Thursday assorted links


4. Cute. And lay off SF. Let SF be weird. Already one of the highest population densities in the country.

You want to build, you got a lot of flat land there, including some without a water shortage

"a victory for the neighbours and the little people."

Typical nosy neighbors and socialists trying to portray a loss for property rights as a victory for "democracy."

At the same time, the streets of SF are a literal sh*thole, which is not merely weird, it disgusting and unsanitary. It's as bad as a Brazilian favela.

No, they are not. So-called Brazilian favelas are actually very good. That is why so many people seek them.

Do you realize you just responded to a dog whistle?

No, I haven't.

So San Francisco for some, and Dallas for others. Not to mention all those other low mounds on the map.

Yes, let’s artificially constrain housing supply in high demand areas. Let’s make a land holders cartel and then enforce it with violence.

I’m sure the resulting literal shit show is the Koch’s and evil Southerner’s fault. Children and hypocrites all the way down.

Number one, it is not artificial. SF the city is very small and completely built. There are no green fields. This is an argument at the margin about converting existing single family housing.

You may laugh at SF for this rebuild.

I laugh at all of you getting excited about one house.

Oh, you’re Russian? Or Chinese? Or just not a resident of the yay?

Because you’re so full of bs I have to assume youve never stepped foot in San Francisco. My home town.

So drop a map pin for us, green fields within the city proper.

I am not enough of a leftist to live there, no. I'd take Texas first.

Do you think that the SF Planning Commission promulgates regulations for only one house in its quinquennial plans to leap backward?

But that's what I'm saying, right. One house is the increment here, for both sides to argue about. A thousand house/unit development it is not.

7. Link won’t open as it’s ‘local’. Assuming that means on your local server. Would you repost with an accessible link please? I’m keen to read it. Thank you.

One man walks into the street to save a puppy, the other because he's drunk. Both side do it.

I could have been harsher there, because harming children is a real thing in the news. We are all, critics included, to inured at this point. It is an expected outcome of an incompetent operation "to keep us safe" from 7 year old girls.


"Ms Traverce called the decision "a victory for the neighbours and the little people"."

This SF house, sold at $1.7M and containing an indoor swimming pool, is somehow a crown jewel of the "little people"? I will never understand SF.

?? No, the house isn't the emblem of the 'little people', punishing a rich person who can afford a house in SF = victory for 'little' people.

A rich person with six children.

It's mostly a victory for the rich neighbors who want to look at the old house. If you want to help the little people, develop east Oakland, Richmond, South San Francisco, and most of San Jose into livable, nice middle class neighborhoods.

#1 "The Dismal Cost of Economics' Lack of Racial Diversity"

Into the trash it goes...

#3 "Once upon a time there was a mommy and a daddy that decided to spend all of the baby's college fund money on a mining rig to add transactions to the big bad public ledger. One day, their mining rig overheated and burned down the house while attempting to squeeze profitability from tightening margins, but all was not lost. The public ledger became irrelevant when it was revealed that it might in fact be the wild imaginings of a Japanese dude (who may or may not exist), while the mommy and the daddy were able to leverage their remaining assets into Ethereum in the hopes of converting profits into dreams of silver, gold and real-estate backed securities. And they all lived happily ever after. The end."

#4 Definitely a case of it is better to continually ask permission, over and over again apparently, than to say you're sorry.

#1: Bostic is an expert in housing and unfair lending practices. In the late 1990s, he worked at the Federal Reserve, where he won an award for his work on the Community Reinvestment Act.

In his own words, he says he’s spent his career “focused on issues of getting access to capital, credit, and services to communities that haven’t had them.”

The lack of diversity among Fed officials might have been part of the reason the central bank didn’t spot the financial crisis brewing, according to William Spriggs, an economics professor at Howard University. “If the Fed had noticed in the latter half of 2007 that Latino and African American unemployment rates were rising, it might have understood a significant problem was on the horizon,” Spriggs said in a statement to a congressional committee (pdf) in late 2016.

