deprivation. in the edit summary, i said "article dated as of february" when i meant to say "article published in february." anyway, i'm pretty sure you guys get the point, but i (sometimes) get real nitpicky when it comes to spelling, mechanics, usage, and grammar. G Man (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

gas is not petrol

stoopid mericans AMassiveGay (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

british empire

i am reminded of a quote from orwell 'hypocrisy is the british vice' AMassiveGay (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Whoever posted this article either only read the title or the first few sentences. To just call this article "The british empire was worse than we thought" is just clickbait in my opinion since it goes into a lot more. Ryan1257 (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

just what is it you think the wigo gets wrong? its clickbaity but not really inaccurate. 'worse than we thought' - for me it should be 'really was awful, but you knew that already'. i used to be more neutral about it, framing its horrors as just the way of world back then, that it was a different time. my thinking shifted gradually as the more i learned of events, the 'good' we might have done was only made possible by and completely outweighed by all the sheer fucking evil that it is simply obscene to talk of the good from this stain on our history. and when the wounds we inflicted on so many peoples have left ugly scars or are still open and still not healed to this day. for the british public? 'its worse than we thought' is something that should be made clear to them. every brexiter should learn that 'its worse than we thought.' every MP draping themselves in the union jack, every talking head in media telling us the commonwealth is just waiting for us lead them in the empire anew, every reader of the mail and express, every defender of statues celebrating slavers using history as a shield, should be made to learn the actual history of the empire and what made britain 'great' really was so much worse than we thought.

in the uk, the empire is sold to us as something we should be proud of. as something that should entitle us to be seen as one the worlds great powers, commanding respect from the nations of the world, the rich nations, the poor, the developing and the developed, superpowers. we dont have the economic or military might we once had, but we've got the history we are told. our sense of fair play, we didnt just impose our laws on the world, we were bound by them too. dont keep knocking britain, they will say. we ended slavery they will say. we are told our history should be lauded, but we never actually discuss our history. no one will discuss the horrific things we did, and if you do you are always knocking britain, sure we made some mistakes but empire wasnt all bad, we did some good too you know. 'some mistakes' are not explained to us, and we get beaten over the head with the 'good', which is also shrouded in vagueness and jingoism, with spirit of dunkirk and blitz spirit sprinkled liberally throughout. this is what is sold to us and we buy it because we dont know our own history. our history to us has the look and feel of last night at the proms. the good old days when the sun never set on the empire gave us a distorted sense of our own importance and inflated sense of our powers that took us decades to come back down to earth and come to terms with the death of empire, to engage with our european neighbours and to cooperate and trade. that we did not dictate the rules any more, we had to give instead of just taking, and our empire was long dead, and our former colonies did not revolve around us any more. we could start to draw aline between the old dead empire and the united kingdom today as seperate entities. judge us on we what are now, not then. but of course brexit happened and set this process back decades. the celebrating the glory days of empire, reminding us we were 'great' once and we can be again, we remembered a fantasy of the time when we ruled waves with no regard or need for europe, and we were made to believe it could be again as leaders of the commonwealth apart from europe. we believed it because we do not know our own history. we do not know the history of our empire.

the horrors that our empire produced did not touch the islands were the empire was ruled from. we saw no slaves here, they were all transported the the colonies, goods in transit at best. we did not see our resources plundered and stolen, we saw riches and exotic goods flow into our shores. we saw the buildings and wealth that the empire brought us. we were not beaten and murdered by foreign invaders, and we did not see our troops beating and murdering anyone on our islands. our democracy and our justice gradually formed and grew with our wealth, our civil rights debated and fought and won, it was great the to be the great british. british law were our gift to our colonies. there was no greater gift. but we did not give this gift, that is the lie we have told ourselves. while british democratic ideals were flourishing in britain, we made damn sure it didnt flourish in the colonies. the rule of law we are so proud of that ensure fairness, that we are bound by, did not extend beyond our shores. the british empire really was fucking fantistic for all us on this island and at the centre of the empire we didnt look beyond our island, everything came to us, to see horrors first hand. we didnt see the misery we inflicted, we didnt discuss the misery we inflicted, and we still dont. we dont want to. we need to be able to celebrate it, be proud of it. if we saw it for it what it was, what literally built britain, the misery it was founded on, we would not have bought the lies that brexit depended on.

its why statues of slave traders and imperialistic monsters are defended so vigorously. its not history they are championing. its an ignorance of history they seek to maintain. the post war consensus was a direct result of our empire expiring. its when britain stopped being 'great' for some. when stopped being british even. a poor grasp of history, imagining a fanciful better time before it, saw us hack away at the consensus that brexit is the culmination. no, it was not wonderous, we should not be proud of it, look at what we did when we were the rulers of an empire. our former colonies remember what we dont. a significant percentage of the british public originate from former colonies, they remember too, just as we try ignore their contributions to britain and their treatment at the hands of empire, and talk misty eyed of the days before their arrival to our shores and the british did not include them. the commonwealth wont save us from brexit, it wont save us from ourselves. we have an old etonian apologist for empire whose premiership is founded on nostalgia for the days of empire. we need to be told, again and again, 'it was much worse than we thought'. until we do learn our history and come to terms with it, britain will never be 'great' againAMassiveGay (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, okay, please don't jump on me with some of your frustrations with your country ignoring the bad parts of its history (I'm an American, talking about the bad parts our history is "anti-american" as far as some states have decided). I just thought that the reasons the author disagreed with some of the conclusions in the book he was talking about was interesting, namely how "liberalism" was a changing beast.Ryan1257 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Not going to start an edit war

Especially when I just got my mop, but if you have any objections to the content of someone's WIGO, @An Advocate, you should really take it to the talkpage first. Vee (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I made a mistake with the rollbacks so it is back to the original but my point remains. The unsubstantiated reference to "British aristos peace offers to Hitler" is inflammatory, Godwin's Law, and not even related to the article in question. Secondly, the claim that the Russian invasion is "genocidal" is another baseless point. There are war crimes, crimes against humanity even, but a war of extermination is so far into lalaland I don't know where to start. An Advocate (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy himself has called Russia's war an "extermination campaign", so it's not like it's without precedent. Vee (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure he isn't biased at all. An Advocate (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It's still precedent. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Vee (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Since it's my post, let me reply. ""British aristos peace offers to Hitler" is inflammatory, Godwin's Law," is a reference to Lord Rothermore and the Daily Mail headlines at the time. https://henrypoole.com/individual/1st-viscount-rothermere/ https://pressgazette.co.uk/hitler-the-daily-mail-and-how-lord-rothermere-showed-he-has-learned-the-lessons-of-history/ https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley It mirrors, no pun intended, recent revelations to Musk and Putin.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-lindsey-graham-putin-ukraine-tweet-b2196626.html https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-ambassador-elon-musk-russia-crimea-twitter-poll-response-2022-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-welcomes-elon-musk-proposal-ukraine-settlement-denounced-by-kyiv-2022-10-04/ Godwins law has no bearing on this. It is what happened, granted it has been simplified for snark. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@An Advocate The "british aristo-fascism" is not unsubstantiated, but actually a call back to a October 2020 WIGO on the fascist sympathies of british aristocracy Tuxer (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And just because I find the An Advocate's statement of "The claim that the Russian invasion is "genocidal" is another baseless point." somewhat strange and denialist. Here's Foreign Affairs on Genocide by Russia https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-russias-war-ukraine-genocide, Politico opinion piece https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/07/27/putin-genocidal-war-ukraine-00047941 and even the definition of genocide https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml . What do you think Putin with his Kievian Rus Polity obsession is doing in the Ukraine? Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

America killed an 8 year old American citizen

Just finished reading the Snowden article. Fucking disgusting. What a disgrace. If this country really was serious about the rule of law, it'd prosecute both Obama and Trump for crimes against humanity. Vee (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

