3 ms·

Wow. Since when is every regulation supposed to pay for itself? Do police? SWAT? I highly suggest reading Steve Randy Waldmann's analysis of the Baltimore riot

Wow. Since when is every regulation supposed to pay for itself? Do police? SWAT? I highly suggest reading Steve Randy Waldmann's analysis of the Baltimore riots and altruistic punishment. He is an actual economist, whereas this thread is as if he came in here and was telling you your code sucked. For those curious, his blog is called interfluidity.

barsonme 10y ago
With everything there is a trade-off. For some the lack of dollars brought in (or what have you) outweighs the benefits. An example is TSA. Some believe that even one life saved by the extra security (theater or not) is worth having to take your shoes off. Others do not.
mhuffman 10y ago
I just followed your advice and read Steve Randy Waldmann's analysis of the Baltimore riots and altruistic punishment. It is very clear that he is biased in his analysis. He is also wrong about the Baltimore riots being "altruistic punishment", at least according to the strict definition here[1], as the people rioting claimed to be directly harmed by the existing law enforcement structure that they were rioting against. Finally, why do you think that simple economic concepts can not be understood by developers? Why do you think there there are not lots of people on here with business degrees or backgrounds in economics? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_punishment
- rando18423 10y ago
  I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree? I think that because I'm a quant and I see people making pretty basic mistakes here, or making fallacious assumptions about other fields assuming they follow the same logic as software, quite often, and that seemed to be happening in this thread. I maintain that developers are usually not qualified to talk about economics in much beyond the most basic sense, because they haven't actually studied advanced economics beyond how it pertains to the tech industry. They just make linear extrapolations and are shocked (shocked!) when their narrow (and admittedly unique) model of the world breaks down.
  - mhuffman 10y ago
    > I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree? If you have taken anything beyond economics in the most basic sense, then you know the answer to any economic question is, "it depends." So in this case, I do not think that the riots did anything to the city government's or local police force's sensibilities, because it doesn't cost them anything...they get to use the house's (the citizens) money. It is the same reason lawsuit settlements do not seem to have an effect on police misconduct -- they don't care, it doesn't really cost them anything. So to your direct question, regarding the Baltimore riots, no I do not think it was a net good. The people protesting got nothing, businesses and private property got trashed, and the city paid costs with taxpayer's money, and nothing changed. There was nothing good that came of that, or the threat of that. I do take your point about armchair economists seemingly having the solution to nuanced macroeconomic problems that stymie experts, and I agree we have seen a lot of that recently with Brexit. However, I do not think that people can't have an opinion on something because their eduction level in that specific area is not elite enough, better to explain why they might not be right, if you have a better answer. Maybe you could make them one of today's lucky 10,000.[1] [1]https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - rando18423 10y ago
      Hold on you really don't think the Baltimore police will back off or hesitate before they do what they did again? The only thing that influences their decisions are if it cost them money or not????
      - mhuffman 10y ago
        Of course for a short time they will, because they do not want to be fired for bringing unwanted attention. But yes, I believe that will be short lived. There are no real consequences to their actions, and the riot did not change that. So if you think a riot and damaging private property for a short window of kid gloves if you are black from the police is a win, then ok.

barsonme 10y ago

With everything there is a trade-off. For some the lack of dollars brought in (or what have you) outweighs the benefits. An example is TSA. Some believe that even one life saved by the extra security (theater or not) is worth having to take your shoes off. Others do not.

mhuffman 10y ago

I just followed your advice and read Steve Randy Waldmann's analysis of the Baltimore riots and altruistic punishment. It is very clear that he is biased in his analysis. He is also wrong about the Baltimore riots being "altruistic punishment", at least according to the strict definition here[1], as the people rioting claimed to be directly harmed by the existing law enforcement structure that they were rioting against. Finally, why do you think that simple economic concepts can not be understood by developers? Why do you think there there are not lots of people on here with business degrees or backgrounds in economics? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_punishment

rando18423 10y ago
I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree? I think that because I'm a quant and I see people making pretty basic mistakes here, or making fallacious assumptions about other fields assuming they follow the same logic as software, quite often, and that seemed to be happening in this thread. I maintain that developers are usually not qualified to talk about economics in much beyond the most basic sense, because they haven't actually studied advanced economics beyond how it pertains to the tech industry. They just make linear extrapolations and are shocked (shocked!) when their narrow (and admittedly unique) model of the world breaks down.
- mhuffman 10y ago
  > I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree? If you have taken anything beyond economics in the most basic sense, then you know the answer to any economic question is, "it depends." So in this case, I do not think that the riots did anything to the city government's or local police force's sensibilities, because it doesn't cost them anything...they get to use the house's (the citizens) money. It is the same reason lawsuit settlements do not seem to have an effect on police misconduct -- they don't care, it doesn't really cost them anything. So to your direct question, regarding the Baltimore riots, no I do not think it was a net good. The people protesting got nothing, businesses and private property got trashed, and the city paid costs with taxpayer's money, and nothing changed. There was nothing good that came of that, or the threat of that. I do take your point about armchair economists seemingly having the solution to nuanced macroeconomic problems that stymie experts, and I agree we have seen a lot of that recently with Brexit. However, I do not think that people can't have an opinion on something because their eduction level in that specific area is not elite enough, better to explain why they might not be right, if you have a better answer. Maybe you could make them one of today's lucky 10,000.[1] [1]https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - rando18423 10y ago
    Hold on you really don't think the Baltimore police will back off or hesitate before they do what they did again? The only thing that influences their decisions are if it cost them money or not????
    - mhuffman 10y ago
      Of course for a short time they will, because they do not want to be fired for bringing unwanted attention. But yes, I believe that will be short lived. There are no real consequences to their actions, and the riot did not change that. So if you think a riot and damaging private property for a short window of kid gloves if you are black from the police is a win, then ok.