4 ms·

That's in keeping with my post

• eru 10y ago
  Hmm, I was a bit confused by your multiple negations at the top. Also not quite sure what your point is. > That's going to be a massive decrease in competition, job growth, etc, overall [when producers move to a cluster]. Can you expand on that? I don't see how---especially if we agree that the clustering is more economically efficient. (If we don't agree on that, we need to talk about it first.)
  • ep103 10y ago
    Did you read the jacobs link in my post? Economically efficient, sure. Which is fine if the economy is healthy enough that the displaced can continue to find and invent new jobs
    • eru 10y ago
      I read the Jacobs link. (Actually, had already read it before. It's interesting, thanks.) It's straight-forward to get a healthy enough economy to provide full employment. (Not `easy', because things are seldom easy in politics.) We even know how to afford a social safety net at the same time. To not keep you in suspense: - tell the central bank to keep nominal GDP level on a stable growth path - untax labour and capital, put all tax burden on land (whose supply is perfectly inelastic) - use the tax to finance public infrastructure and a social safety net If you are feeling like it add: - remove most red tape from the labour market (the part that prevents hiring and firing; keep OSHA and the like) http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/10/monetary-policy-3 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/10/monetary... http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use-worlds-greatest-cities-carries-huge-cost-space-and-city http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21647614-poor-land-use... (Not that the Economist is the best source for everything, but they write short pieces to the point.)