So you think that any collateral damage is actionable? Wouldn't that turn USA entirely isolationist? FairDinkum (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think calling it "collateral damage" is a dehumanizing term. I also don't think the drone program is morally or legally justified (it's state sanctioned extrajudicial assassination against an enemy we have not legally declared war upon and that we can change the definition of who counts whenever we want) nor is it all that effective. If anything, the murders of the children were just a propaganda coup for the terrorists. Actions like these are what DAESH uses as a recruitment tool. We're doing the terrorists' work for them. What do you think the point of terrorism is? To cause an overreaction from the targeted government. Everything we have done since 9/11 has been detrimental to the cause of "fighting" terror. Iraq, the Patriot Act, the violation of Pakistani sovereignty by assassinating Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil without permission, the drone program and its resultant "collateral damage", the huge increase of Islamophobia in the West... All of this is a propaganda coup for the Islamists. Vee (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with certain decisions to strike when civilians were in harm's way, but taking out Bin Laden, Baghdadi, Zawahiri, and the others was great. As for Pakistan, if they didn't want somebody to clean up their backyard for them, they should've done it themselves. I'm usually all for respecting other countries, but Bin Laden was a special case and everyone knew it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 05:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Either way, what we've been doing is a direct propaganda coup for the Islamists. That and it's honestly kind of inconsistent that people like Bush walk free while people like Slobodan Milosevic rotted in prison. They were both guilty of massive crimes against humanity. The only difference being one was the leader of the global superpower (read: empire) and the other wasn't. Vee (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems the Rebecca Watson entry is getting downvote bombed

The chuds are out in force today. Vee (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to downvote anything that's "argument via YouTube". If that makes me a chud, cool, I guess.AcidTrial (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Youtube isn't an inherently bad source. It's just like any other platform out there, full of cranks and not-cranks. Vee (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I was a little irritated that the first time a Watson video was shared, it was just the video title; I thought it was an article to read and was thrown off by the video. I didn't downvote the entry but I generally prefer reading stuff compared to watching and listening. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Change Blurb?

'Quality articles by bloggers, submitted by the RW community' it describes this page on our frontpage.

However, many of articles linked are not blogs. While I get the name is perhaps a legacy of an earlier era and so can't be changed, perhaps we could change the blurb to highlight this? (Perhaps something like 'Quality analysis articles, submitted by the RW community'? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd support "quality blogs and analysis" Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the latter bit is the important bit - that the page is for the articles which fit RW's mission (loosely) but are not as time-limited as the main WIGO. At least, that's how I've been treating it with my submissions. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I'd hardly call the source of most of the articles to be "blogs". I'd change the name and everything if I could.-Ryan1257 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Zubayda

The article posted is from 2016. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 13:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

TBF I could've posted a much more recent Youtube video on him, but the wiki for some reason looks down on that. Also if I'm not mistaken WIGOB reflects interesting content, not necessarily current content. This isn't WIGOW. Vee (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you rewrite the entry to clarify that it isn’t present-tense? 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 17:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Vee (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks <🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 18:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

brazilian insurrection

so, for some nonsensical reason, that article i posted is receiving a lot of downvotes.

how many of you who downvoted it actually read it? it really raises some valid points. those people thought they were defending democracy. i hear it from my own relatives all the time: "the fight is to save democracy from a fraudulent election." even bolsonaro claims he always follows the constitution.[5]

now whether you buy these claims is really up to your discretion, and it's irrelevant to the post. the point is, this is yet another example of social media destabilizing democracies. (need i remind you of what happened in burma (myanmar) in 2021)? you can call everyone you disagree with a fascist all you want, but that won't stop anti-democratic movements. this isn't the 1940s anymore; we're in the third decade of the 21st century. i would wager that the biggest threat to democracy nowadays is disinformation and conspiracy theories. we need to address those head-on (i.e. figure out how to effectively combat the proliferation of fake news) if we want to stop these anti-democratic movements on their tracks.

if you still think i'm being ridiculous, here's a nyt article that talks more about it (if you can get past the paywall, that is). The G (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

They're still anti-democratic. They've merely fallen for the Big Lie. The reason I downvoted (well I voted neutral) was because of the wording. These are fascist movements, just not the ones of the early 20th century. Of course they'd be different in character. These movements still fit most of the characteristics of Eco's definition, which is why they're called fascist. Vee (talk)

that's a fair point. i'm not trying to whitewash them in any way. i'm just saying that the everyday people were merely useful idiots of a more sinister movement, and they should be approached as such. only 9% of americans believe democracy is working very well, with republicans more likely than democrats to say that it is not working well. now i may be spitballing here, but this might have something to do with some guy's big lie about that election. yes, i am aware that there were actual white supremacists in the 2021 capitol riots, but they are in the minority. the majority of republicans are every day people like you and i who were simply fooled into thinking that the election was stolen, and that shapes their view of the health of our democracy. the same applies with the brazilian right wing: the actual fascists are a minority while the majority (even of those who actually stormed the federal buildings) are victims (or useful idiots, if you prefer) of disinformation. The G (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

About that refutation

Without comment on anything else, the Jack Turban study it cites has been completely panned, even by other activists. The statistics in that study are a complete mess, and refutations of it are readily available. This isn't itself a reliable source, but collates a few in one place; here are other activists that basically have a Sister Souljah moment responding. It doesn't make the Shrier book right, but it's not useful evidence to the contrary either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"I'd never do that... ...I mean I've never had the chance..."

Just a note here, Anarchist Spain established forced labour camps and sent plenty of "dissidents" and other class-enemies in for "re-education" and merrily engaged in violent purges of clergy, conservatives, and other despicable purveyors of social ills such as shop-keepers and factory technicians. The other prime example of Anarchism in action, the Ukrainian Free State, 'led' by Nestor Makhno was almost infamous for its reliance on summary execution in order to maintain discipline.

Retributive violence is distasteful and revolutionary violence is often tragic but the anarchist finger wagging rings a little hollow. Anarchists, when tested, have often found themselves resorting to the same measures they criticise liberals and marxists for. Tikitime2 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Blogs are closed for editing?

As the title says. Also, whoever has deemed themselves responsible for the blog entries, can they add the following under a new divider for the month, books-a-million is selling Neo-nazi books, https://leftcoastrightwatch.org/articles/books-a-million-is-stocking-nazi-groups-literature/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit, looking at the fossil record, I can see why. Seems to be a clash of egos going on. Things never change here. Cardinal Chang (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a dumb edit war, Carthage should not have locked it for so long. I changed it back to autoconfirmed only / indefinite which I think is what it was before. BobJohnson (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Clash of egos" meaning my WIGO addition kept getting reverted. Totally a fair assessment. Oh, I see now. I thought I locked it for a far shorter duration. My bad. Carthage (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I may have lost my autoconfirm status. It has been a while since I was here. But, cheers Carthage for posting the link. Not how I would have worded it. But... Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Watchdog bill

To add proper context for those who refuse to read the piece:

HOURS AFTER SENATE Democrats blocked an effort to install greater oversight over the billions of dollars the United States is sending to Ukraine, the watchdog who oversaw U.S. spending in Afghanistan issued a warning.

Spending too much too fast, with little oversight, would lead to “unanticipated consequences,” John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, said at an event sponsored by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft last week. The U.S. has sent more money to Ukraine in one year than it spent in Afghanistan over 12 years, Sopko pointed out. “I’m not opposed to spending that. I just want to make sure it’s done correctly and there’s oversight,” he said.

Sopko especially warned about the risk of fueling corruption, perhaps the most damaging legacy of the billions the U.S. spent in Afghanistan and a major factor in the collapse of its effort in the country. “If that much money is coming in, you know some of it is going to be stolen,” he said. “In Afghanistan, corruption was the existential threat. It wasn’t the Taliban. It was corruption that did us in.”

The article isn't saying that funding Ukraine is a bad thing, it's saying that there should be more transparency in where the money is going. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Carthage (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I tend to agree. Ukraine has historically suffered from a major corruption problem. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 16:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wisconsin

“We just enforce the law,” Sgt. Brandon Gray, a spokesperson for the Eau Claire post of the Wisconsin State Patrol, said in an interview. “If they don’t have a valid license, then obviously they receive a citation.”

