8 ms·
This problem seems to arise due to the implicit power that money carries, especially when it hits communities in the US that have their own culture and have esc
by lazerpants 9y ago
This problem seems to arise due to the implicit power that money carries, especially when it hits communities in the US that have their own culture and have eschewed using money as a proxy for power (maybe it was lower income inequality in earlier decades). Whereas NYC has always been about money=power=lifestyle, that was never the case for many communities, and it's being thrust on a lot of people who never subscribed to that, who live in places where they want to do their own thing in a low key way without worrying about construction or ever increasing prices. I can sympathize with their unhappiness, and I feel that way about Denver when I visit the area where I grew up. I also have a lot of relatives in Austin and hearing about how it went from a fun small town to a place clogged by traffic with spiraling housing prices, but is still the only simulacra of "home" to them, does indeed sound unappealing.
Edit: rereading my comment, it doesn't quite articulate my point, which is that people who want to be outside of this big noisy money grabbing game, and just get to be people, are justifiably unhappy about market determined culture interfering with their lives.
- Endama 9y agoI'm not arguing that it isn't uncomfortable, nor that people aren't justified in their unhappiness, I am arguing that the desire to use policy to express that unhappiness and uncomfortability upon the polity is wrong (I would even say it's selfish). Their comfort when "things were better" was built upon the market at the snapshot in time they enjoyed it. To demand that the market revert to that time is, by definition, regressive.
- lazerpants 9y agoI mostly agree, but the point I'm making is that the people who made Austin a mecca for interesting culture moved there precisely because it was not a market oriented culture. So of course they're unhappy about the change in cultural orientation, and without money themselves, they have little recourse outside of policy (though they do have the ability to shape policy given the long term power structures there). And I'm not sure it's wrong to try to prop up established elements of the culture they like, though I do suspect it's untenable.
- murftown 9y ago> I would even say it's selfish > (previously) cultures are emergent properties from markets Honest question: Do you think selfishness is a bad thing? As you seem to have such apparent respect for the primacy of markets, I would think not. Why then would you choose to jab people with this idea that they're being selfish? Is it because you think they would be against selfishness and are therefore being hypocrites?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]