Would this Bostic character, after having spent his career advocating for increased access to credit for minorities, really have done a 180 in 2007 and begun advocating less? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. If this is the best example these guys can come up with....

By far one of the most significant development of this year is the split between conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians might protest that they are not conservatives, but they would protest too much. Here is the evidence: ;

You need something like Charles Joseph Minard's Tableau Graphique of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.

I find that graphic to be extremely misleading actually

What do you know about Napoleon's invasion of Russia that C. J. Minard didn't?

#1 : "we’re hurtling towards a climate-change crisis that capitalism appears incapable of avoiding (if anything, it’s making the problem worse)."

... you can always trust a leftist economist's statements.
( except about science, humans,politics and economics)

Let's hypothesize for a moment that it is true. How could a hard right business-oriented culture respond?

"Does not compute?"

What is a "hard right" business oriented culture?

Demand for low ghg products might induce firms to lower their ghg costs, which might be observed by a decreasing trend in ghg per dollar gdp. That is something we've seen in the US since the 1990s.

Energy costs money, and in many domains people want to save money. But it isn't universal, as however many outdoor propane patio heaters are used across the country. The market dictates that the heaters bring customers.

And of course net-net no one, the US included, is on a free market glide path to stable atmospheric CO2.

Hard right pro business? What? What does pro business even mean? This is like a reflexive leftist word vomit counterpart to “pro labor.” Which is equally vacuous. Hard right, what most people would call fascism, is definitely not “pro business”, it’s literally putting the economy under the purview of the state. The state, the state, and nothing but the state.

Energy does cost money. Natural gas is much cleaner, and thanks to new technology is becoming a dominant player in energy around the world. LNG port facilities would speed this trend.

As a matter of fact, US is steadily reducing CO2 output. Thanks to natural gas. So...

Feel free to pass a carbon tax now that Dems own the House.

Spoiler alert: they won’t.

Pro-tip: Never open with semantics.

Especially when the body of your response shows that you did understand it as about a free market response to an accepted problem.

Bonus link:

I know libertarians love a free market in scarcer water, but they love to forget that it is a "taking" from very old water rights that now look oversold.

So you troll, and respond with trolling.

“Cool” as Oliver would say.

You of course ignore facts, because you’re either a paid poster or literally mentally retarded, so 👏👏👏.

The free market response to your problem is apparently to lower CO2.

But again, you’re a CSU Longbeach communication guy. So, keep screeching community college bullshit.

My question is how did you stumble across this blog? I can only assume from that insane lady’s book about Buchanan. Maybe you’re that insane lady?

Pro-tip: Don't act like a bitter loser.

Pro-tip: I am very bitter.

Assuming by "Hard-right, pro-business" you mean someone who objects to government control of the economy (the only solution the Left proposes):

There are a few ways to address this.

First, you can convince people that you're right. If you convince businessmen that you're right, they'll act on that premise. That's what "convinced" means. You have to convince each one of them, but in an age of mass communication that's not insurmountable.

Second, you can find a way to make fixing climate change good for their bottom line. I've done groundwater monitoring on a site where something similar was done: there was a waste product, which was occasionally spilled (forklift operators aren't known for their precision). Then the factory owner went to a business lunch, and learned that this waste product was part of the process in the plant one of his colleagues owned. And wonder of wonders, suddenly there were no more spills! The owner was now selling the "waste" product--and every dollar he made off it was pure profit, because he was already covering his manufacturing costs with the profits from his main product. If you find a way to let companies make money off environmental protection, they become your biggest allies.

Third, you can suck it up and deal with it. Some areas will become less profitable; some more so (see Canadian and Russian tundra). Well, that's business; investments carry with them inherent risks. Sometimes you lose. In fact, this is my preferred option--I do not think we know enough to do environmental engineering (our track record for trying to fix environmental issues ranges from "bad" to "suicidal"), and even if we succeeded now we'd end up facing this issue again. Climate change isn't exactly uncommon after all, and even if this event is different we'll have to face other types of climate change moving forward. May as well learn how to do it.