This pisses me off so much. It's just so cowardly. If your duty is to enforce the law, and not protect the public, then you're taking moral responsibility for those laws, good and bad. People wonder why ACAB is such a common sentiment. This, right here? That's why. Carthage (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fake news and Gaza

Major media outlets spreading fake news at a time when a nuclear power is talking of committing genocide and is engaging in collective punishment of two million people is morally unforgivable. It's atrocious. Carthage (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Carthage This Daily Dot page verifies the claims at least to some extent, although they do say that they were unverified for a time. Would be nice of you to change the entry accordingly. Thanks Iluzalsipal^{Stone them!} 11:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add it. But ok. Carthage (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. But thank you nevertheless. Iluzalsipal^{Stone them!} 12:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

👍 Carthage (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

please note the publication date if the article is old

this especially matters for the ADL article. in light of recent events in israel-palestine, we don't want to give any extremist readers from either side any funny ideas. old news can sometimes be just as harmful as outright fake news. context matters. The G (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

972 mag article

If no one is brought before a tribunal after this war ends.... I will not be surprised. Utterly unsurprised. If your nation is close allies with the world hegemon who has hand on the veto button of the UNSC, your government will never meaningfully be held to account. That's not how geopolitics works. Carthage (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Biden is now threatening to sanction the ICC. I stand vindicated. Carthage (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Liberalism and "freedom"

Does capitalism establish freedom? It doesn't help that "freedom" is a concept that contains multitudes and contradictions. Liberals claim that capitalism enables choice on what clothing to wear, what food to eat, or where to live. It is certainly true that those with means are "free" by this definition, but what about those at the bottom? Those with much less wealth, so therefore with much less of a market share? By the definition of "freedom" offered here, those at the bottom of this hierarchy are limited in their freedoms by their relative lack of wealth (ie "less free") than those at the top. Abortion bans are a good example of this. Abortion bans are no big deal for those with the means to travel somewhere else, but those who can't, the poor, are stuck with limited access or degraded access to quality reproductive healthcare. Their choices have been limited. their reproductive freedom has been reduced. They are less free than those at the top.

What about property? For context, there is a difference between personal and private property. Personal property is something that can realistically be owned by one person and not be needed by the community to live or function. Private property is something that cannot be realistically used by oneself and is needed by the community to function. Under capitalism, vital community resources can be owned by one person, who can do with those resources as they see fit, no matter how much that might damage the community or keep the community poor and subservient to the property owner. This creates a power imbalance.

Liberal ideologues posit that the core values of liberalism are liberty, equality, and property. With the definition of property offered above, property would seem to contradict the other two values offered (if someone owns a well that is needed by the community to survive, the person who owns and controls that well has more power than everyone else given that they quite literally control the water supply.) According to liberal ideologues, in order for there to be "freedom" there must be private property. IOW, in order for there to be freedom there must be freedom to exploit others.

They say that the combination of property, equality, and freedom produces the "most freedom" overall, and that capitalism is the most efficient vehical foe this. This line of reasoning is questionable. It's true that workers can "choose" who to sell their labor to, but if they don't sell their labor period they will suffer. They don't have economic security the same way property owners do. That doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, that seems like coercion.

To use an analogy: imagine that a thug comes up to someone and offers them the "choice" of which implement will be used to harm them. Technically there is freedom of choice here, but only with the options presented by the thug. The person can't choose not to be harmed. Likewise, workers can't choose to opt out of the system. They must operate by the standards offered by the capitalists. To give an example of people opting out of the system and being negatively punished for it: an 81 year old man in New Hampshire who spent 27 years peacefully living off the grid was evicted by the property owner and sent to jail for resisting eviction. This man wasn't harming anybody, and was living peacefully, and indeed was actually using the land unlike the absentee landlord, but because his name wasn't on a slip of paper he got hauled off to jail. Where else is he gonna live? On the streets? Is this "ethical"?

People who try to opt out will get penalized. Everything's now owned by someone. You can't go live somewhere else off the grid because some rich fuck already owns that land. Your options are to work, rent, or get sent to jail if you try to opt out. This doesn't seem like "freedom" to me if you don't have the "freedom" to opt out. It is coercive. Carthage (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The article (here's a non-paywall link: [6]) focuses on democracies, political rights, and freedom of speech. I don't think there is any question defending any of this is.

Capitalism has sort of a "worst system, except for all the others" thing going for it, in practice. My "cynical" viewpoint is that the system (when working properly) successfully harnesses the type-A assholes of the world and gets them to compete with each other instead of exploiting power. The problem is (and it's a truth of all the other economic systems, too) there is a tendency for, without safety nets and other features (eg anti-monopoly laws, unions and other worker protections), capitalism to become "just like the rest" where a few very powerful people control and exploit the general population. Such in itself is a threat to democratic norms (I'm not sure if the FTs of the world notice, that article definitely committed a "balance fallacy" with their progressive politics snide), and this is what I see the danger is with, say, how America is currently evolving: into a behind-the-scenes plutocracy where the democratic will is subverted by a few way too powerful billionaires. We've been there before, and IMHO we're there again, but I don't even think the Gilded Age was as bad regarding politicians openly embracing authoritarianism.

Other systems in practice (famously, communism) have evolved into authoritarian systems with the same plutocratic backbone but with no vote to change things one iota. I think it's fine to worry about the erosion of democratic norms; at least if such still exists, miscreants can be thrown out and systems tweaked. An America run solely by the plutocrats will probably end up looking little different than a Russia ruled by the crony mob. BobJohnson (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If we are just temperature checking the room. Liberalism provides a lot of freedoms compared to feudalism but it is far from an ideally free society. I would agree with the marxist-lenninist diagnosis of liberal society as a dictatorship of the bourgeioise. On the micro scale, you can form a party, vote and campaign on various issues but on the macro scale you generally will be crushed the moment your interests as an individual push up against the interest of the wealthy. This can both be a passive by-product of the inequality produced by capitalism (which is a core feature of liberalism) or the result of violent interventions. In history there are plenty of vaguely idealistic individuals who sought to change things, who were voted into power and then deposed violently by, for lack of a better word, liberals. The idea that liberal capitalism is "the least bad" "because you can vote to change it kind of ignores how power works in liberal capitalism - you can vote to change it but your vote is easily nullified - and also ignores the fact that liberal societies are not above censuring, imprisoning and killing those who seek to bring an end to their society.

And I don't make the observation bitterly. It is perfectly natural for a soceity or group that believes their political order to be one of maximal happiness and freedom to fight tooth and nail to preserve that order whenever it is threatened. There is a moral question about how far a security service or political authority should be allowed to go to preserve its own existence but that's a seperate question I think.

These kinds of conversations do make me think back to my relatives who lived through the dissolution of the GDR and USSR. Especially in the latter case they technically won a lot of theoretic freedoms but lost a lot of the more tangible freedoms in terms of the services and opportunities for participation made available to them. I remember sitting with my uncles and aunts (I don't get to see that side of my family more than once every few years) as a wide eyed libertarian socialist asking them about what life was like in the USSR and GDR. I was expecting stories of horror but the consensus seemed to be a lot more ambivalent with the general sentiment that while they had a bunch of personal freedoms on paper, their ability to participate and be heard was greatly diminished.

I think one of my main problems with the de jure understanding of "democracy as liberal democracy" is that it prioritises a very specific idea of democracy. And I think it's no surprise that we in the west prioritise the kind of democracy where the financing of campaigns is a private matter, workplace democracy is completely ignored and elections are mediated through a news-sphere that is privately owned - i.e. a form of a democracy that is very easy to "manage". So yeah, liberalism is undeniably better than the medieval barbarism we had before but I really don't think it's the perfect formulation of freedom in theory OR in practice. Tikitime2 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

but a minor tidbit: Is that Marxist-Leninist or just a general Marxist analysis; about liberal society being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? The Marxists I have talked to in general hold that sentiment, regardless of their specific ideological affiliation (leftcoms, Trots, Maoists et cetera). Carthage (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is fair. That concept isn't limited to Lenninists. Heck even anarchists use it. Tikitime2 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Supply and affordable housing

According to this Philadelphia Inquirer article the problem is not the supply of housing. In fact, according to data from the US Census, in many parts of the country there's no shortage of rental units, it's that people don't make enough to afford the market-rate rents. I certainly don't. So even if you build more market rate housing, there's no guarantee that people will make enough to afford those rents, especially in a country burdened with weak social infrastructure (you have to pay more out of pocket for food, water, housing, utilities, childcare, healthcare, education et cetera). That's something your Financial Times article doesn't take into account.

I'm gonna quote from the article now:

Renters with the most severe affordability problems have extremely low incomes.

Nationally, about 45% of all renter households spend more than 30% of their pretax income on rent — the widely recognized threshold of affordability. About half of these renters, 9.7 million in total, spend more than 50% of their income on housing, greatly impairing their ability to meet other basic needs and putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

Nearly two-thirds of renters paying at least half of their income on housing earn less than $20,000, which is below the poverty line for a family of three. Renters with somewhat higher incomes also struggle with housing affordability, but the problem is most pervasive and most severe among very-low income households.

For a household earning $20,000, $500 per month is the highest affordable rent, assuming the affordability standard of spending no more than 30% of income on housing. In contrast, the median rent in the U.S. in 2019 was $1,097, a level that’s affordable to households earning no less than $43,880.

And homes that rent for $500 or less are exceedingly scarce. Fewer than 10% of all occupied and vacant housing units rent for that price, and 31% are occupied by households earning more than $20,000, pushing low-income renters into housing they cannot afford.

This is also a problem for everyone according to the Inquirer, not just those on the lower end of the distributional spectrum:

The problem of housing affordability doesn’t affect only a few high-cost cities. It’s pervasive throughout the nation, in the priciest housing markets with the lowest vacancy rates like New York and San Francisco, and the least expensive markets with high vacancy rates, such as Cleveland and Memphis.

For example, in Cleveland, with a median rent of $725, 27% of all renters spend more than half of their income on rent. In San Francisco, with a median rent of $1,959, 18% of renters spend at least half their income on rent. And it’s even worse for the poorest residents. In both cities, more than half of all extremely low-income renters spend at least 50% of their income on rent.

In fact, there is not a single state, metropolitan area, or county in which a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford the “fair market rent” for a two-bedroom home, as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Section 8, on the other hand, has made a meaningful difference in the lives of those unable to afford rent otherwise. To quote from the Inquirer article:

The $26 billion program currently serves about 2.5 million households, or only 1 in 4 of all eligible households. The version of the Democrats’ social spending bill passed by the House of Representatives included about $25 billion to expand the program.

While this would be the single largest increase in the program’s nearly 50-year history, it would still leave millions of low-income renters unable to afford a home. And that’s not a problem more supply can solve.

This would suggest the problem is with income, not supply. Or at the very least, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Carthage (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please, review supply curve and demand curve. If there are more houses available, the prices will fall. The article explains this. Usurprisingly, this is already happening.[7] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how that will make housing affordable for those on the lower ends of the distributional spectrum, ie those unable to afford rent regardless of market rate? Subsidized housing has made a meaningful impact on the lives of those unable to afford rent otherwise. But given how you arbitrarily dismiss every one of the points offered here, by a professor of urban policy and a professor of urban planning no less , I'm not gonna expect you to acknowledge or address this either. It's not what you do. You lecture, not discuss. Do you expect Professors McClure and Schwartz to not be aware of those theoretical principles you just spammed, or do they not consider them relevant, as they are talking about an income problem, not supply. Income is a problem even in areas with high vacancies (ie, high supply). But you ignored that too. Carthage (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Regarding your question, sure, build more houses, as this will make rent more affordable. And yes, Subsidized housing is important to achieving this. I don't see your point. There are many studying showing how more hoses make prices drop.[8][9]. This one,[10] for instance, discovered that constructing a new market-rate building that houses 100 people ultimately leads 45 to 70 people to move out of below-median income neighborhoods, and this one[11] found out that a boom in construction of multi-unit housing in Auckland — predominantly at market rates — resulted in flattening off of rents in the city in real terms. We have enough evidence (like seriouly, every microeconimics book ever) that when the supply rises, the prices drop. Does that mean that building housing is a silver bulletpolicy is perfect? No. But I don't see how this is not the biggest answer. I'll ignore your ad hominems and appeal to authority. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the high vacancy, where are the houses with high vacancy? What is the status of these houses? The answer to these two questions might surprise you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You don't understand what makes a usage of the appeal to authority fallacious. To quote our article:

A non-fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed, experts[note 1] on the issue in question, their opinion provides strong inductive support for the conclusion: It makes the conclusion likely to be true, not necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true — not prove it.

I cite two experts on urban studies. Do you seriously believe they don't know what they're talking about? Even then, I only cite their status in response to your arbitrary dismissal, as you usually do. It's not the crux of my argument, that you also have to consider income in addition to supply. It's also rich for you to lecture me about my supposed fallacious usage of the appeal to authority when one of your staples is your usage of credentialism to undermine sources or bolster your own, but it's well known that you have inconsistent standards.

Anyway, for those in Auckland, they also possess a stronger social infrastructure than we do, which is what you ignore. We have weak social infrastructure. That's going to affect affordability.

In Cleveland, a city with a market rate of $725, 27% of renters pay more than half their income on rent. That's with a relatively low market and high vacancy rate. Why do you dismiss income as a relevant factor in housing affordability? According to two experts on urban policy, the problem isn't supply: it's income. We already have the supply, we don't have the income. Carthage (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's pretty much otherwise. If these "authorities" disagree with the vast majority of the literature available, then it is fallacious. I believe that they disagree with the evidence and with what most, if not all studies say: that the housing crisis is a supply crisis, and that by building more, the prices will drop. When did I dismiss income as a relevant factor in housing affordability? What I said is, when you have more houses, the prices drop. As the prices drop, people can afford more (and better) housing. Americans are much richer than Europeans. And yet, Europeans don't have, on average, the same issues that Americans on housing. Why? Because they build more homes. What does social infrastructure have to do with the problem? Do you think that the people writing the study I linked ignore this variable? Anyway, rich from you to ignore the other studies. I'll also ignore your whataboutism. Regarding Cleveland, they are facing a housing shortage.[12] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't understand what whataboutism is. If the double standard being raised is directly relevant, it's not a case of whataboutism. Pointing out your own double standard is therefore not whataboutism.

"What I said is, when you have more houses, the prices drop. As the prices drop, people can afford more (and better) housing." So... how will that better housing be manifested? This assumes that landlords won't cut corners. As for Americans being "richer" than Europeans... Europeans have stronger social infrastructure. I'd rather be a European with a relatively lower income who has available healthcare and education rather than an American with a nominally higher income but has to shovel more money out for rent (remember that 27% of Cleveland renters pay more than half their income on rent), healthcare, childcare, food, water, and utilities. Your broad generalization also ignores systemic differences in how that wealth manifests.

"If these "authorities" disagree with the vast majority of the literature available, then it is fallacious." That's not how a fallacy works. Popularity does not determine truth value, nor does it affect the structure of an argument. Please point to me the problems with the data that McClure and Schwartz presented. Hell, I doubt you actually read the link because they acknowledge the importance of increasing supply:

As experts on housing policy, we agree that increasing the supply of homes is necessary in areas with rapidly rising housing costs. But this won’t, by itself, make a significant dent in the country’s affordability problems — especially for those with the most severe needs.

It's quite rich how you manifestly proclaim something to be fallacious when you didn't even read the damn link. Consensus is not equivalent to settled science, especially in a field like economics, which is not like physics no matter how much you crow it is. Does physics have as much of a replication problem as economics? Are physicists beset by the same problems as economists?

Hell, they're not even disputing that there is a supply problem. They're simply exploring material realities which you ignore. You refuse to explain the "problems" with the data they present.

Anyway, what they disagree with is how much of an effect that will have on those with the most severe needs. Your social denialism does not change the fact that not everyone can afford market rates even in areas with relatively low rates and high vacancies. Subsidized housing is necessary for those on the lower ends of the distributional spectrum. Carthage (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, it is whataboutism because other discussions are irrelevant here. And yes, authority is only relevant when the source is credible. If people believe the authority is wrong, then their credentials are irrelevant. Anyway, since those "experts" tend to disagree with whole literature on the subject, appealing to their authority is a terrible argument. "So... how will that better housing be manifested?" Because, as more homes become available, people can affort to move to better neighborhood. This isn't that complex. " This assumes that landlords won't cut corners." What does that even mean? If supply's higher, landlords also lose their market power. They'll become price takers, not price makers. You don't understand how wealth works too. Americans are still 40% richer than Europeans even when you adjust the cost of living.[13] So your point is irrelevant. "Subsidized housing is necessary for those on the lower ends of the distributional spectrum." I've already asked you, and I'll ask you again., when did I say that subsidies aren't important? Of course they are, they are one of the ways to increase supply. You started a thread claiming that "the problem is not the supply of housing." Now you're saying that your sources only disagree with is how much of an effect that will have on those with the most severe needs. Can you see by yourself how your argument changed? The policy you're suggesting is one that is used to increase supply. So I'm inclined to say that even your sources argue that it is a supply issue and you didn't read them (as you always don't).GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My argument has always been that income is also a relevant factor (and I did read the article, so piss off with that nonsense. I've been citing multiple paragraphs from it. I'm the one that pointed out that you didn't read the article, because if you had you would've known that the contention of the authors is one of income, not supply.) Your cited Financial Times article doesn't mention subsidization either, so going with what you cited, I could be forgiven for thinking you ignore relevant social qualifiers. After all, the article you cited does, only mentioning "affordable" housing, and not subsidized:

One argument is that only by building affordable housing can you increase affordability. Market-rate dwellings will simply go to people on higher incomes, leaving lower earners high and dry. But recent studies from the US, Sweden and Finland all demonstrate that although most people who move directly into new unsubsidised housing may come from the top half of earners, the chain of moves triggered by their purchase frees up housing in the same cities for people on lower incomes.