Invent a technology that increases the availability of natural gas which displaces coal for power generation and allows the US to do more than almost any other nation to decrease is carbon emissions?

1# "The dismal cost of economics' lack of racial diversity"
The author never actually explains a mechanism by which homogeneity negatively impacts economics. Instead we get an overly long article full of worthless platitudes.

I can guess that the rest of the articles will be just as bad.

What could Tyler's intention be when linking this to us?

They're not great. I might still read them, I started with "The re-education of Economics 101" (Orwellian much) but the author seems to be pretty unsophisticated and just beating on (their beliefs about) Economics and (public enemy number 1) Capitalism with the Social Justice bat.

Reading about economics from a journalist is typically a frustrating experience. This is no exception.

6: "Whereas Brazil and Mexico are plunging into populism"

This is the kind of shit Tyler wants you to read.

Sorry Ty, not every country can "soar into socialism" like Venezuela.

Brazil is not plunging into populism. Quite the oposite. After years of irresponsible leftwing populism in Brazil, President Captain Bolsonaro has nominated Mr. Guedes, a famous Chicago-taught free market reformer to head Brazil's economy and apply what has been called "bitter measures" to adjust, reform and open up the economy and shrink the state-imposed burden on workers and entrepreneurs. President Captain has vowed to end artificial class warfare, cut taxes, cut the red tape, take the state off the makers' backs, oppose immigration, eliminate the twin deficits, fight corruption and crime and block key Red Chinese investments.

Right. I'm all ears on Armenia -- do they have a thriving metal scene like Ukraine? -- but that Economist intro torches any credibility

#4: SF is the perfect example of everything I despise about liberals. It's a mix of stupidity, virtue signaling and hubris that is very hard to understand.

Not to mention thriving industries, soaring real estate values, and good food. I suppose you find that hard to understand as well.

Yes, let's restrict supply even more by designating every building an historic building so that prices can go even higher!

Boy you guys sure go into conniptions of rationalization when reality contradicts your theories.

I love SF. My family bought property there in the early 80s. Goldmine.

I love the city. They will go to war to protect my property values, and combined with prop 13 it’s just a rent seeker’s dream.

Maxwell’s Opera House cafe, SF jazz festival, B2Breakers, House of Nanking, Shalimar, pride parade, Lunar New Year, climbing Mt Tam...I love it when I come visit now. So much you can do without even shilling out tons of cash.

Most beautiful area of the country, and I say that as someone who has lived in many states and countries. Gorgeous. Point Reyes is still my favorite place in the US. Not in the world, but damn close.

From a non ideological lens, SF is a city that won the lottery. The BA is absolutely gorgeous, has mild weather, outstanding food, close to skiing, mountaineering, pristine beaches, sailing....and yes! Having an insanely desirable place to live next to UC Berkeley and Stanford means a steady supply of the smartest group of each cohort. For attractive locations, investing in top schools as a feeder is smart.

But let’s be honest. The government is 100% pro rent seeking. I love it. But it’s terrible. More importantly, it’s causing massive poverty, human suffering, and lower GDP. People can’t afford to move to the area of opportunity. Yglesias, before he lost his mind, used to write about this.

Keeping SF weird isn’t worth keeping a Mexican family in horrendous abject poverty.

Open the border! With México, and zoning regs.

As a resident of and student of resort community economics, I think you oversimplify the issue, and present a false dichotomy.

Of course, nothing is worth keeping families in poverty, deliberately.

But the answer is not, as anti-socialists like to say, bringing everyone else down to their level. Or, for example, transforming SF into, say, Oakland (it's a sh*thole, right?)

It is closer to say, it's not fair to exploit subsidized economic preference systems to allow newcomers with more money to drive incumbents out of their own community. But the solution to that tends to be at the national level.

If a community succeeds in making itself an attractive place to live - either through smart development planning, or protecting its natural resources, or attracting good jobs - well, then, bully for them. the reason SF prices are sky high is precisely because it succeeded at providing what homeowners want. SF is so expensive precisely because it is NOT Oakland.