This article has a pretty explicit premise, that building more market rate housing will increase affordability even for those on the lower ends of the distributional spectrum. As we can see already, this ignores income and other relevant social qualifiers (like the racial wealth gap, unemployment or underemployment et cetera). You only bring up subsidized housing in response to criticisms I raised.

To quote from the Inquirer article again:

Renters with the most severe affordability problems have extremely low incomes.

Nationally, about 45% of all renter households spend more than 30% of their pretax income on rent — the widely recognized threshold of affordability. About half of these renters, 9.7 million in total, spend more than 50% of their income on housing, greatly impairing their ability to meet other basic needs and putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

Nearly two-thirds of renters paying at least half of their income on housing earn less than $20,000, which is below the poverty line for a family of three. Renters with somewhat higher incomes also struggle with housing affordability, but the problem is most pervasive and most severe among very-low income households.

For a household earning $20,000, $500 per month is the highest affordable rent, assuming the affordability standard of spending no more than 30% of income on housing. In contrast, the median rent in the U.S. in 2019 was $1,097, a level that’s affordable to households earning no less than $43,880.

This is a problem not just for the most vulnerable, of course, but it's a problem especially for the most vulnerable. Feel free to cheerfully ignore the data, again, but even in areas with relatively high vacancies and low market rates the rent rates are still unaffordable as per the metrics used here. What's not hard to understand about that? Multiple areas in the US, as per the Census Bureau, have high vacancy rates. That could easily mean that we have the supply, at least for parts of the US. The problem is affordability. There are also potential solutions to this problem that you refuse to consider, like using eminent domain to expropriate property for the common welfare.

"And yes, authority is only relevant when the source is credible. If people believe the authority is wrong, then their credentials are irrelevant." That's not how this works. You have to show how the authority is wrong. You haven't shown how the data they present on income, affordability, vacancy rates and whatnot are wrong. You've cited studies that are not in contradiction with the link I posted, which you yourself acknowledge argues for increasing supply. Also you haven't even read the article lol. You can't raise a problem with the data presented, so you attempt to undermine the source instead. Carthage (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point you're deliberately lying, so I see little point of keeping this conversation. "My argument has always been that income is also a relevant factor". And again, when did I deny it is? From my second post in this thread: "Subsidized housing is important to achieving this. (resolving the housing crisis)". That being said, you started the thread by arguing that "the problem is not the supply of housing". So, yes, you completely said that supply is not the issue. Unlike me, as I've never denied that subsidized housing is also important (and is one thing that helps us building more homes). You changed what you were saying and you know it. Regarding the FT article, to quote Wikipedia, "subsidized housing is often called "affordable housing", so yes, they've mentioned it too. Even if they didn't mention it, that would be irrelevant because 1: their article is about building more housing, not about subsidized housing (that would require another one, and newspaper writers can only write a certain amount of words) and 2: again, subsidized housing is part of the supply response to the housing crisis. Regarding the vacancy rates, I've asked you before in this discussion and in another one. You still haven't answered: where are these houses? Supposing they are in the areas where people are (hint, most of they are not), what is their status? Are they ruins or actual places where people can live? Since you hardly answer my questions, I expect you to ignore this as well. I've already brought you many studies showing that everywhere, where you build more homes, the prices drop. And yet you started a thread claiming that "the problem is not the supply of housing". Can you at least admit that you were wrong on this one? That yes, it is a supply issue? Regarding your solitary source, it argues that we should subsidize housing more. This is compatible (and one of the ways) to tackle the housing shortage (that yes, you denied when you said it's not a supply issue). If the authors are denying that as well, then their view is as fringe as the sources denying climate change. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget, according to the census that you mentioned, housing vacancy rates are near historic lows. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you not understand about how the cited article ignores relevant social factors?

"I've already brought you many studies showing that everywhere, where you build more homes, the prices drop." It doesn't matter if the prices drop if people still have to choose between rent or food. It's really not that hard to understand.

"Regarding your solitary source, it argues that we should subsidize housing more. This is compatible (and one of the ways) to tackle the housing shortage (that yes, you denied when you said it's not a supply issue). If the authors are denying that as well, then their view is as fringe as the sources denying climate change." So you still haven't read the article, I see. The article argues to increase subsidies, which you also agree with. Your cited article still dismisses subsidized housing. What's not dismissive about this quote:

One argument is that only by building affordable housing can you increase affordability. Market-rate dwellings will simply go to people on higher incomes, leaving lower earners high and dry. But recent studies from the US, Sweden and Finland all demonstrate that although most people who move directly into new unsubsidised housing may come from the top half of earners, the chain of moves triggered by their purchase frees up housing in the same cities for people on lower incomes.

"That being said, you started the thread by arguing that "the problem is not the supply of housing". So, yes, you completely said that supply is not the issue." You can blame poor wording on my part. You can easily see from this sentence here: "So even if you build more market rate housing, there's no guarantee that people will make enough to afford those rents, especially in a country burdened with weak social infrastructure (you have to pay more out of pocket for food, water, housing, utilities, childcare, healthcare, education et cetera). That's something your Financial Times article doesn't take into account" that I was arguing to include relevant social qualifiers, which your article ignores. I have made myself quite clear: it doesn't matter if prices drop if you have to choose between healthcare or housing. You bring up how Europeans have lower incomes than Americans generally? This a) ignores the systemic inequities in the distribution of wealth (the homeless person with a dollar to their name can't afford housing at even the lowest market rates, as one example of this) and b) Europeans don't have to shovel out significant portions of their income on healthcare, childcare, education, and whatnot. It's paid for by the state. That leaves them with room to pay rent and still have money to spare for everything else. Carthage (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The point is, Americans are still 40% richer than Europeans even when you consider the cost of living. if we use the median income (so, robust to outliers) the difference is 50%. So yeah, the vast majority of Americans have more money to spend on everything, from food to housing, than Europeans. Europeans have the same trade-off, except that they have less money to spend on those issues. And please, don't talk about welfare state, because having higher taxes mean that they have even less money at their disposal. My point was simple: when you build more housing the prices fall. You started a thread denying this and now you're making excuses. And I loved how you are still ignoring my questions on the condition and location of the vacancy, as well as the fact that ever since the 1950s vacancies haven't been so low. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Americans have more money than Europeans to spend on housing" and yet 27% of people in Cleveland spend more than half their income on rent. Also don't talk about the welfare state and pretend that alternative taxation schemes exist that remove the brunt of the tax burden from the common people. Progressive taxation, land value tax, et cetera are all schemes that can be used to reduce the burden of taxation on the common people. Hell, speaking about America specifically, the military and the police get absurdly oversized budgets. You take some of those funds and transfer them to social infrastructure and see what happens.

America is a country with 400 million people, even if we overgeneralize that's a lot of people who are gonna be outliers. Going by minimum wage, according to the Inquirer article:

In fact, there is not a single state, metropolitan area, or county in which a full-time minimum-wage worker can afford the “fair market rent” for a two-bedroom home, as designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

But of course this is yet another datapoint you have ignored because it inconveniences your narrative. How many full-time minimum wage workers in the States are there, Gee?

Also, to repost this because you keep ignoring this:

Nationally, about 45% of all renter households spend more than 30% of their pretax income on rent — the widely recognized threshold of affordability. About half of these renters, 9.7 million in total, spend more than 50% of their income on housing, greatly impairing their ability to meet other basic needs and putting them at risk of becoming homeless.

These renters still exist, no matter what your arbitrary metrics and irrelevant comparisons to Europe (which you use as a cudgel against any economically progressive talking point) does not change the fact that 9.7 million renters spend more than half of their income on housing. Carthage (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Europe is relevant because people that make much less than Americans aren't facing this problem, or at least not the same level as America. What are they doing? I argued that they are building more houses. So income cannot be the major issue here if the richest people in the world can't afford something but others can. What is the cause of the American housing crisis? I said that there is a shortage of houses. You denied that, claming that "in many parts of the country there's no shortage of rental units". I'm asking again (though I've asked so many times that I don't expect you to answer). 1 Where are the houses? Are these houses decent homes or just ruins? 3 How come there is no shortage if, according to your own source, America's has currently the lowest housing vacancy rates in history? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What's so hard to understand about in a local context. You're the one who said not to bring up the welfare state. Why not? You love to generalize an entire continent with varying domestic policies, and compare that to a gargantuan and incredibly diverse country with a similar size to the EU. There's obviously going to be variation. Which European countries have progressive taxation regimes? Which have regressive taxation regimes? How does that affect the welfare state, and the size of people's income as determined by class, gender, ethnic or national origin, and whatnot? 9.7 million renters, of the poorest renters in America, spend more than 50% of their income on rent. The obvious solution is to build more subsidized housing. Your cited article dismisses that. (As an aside, you can also, you know, expropriate vacant housing using the power of eminent domain, or shift to models that don't create an exploitative landlord-tenant relationship, but to you housing is a commodity and not a human right. The ethics of a situation where a resource needed by the community to survive (in this case, housing) being owned by a single individual (which also creates a power imbalance) is irrelevant to you. You don't care. That power imbalance and exploitative relationship is an acceptable trade-off to you.) Carthage (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There is not a single argument in the last post. I've already said, by building more houses, landlords lose market power. Why do you hate the poor so much, Carthage? Why don't you want them to have decent homes? 9.7 million renters, of the poorest renters in America, spend more than 50% of their income on rent, and you're denying that they face a house shortage (despite your own source claiming that) and believe that they should either move to rundown homes and neighborhoods, and/or to places that are often hundreds of miles away. Why? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"You're denying that they face a house shortage." Whereas what I actually said: " 9.7 million renters, of the poorest renters in America, spend more than 50% of their income on rent. The obvious solution is to build more subsidized housing." So, no, I haven't denied shit. What am I arguing for is an increase in the welfare state so that they don't have to so oppressively burdened by precarity. Your insinuation that I "hate the poor" because you can't address substance is bad faith as fuck. W are done here. Carthage (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Funny because you said that "in many parts of the country there's no shortage of rental units" in your first post (by using a source that claims that America has never seen such a huge shortage of vacancies). You don't want policies that work, you just want to be right and deny the entire literature and evidence on the subject, just like you did in the inflation discussion. And before I forget, why didn't you answer my questions even though I've answered every single one of your posts and asked you to answer mine dozens of times? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, kids. I've been following this and this is my judgement - you're both right. How the hell is this even possible? The old micro/macro economics issue, that's why.

Gee is talking in macroeconomics terms, as similar to the FT is. Yes, it is correct that if you increase ratio of supply/demand for housing, prices shall ultimately fall [assuming everything else is the same, nach]. That's supply and demand, which is perhaps as hard a law as you can find in economics. But the important bit here is 'ultimately'. Think decades; in some cases, it would take several of them to sort out the overheated housing in places like London or New York. But to paraphrase; in the long run we are all dead and you cannot feed a starving man with predictions of future harvests.

Carthage is talking from the opposite end; that of the micro. Yes, while 'building more McMansions and luxury apartments' might make total price/income ratios fall eventually, that doesn't help things now. If I'm a body with thousands of people needing housing with a max budget of £1200 p/m, I'm not gonna be happy if I find out almost all the local new housing stock is gonna be luxury homes at £3000 a month. It's a zero-sum immediate game; those folks taking the homes will not be the ones I want to help and chances are, very few would be vacating existing local properties which would be suitable for my waiting-list. What's more, if I am a political body with a long waiting-list for affordable/social homes and only a very limited amount of 'building' going on within my zone, hell yeah I am gonna prioritise those poor folks, if only for political reasons [the vast majority of Anglo metros are long-term stronghold of left-of-centre politics]. Even the 'building new houses raises prices' makes sense in this context; if you're living in a housing estate where the average rent is £1500 a month and a new devleopment constains many at £3000 a month, yes people will think the 'development raised local prices' because the median price has risen.

Now, I cannot talk about the American situation but the critical issue we have in England is that the folks who have the responsibility to 'sort out' their local patches housing-wise don't have any macro levers to actually do so, while the folks in Westminster who do have these levers don't have much incentive to do so because it will cost a lot of cash and political capital for a programme which they'll be politically dead [most likely] by the time the fruits are eaten. That is assuming they are not ideologically hidebound by a poisonous combination of 'public spending bad', 'the market will provide' and 'don't piss off the NIMBYs'. This raises the question of whether 'the market' could even sort out say, London's housing shortage without concreting over every bit of green space from Colchester to Oxford. Even worse, 'letting the market provide' [as the FT normally shall suggest; I know their MO] shall invaribly end up simply shoving up tons of poorly built new houses in which shall be the overcrowded future slums in twenty/thirty years time.

One aspect of the FT article I don't buy at all is the 'gentrification does not push out the poor' claim. Gentrification might not hurt property-owners, but sure as hell whips low-income renters in the area. And even secure social tenants are not immune; their landlord may ultimately get their head turned by the 'redevelopment' prospects, particulary if the units in question are old/shabby enough [which is common these days in the UK]. In fact, in my skim-read of the study, I would say they don't claim that gentrification does not push out the poor', merely that normally, they are not 'pushed out' into worse areas than their pre-gentrified area was. But then again [as they note] gentrification is normally a slow-burner and [as they don't note] it is often done in a manner which the poorer inhabitants are slowly 'weeded out' not by evictions and purchase and tear-downs but simply not being replaced when they organically die, downsize, end-of contracts etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Housing again

The top article says that housing in Atlanta, right now, costs the same as in 1990. That's impossible. Please address. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.222.118.140 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That WIGO is also locked behind a paywall. Neat. Carthage (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, as someone who lived in georgia for 10 years, i'm also quite skeptical of this claim. i'll have to look into it later.

also, is there a way we can get gjk to make these entries a little shorter and more concise? this one's way too wordy. The G (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You can read the paper here: [14] I don't think that this paper has that conclusion. It does conclude that real construction costs per square foot have held steady.

In absolute terms, there is no way that the claim is right. [15] However... per this FRED economic data link covering the "Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta" area (so this includes a lot of exurbs)... it might be close in real terms. In 1990, their "house price index" was around 90. In 2018 (when the paper was written), this index was around 210. I don't know if you can treat this "house price index" like dollars and run a crude inflation adjustment on the number, but if you can... they seem to be "within the ballpark" in real terms.

The problem here is that in the last 5 years or so, there has been a huge spike in housing prices... pushing the house price index in the Atlanta area to around 366. Not at all close to the 1990 index value assuming the "crude real calculation" is accurate (again, I'm not certain of that). If accurate, it might be indicative of there being a "housing bubble" again ala 2008.