If they can't house their own workforce now, well, let the prices sort that out. Which it will eventually. I am in favor of public subsidies to level the playing field in the meantime. After all, home-ownership is the most subsidized activity of any, besides maybe banking, oil drilling, and war-making. So I have no problem throwing lower income people a bone.

This little drama plays itself out over and over under the name of gentrification. And it is fueled, surprise surprise, in no small part by cheap federal money and tax preferences.

wait a second though, I just reread your last couple sentences. You'll need to explain how the rent seeking government is causing abject mexican poverty, and what this has to do with real estate in SF


Almost no one in the "thriving industries" wants to live there, but there is path dependence in the system.

HP picked the silicon valley when it was a libertarian paradise. Same with Shockley Semiconductor, and others that followed. This built an enormous wealth of human capital in the region, which they are now squandering as quickly as they can.

you are just making stuff up and hoping no one notices

Friend of mine moved to SV about a year ago for a job. He's just bought a house back here in Texas. He's still working in SV, mind, he's just going to live in a little apartment and come back here on the weekends, because the pay there is great but he can't stand living there...

I expect that the fraction of "silicon valley" workers living in The City is small.

"A large portion of Silicon Valley residents live within just six of its 39 cities – San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Daly City and San Mateo – the study reports. Several cities are growing more than three times faster than the state as a whole."

#7 is broken. I think the link should go

Kinda o/tb but... Dirty dealing in the $175 billion Amazon Marketplace []

Seems like this is worthy of a libertarian analysis.


This you need to look at.

Maybe I'll still hang onto that film SLR a little longer

Reader tip:

A private effort to fund a border wall has raised over $11 million in a few days, but remains woefully unsubscribed at a mere 1.1 percent.

Assuming, however, that the campaign continues to attract all "Trump voters", it will still be under-funded. The campaign says that if all 65 million Trump voters contribute $80, it will meet the goal. But throughout several days, the average donation has remained steady at $60.90 or 76% of the optimal pace. The campaign is proof that voluntary contributions toward public goods will be suboptimal, even for people who support the good.

The campaign promises that if the goal is not substantially reached, all donations will be returned. This is a novel "solution" that is not available for contributions of effort to keep a flood from breaching a levee, for example. Even with this under-provision protection, contributions are suboptimal.

Zealots with higher willingness to pay have partially but not fully compensated for underprovision by others.

About #5 Is Cowen's book available at stores or only online?

1. Here is the twitter feed of these people: . In a recent tweet, they write:

"If there’s one thing worth taking away from the White House report on socialism, it’s that economics is a political argument, not just a technical exercise."

Indeed, I agree; this is true and not good for the field. Here is tweet that hints at their response to this defect:

"A large body of data from economics, biology, and psychology shows that educational equity is more than a social justice imperative; it is an economic imperative that has far-reaching implications for the nation."

Their recommendation is to conceive of economics as inherently political, and use it as a tool to achieve leftist political ends. (Why am I so not surprised?) People like this are hostile parasites and should be shunned by anyone in the field with integrity. They would throw out all that is good about economics, viz. the general modeling approach---a claim must follow from (A) precise, stated assumptions; and (B) given, rigorous rules of inference. The fact that they aren't more successful is testament to the merits of the neoclassical approach.

Academic economics does have a political problem; the phrase "policy implications" is a frequent reminder. The correct action is to REDUCE the political and return to the technical roots. Economics should not tell us do this or don't do that. Rather, it should help us understand the nature of the problems we face.

1. Economics is the only academic field that routinely divides into left v right. The rethinking of economics should have started years ago.

5. H. MacDonald's "The Burden of Bad Ideas" encompasses a lot of social thinking on many issues. If you want a better society, you must eliminate poor, ignorant and violent people. Th first step is to terminate all Federal poverty programs over 18 years. Then weed out some more until you have a hard working, well educated populace who work instead of committing crimes.

Comments for this post are closed