Obviously this summary link is missing a lot of data though to help with this conclusion (eg square footage, price of individual areas in the metro area, etc.)... BobJohnson (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So Gee posted a paper that's obsolete by a factor of more than half a decade? Carthage (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @BobJohnson and Carthage you guys are missing the point of the WIGO. The purpose was to show that, when you have a large supply of housing, prices won't surge, like in San Francisco. It's an empirical article testing a theory with our best control groups available (for the record they use data from 1990 and 2010). If you think the theory is now outdated, you should test it again. What happened in Atlanta in the last few years, like in the FRED's link suggests (to some extent, the article studies Atlant which is less than 10 per cent of Metro Atlanta's population, while While FRED has data for the entire metropolian area), makes the article's conclusion even stronger. A balanced housing market requires about six months' worth of inventory. Now, in Atlanta the number is about 2.4, below the American national average.[16] In other words, they are not building enough housing anymore. Indeed, while GA is the only the 8th most populous state in the US, it had one of the largest housing undeproduction in the country[17] (and it's tempting to say that we can blame Metro Atlanta for that since two thirds of the state's population live there). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not the happiest of bunnies of having an abstract of a paper in the WIGO blogs section - the 'barriers of consumption' is too high. I have a fear that the amount of RW members who'd actually understand the report is under ten, perhaps as low as two. Example; hands up if you know what even FRED is? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

hence why i suggested shortening the entry and summarizing it more succinctly earlier. it's a good argument, but it's too verbose for the average reader of this site. The G (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Original poster again. Sorry for bad form, new to wiki stuff. Thanks for the discussion folks. I unerstand GeeJayK reasoning a bit more now, but it's not clear from the summary. Is there any way I could maybe post this "More Perfect Union" youtube? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwlwrZst7d0

Trying to learn rules and etiquette here 104.222.118.140 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Boo

G and Karma convinced me. I won't be posting this sort of articles anymore as they are too longer and technical than blog posts, and I doubt anyone will read them anyway. Regarding OP's question, you can create an account, though you'll also need autoconfirmed rights to post on protected pages so I'll just add this one for you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If a few problematic statements and a wee bit of editorializing were eliminated, the WIGO summary is fine, if wordy. A summary of the paper from my perspective would be:

A) Housing land use regulations decrease the elasticity of supply, raising prices.

B) There is a strong correlation between an area's overall household wealth and the amount of land use restrictions in an area.

C) There is a connection between tightly regulated housing land use and inequality, with society implications due to the demographic differences (notably age) between homeowners and renters. Homeowners are more inclined to view higher prices brought on by regulation as a positive.

A more succinct executive summary could be: "This paper examines the relationship between land use restrictions, wealth, and inequality". An even more vulgar succinct summary would be: "Homeowners: fuck you, renters, I got mine, get out". :) To a degree, it's an analysis of one part of a well known aspect of NIMBY. It's just one paper of course. And it's a narrow form of "regulations" being explored -- certainly I wouldn't want to do away with *all* regulations (think building codes, as long as they are reasonable). But in itself, I see no issue.

I'll add a bit of a footnote to this. At this time, there is a growing interest in institutional investors buying single unit homes for the purpose of renting them out. As housing prices are high in several areas right now, there has been several articles (all over the place, depending on who is writing them) regarding the impact of institutional investment buyout on this phenomenon. But an "interesting postulate" to me here concerns the wealth of the average American. In the past, most American homeowners' assets were *heavily* top-loaded by the value of their home, which dominated all other aspects of their net worth. Renters never build up any equity, so it's easy to see how well-off NIMBY types locking out poorer people from owning homes help cause inequality. Now, what if those well-off NIMBY were not neighbors at all, but even richer faceless institutions? Though there isn't a paper exploring this, my instinct is that "the investor class" has even greater motivation (reduced competition!) to price the "average Joe" out of the ownership market by keeping asset values high.

(PS: FRED = Federal Reserve Economic Data, sorry for the excessive acronym-ing.) BobJohnson (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson I'd guess that the authors also agree that some regulation is good and necessary. Even Ludwig von Mises would say so on Human Action:

There are certainly cases in which people may consider definite restrictive measures as justified. Regulations concerning fire prevenntion are restrictive and raise the cost of production. Rut the curtailment of total output they bring about is the price to be paid for avoidance of greater disaster. The decision about each restrictive measure is to be made on the ground of a meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained. No reasonable man could possibly question this rule.

The point of the authors was, I believe, show that regulations usually, if not always, raise the cost of production, resulting in less housing. To say which regulations are necessarily despite rasing costs would probably require another study, and I'd guess that this is the reason why they didn't mention it on the paper. It is definitely a good question, but not the one that the study is trying to answer. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

i wholeheartedly agree with the fact that the root of the housing crisis is a shortage of housing supply (and i can't stress this enough). this is seen in places like california, where the demand growth for housing far outpaces the annual increase in supply. supply, in turn, is constrained by red tape (e.g., archaic zoning laws, car-centric development guidelines, the "missing middle" etc.). naturally, investors are taking the opportunity to cash in on rising housing costs. (because why let a good crisis go to waste, right?)

the problem is, people want to blame the all the ills of the housing market on everything (and everyone) else, such as the investors, the developers, airbnb, etc. (even though they are only symptoms of the problem). nimbys, in fact, do far more damage to housing affordability than any of the usual scapegoats do. this level of ignorance does nothing to address the root cause of the crisis, and it borders on denialism. The G (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So when we talk about removing regulations, does that include public health regulations like regs banning the use of lead and asbestos in construction? Carthage (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

'Removal of regulations' is the shitty stock answer said by free marketeers; at best, it normally ends up 'solving' the housing issues by building a load of badly designed/built properties on equally shit estates which are not going to be fit for purpose in even 25 years time, let alone 100 [that's assuming that they're even fit on creation]. Jerry-built housing is a 'false economy' for society in general, and must be avoided. Often, regulations are there for a good reason; for example 'limiting new construction' in California might be down to say, lack of extra water, physical space, infrastructure etc to support more homes, while the 'Green Belt' around major UK cities was put in there to stop 'infinite suburban sprawl' which would have resulted in London becoming the size of Delaware and threatening to join up with Birmingham and then Manchester. It's more a case of reviewing regulations to see if they are still fit for purpose. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

i implore you all to do some reading and research before putting words in my mouth or repeating things you don't really understand. the reason we have a housing crisis is simple: the supply does not meet demand. even though my experiment with free-market libertarianism ended long ago (in the last decade), i still view some regulations as very harmful. karma, maybe it's different on the other side of the pond, but here in the states, the supply of housing is artificially restricted because of zoning policies (some of which were written in the era of racial segregation) — policies such as minimum parking requirements (which waste a lot of space and jack up prices unnecessarily due to maintenance costs), exclusive zoning for detached single family homes, banning the construction of missing middle housing, separating commercial districts from residential zones, limiting public transportation in favor of the automobile, and a host of other rather arbitrary rules that developers have to follow. cities the us and canada (and maybe even australia) are burdened with bad urban planning regulations, which contribute to the affordability crisis and even climate change (because making everyone burn fuel to drive their car around — to say nothing of all the land that needs to be destroyed and paved over for all those roads and parking lots — isn't exactly good for the environment).

sure, there's a need for some zoning laws (e.g., to separate polluting industrial centers from residential areas), but a lot of them are very useless. it's time to face the fact that some regulations, especially the ones mentioned above, do far more harm than good. most cities in europe and asia do just well without such frivolous regulations. in fact, most cities that have ever existed prior to ca 1945 relied on organic growth and development — even many american cities. barring pollution and poor sanitation, they were much more livable that way. reconsidering these stupid laws is the first step in solving the housing crisis (and stopping predatory landlords and corporations from cashing in). The G (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of jurisdictions will also ban or restrict the building of affordable housing while being all for the building of luxury flats. That said, while removing some regulations is probably a good idea, what do you with the regulations that prevent expansion of housing for a good reason, like Karma pointed out, and you ignored? It doesn't matter how much housing you build if there's not enough water. Do we also really want excessive urban sprawl? That's really what you're suggesting, that we should let cities expand organically with no planning in mind. Carthage (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

even in the most sprawling cities, there's demand for higher density housing. the problem is that corrupt politicians and red tape get in the way. the only people who benefit from the red tape i mentioned above are the mega-corporations and the large developers who can afford to absorb those costs, as the mom-and-pops typically can't, for instance, afford to buy up extra land and bulldoze it to make room for minimum parking requirements. this creates a never-ending cycle of large developers supporting politicians who enact policies favorable to them (as in the article i linked).

all the policies i listed (that should be removed) promote sprawl, even though there is significant demand for dense, walkable infrastructure (if the high property value and housing costs in the relatively few 15-minute cities in the states don't tell you anything). sprawling infrastructure is considerably more resource intensive than high(er)-density development. ironically, you don't typically hear market libertarians promoting this kind of deregulation of urban planning (likely because they're in bed with big oil); it's usually people from the political left who promote this. The G (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Except 'repeal regulations!' is the shitty stock answer from ideological free-marketeers, G and you know it. And sometimes, different countries can provide 'how not to do it' examples; you bitch about 'minimum parking requirements' and I in return can show you the parked-car clogged streets in British 'burbs on why those requirements are needed. Which factors into part of the solution; that sometimes, demand needs to be 'managed' away, not simply catered to indefinitely. The free market to some extent does this already; that when prices are high, consumers have to comprimise to what attributes they desire.

We also need to factor economics into this; America might partly end up with shit, low-density single-family homes because they are the most profitable. I know enough about building to explain this; single-story buildings require less foundations, wood panels and drywall is cheap as fuck compared to brick, can be assembled by lower-skilled workers and requires less labour-hours to do so. But again, there sometimes there will be 'method in the madness'; low density means 'more firebreaks', wood construction means 'less likely to be crushed to death in earthquake' and who cares of a building's limited life-span if chances are some form of natural disaster will fell it before it falls apart?

There's also the spectre of 'path dependence'. The above houses sell because that's what's available, leading to the conclusion that they are what's popular, and therefore more are built [aided by the fact homebuilders don't want to take risks in putting up something they fear Will Not Sell]. The consumers themselves may believe that 'they need' to live in that kind of property and/or get pressured by others - such as bringing up kids by choice in a terraced house or a flat [rather than 'a proper house' in the outer 'burbs like everyone else]. Certain assumptions creep in too; for example the general suburbanite might come to believe having a 'walkability' rating of zero is normal and that wanting otherwise marks you out as some kind of eccentric.

There's also the fact that 'suburban densification' has been going on for decades in places like the UK and coastal/metro USA. Just 'free-market style'; ie shrink the plot size for the same sized house; something seen in episodes of 'McMansion Hell'. Well, you got your wish, didn't you? But the estates they're on are still shit, often because the local government either is unwilling or unable to put in stuff like parks, schools etc to make it 'walkable' and even if they do try to make 'neighbourhood clusters' it doesn't work because folks are conditioned to drive everywhere [or these days, have it all delivered] and the government often doesn't bother in trying to nurture these places. Later suburban infilling poses it's own challenges, most obviously uprating the infrastructure.

This is why I don't believe in your conspiracy theory that it's mainly 'corrupt politicians' and red tape stopping these developments. I put it down to more to cultural norms, path dependence, confirmation biases, lack of political foresight [sometimes due to a ideological hatred of 'planning'], local NIMBYism and the dominance of housebuilding being done for for-profit orgs with little motivation to change and zero to really consider long-term livability of the estates they build. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's funny that Miami Florida was picked as the case study. While I don't doubt the impact of corruption and red tape (especially in Miami)... Florida is an interesting case study in "what to regulate, what not to regulate". Florida, pretty obviously, has "interesting challenges" for the future. One, the fact that hurricanes are quite common, is already reflected in most building codes. The other one... climate change... isn't. Already, around where I live, the most flood prone neighborhood, Shore Acres, has gone to "it floods during a really bad storm" to "it floods at high tide" over the last 40 years, in part due to the sea level rise (an estimated 6 inches in the last 15 years, for some reason the Gulf of Mexico sea level is rising faster than most places) that climate change has brought. It's only going to get worse.

While Ron DeSantis may be sticking his head in the sand, some local governments do know the above already. As do insurance companies (who have either mostly pulled out of Florida, or made home insurance rates insane). Honestly, the above issues have been known for the last couple decades if not longer. So, from my perspective, there are two ways one could have tackle these sort of problems. One is to use some sensible regulations to help address the problem beforehand (which has largely happened for hurricane codes, though sometimes it has taken a hurricane to drive that point, as Hurricane Michael did for the Panhandle area). It's more expensive to make houses that can stand 100mph+ winds, but it's better then having someone's life upended and having their house destroyed by a mere storm. (And of course, insurance companies might actually be willing to... you know... insure this sort of home.) The other is to simply let the "free market" take its course... which has benefits in many other areas... but when 1 in 4 of this nation don't even "believe" in climate change, it's bound to piss some people off along the way because they didn't fully research the house they bought. I've lived in the Tampa area long enough to avoid buying a Shore Acres home... transplants aren't so lucky. After Hurricane Idalia seriously flooded that neighborhood even though the area hardly got the worst of the storm (the eye was well offshore), there's a lot of pissed off people there and in other locales with similar flooding issues... and a lot of 'for sale' signs. Buyer beware, I suppose? A good question in my mind... BobJohnson (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

karma, you're so close to getting it. so close.

i don't know why people here keep strawmanning that i support repealing any and all regulations when i clearly stated which ones need to go in order to address the housing in the united states (and canada; do note that these aren't universal solutions, and that ymmv if you live in another country). you know it's a problem when (1) there are minimum parking requirements but no minimum housing requirements, and (2) they result in parking lots that take up whole football fields (here's just one example of a random parking lot in nashville; this isn't even one of the larger parking lots i've seen). now, i can see a need for minimum parking in some instances, but most parking minimums in the us and canada are subjective, which results in large swaths of land being paved over for parking lots that seldom reach even 50% capacity at their peak. that's land that can be used to build more homes and/or businesses, instead. what's worse is that doing that costs money, and those costs often get passed down to the consumer — even when the parking is free (via hidden fees) — regardless of whether someone actually uses that parking lot. even rent goes up because of excessive parking spaces (again, regardless of whether you own a car).

and this is just one regulation that screws with housing supply here in north america. i haven't even gotten to the problems with euclidean zoning (which is one reason why most american metropolitan areas require a car just to get around in a reasonable amount of time), and how the idea was originally conceived to promote racial and class segregation (and still is, to an extent); nor have i gotten to any other regulations such as height restrictions and the missing middle (that serve no other useful purpose than to constrain housing supply). so why do we have all this if we know they're objectively bad for our cities? thank the nimbys. edit: so, in my previous post, i said that only developers and mega corporations benefit from these regulations. i was wrong (kind of). it's the nimbys who benefit from these more than anybody else, while large developers can more readily absorb the costs.

anyway, this is a lot to fit into one discussion post, so if you wish to learn more, there are entire youtube channels (and organizations dedicated to this topic. if your time is short, this video summarizes things pretty well. The G (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

My point was that as 'repeal regulations' has become a stock line for the market extremists, so it's best to avoid using that line otherwise. If you use their talking-points, you cannot hugely bitch about folks mistaking you as a strawman [though I have not].

What you're describing re: parking is not really 'repeal' but more 'reform'; often regs can be decades old and based on assumptions on 'how people live' which no longer apply [or perhaps never did]. But the parking issue is something which is seen in the UK [but in a totally different way]; here there is the 'out of town' big-box stores and supermarkets with their acres of 'free parking' which tempts car-bound shoppers because they don't want to have to pay £2 or so for the car park in the town centre. The moral of the story being; hidden costs decieve many, exp when it's difficult to actually compute how much said costs would have been if paid by the consumer directly - part of the high parking costs was due to it being in the town centre [and thus more valuable land] than the out-of-town location [which is likely to have little to no possibility of other use].

Ultimately, I think the crux of the issue is not 'regulations' per se but the fact the Anglosphere has [as a rule] left it to the free market to plan and build since the 1980s. And they don't do the former much, because there's normally no money in doing it [though you might occasionally find a high-end homebuilder doing it as it's the 'mark of high-spec homes']. At least here in the UK, the provision of services/ housing is done arse-over-tit; as in the housing is normally thrown up first and then later [sometimes much later] do they even start to think about service provision - which half the time ends up not being done at all because the new community has fallen into a style of living which is minus them, which is very car-dependent, coupled with the simple fact retrofitting even simple improvements can be prohibitively expensive [example; I live on an estate built in the 10s, off an estate built in the 80s. If the 10s homebuilder had given a fuck and put in a public pathway between the two 'backs' the walking trip from my home to the local primary school / shops would be 10 mins rather than 25].

Yes, this sort of thing wasn't needed before the advent of the auto age but the issue is, well we are in the auto age and like our shitty diets, the 'default option' has become so shit active measures are required [though I also think there's a tendency to forget the original 'push reasons' for folks going to the suburbs themselves; for example getting away from all the 'old-fashioned' urban areas with zero parking provision, properties unsuitable for 'modern' life, surrounded by the pollution and less privacy]. Which is where regulations have their place. It's a legal manner to make builders 'give a fuck' about stuff which isn't their bottom line for once - for example, here in the UK new estates built since 2003 have to include 'sustainable drainage systems' aka detention basins/ ditches so there's less flash flooding. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)