6 ms·

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stanc

To combat many problems, the government would certainly be helpful, but isn't necessary. Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Unfortunately, a lack of housing is a problem that the government created. And it's a problem that only the government, in my view, can really fix. As long as housing supply is artificially restricted, I don't see how this gets better. Please let me know if I am wrong.

paulgb 7y ago
> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is perfect all of the time. But when it comes to problems rife with externalities (like pollution, or intellectual property), free markets on their own tend to be bad at aligning incentives, and governments are the least-worst solution. Edit to clarify: this was about the climate change part, but I agree that the government is causing the problem here wrt. zoning.
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  > The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments This is smart. I'm stealing this :)
  - kunai 7y ago
    On the counterfactual, it's actually not very smart, and a toxic and myopic view of society. There's an entire spectrum of coordinating collective human behavior that ranges from systems like feudalism to anarcho-syndicalism to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Government's role is infinitely flexible as a result; it can choose to be as expansive or as minimal as possible. In the case of housing, which is an issue where there needs to be mass action to ensure additional housing supply, relying on either the free market or government exclusively is not going to fix the problem. One of the things that a lot of pseudo-intellectual YIMBYs in the Bay and elsewhere don't realize about the housing crisis is that it will require massive mobilization action by both public and private actors to solve. For instance, I rarely hear the YIMBY crowd sing the praises of public housing, a model that has been successful[1] in Singapore, Vienna, and many other cities across the globe. I find the anti-government sentiments and libertarian beats on this website frequently tiring at best, gravely ill-conceived at worst. [1]https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore/ https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-...
    - refurb 7y ago
      to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Right. A system that includes both government and free markets, just like the OP said.
    - kortilla 7y ago
      Yet public housing is a terrible failure in essentially every city with housing cost issues in the US.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > governments are the least-worst solution No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments.
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    > No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments. How do you figure? A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. Government is the body responsible for balancing and managing those negative factors against the desirable results being produced.
    - veeralpatel979 7y ago
      > A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. I'd have to disagree. Not many markets have monopolies - where you only have one firm in the market. Tech is an exception. In fact, I'd say that many government policies, while necessary, are a major contributor to monopolies, by imposing high costs to enter markets.
      - arrosenberg 7y ago
        That discounts history far too much. We have more competitive markets today because of antitrust regulation passed over 100 years ago and vigorously enforced up through the 90s. Tech would be more competitive today if the DOJ had completed the Microsoft prosecution instead of settling. Our markets are becoming less competitive today because of government action due to regulatory capture - the intentional weakening of the regulatory state from within. We need more powerful, dedicated regulators in order to maintain competitive, free markets.
      - gzer0 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  Zoning isn't always the cause of this problem either. Zoning may very well be logical in that it properly restricts housing development when the town/city resources can't accommodate more residents -- sometimes there is a finite amount of freshwater, power and other resources available to an area... especially in California where mountainous terrain separates significant concentrations of people within and near some major cities. That's not to say those resources can't be scaled up, but those changes require time and money where forcing new zoning may create new problems quickly while trying to solve an old one. Zoning laws might be the right method in some cases, but I'd also like to see laws, tax incentives, etc for solutions that solve multiple problems. For example, some of my coworkers work remotely 100% of the time. Many more would do the same if they were allowed. One of my coworkers moved to a farm far from his city apartment when he was able to work remotely. Not only does that help with the housing situation, it reduces emissions, reduces traffic, etc. An incentive for moving employees to remote work could dramatically reduce, maybe even reverse urban inflow. It could also be very helpful to the economy as it would distribute more high earning individuals over a larger area, instead of most living in and around major cities. For example, I know a couple people who moved back to the midwest when they were allowed to work remotely. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution either, but it is one of many options that should be considered.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kilotaras 7y ago
> Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. But then some corporation would move away from that, get extra money and eat competition who is more green/moral/etc. Competitive economy maximizes profits in the space allowed by regulations. That's a feature, not a bug. But it also means that expecting some sectors/inputs to become unfashionable and die out is very close to wishful thinking.
- veeralpatel979 7y ago
  In theory, yes. But I don't see Microsoft or Stripe going anywhere soon. They've built many great products and delivered a lot of value to users and displacing them will not be easy. Spending money on lowering climate emissions may help improve their public image, which is a good tradeoff.

paulgb 7y ago

> If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. Sure, but it's a lot easier for a software company to go carbon neutral than a power company. Which is not to take away from what they're doing, it is still hard to do! The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments. Neither is perfect all of the time. But when it comes to problems rife with externalities (like pollution, or intellectual property), free markets on their own tend to be bad at aligning incentives, and governments are the least-worst solution. Edit to clarify: this was about the climate change part, but I agree that the government is causing the problem here wrt. zoning.

veeralpatel979 7y ago
> The way I see it, we have two basic technologies for coordinating as a society: free markets, and governments This is smart. I'm stealing this :)
- kunai 7y ago
  On the counterfactual, it's actually not very smart, and a toxic and myopic view of society. There's an entire spectrum of coordinating collective human behavior that ranges from systems like feudalism to anarcho-syndicalism to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Government's role is infinitely flexible as a result; it can choose to be as expansive or as minimal as possible. In the case of housing, which is an issue where there needs to be mass action to ensure additional housing supply, relying on either the free market or government exclusively is not going to fix the problem. One of the things that a lot of pseudo-intellectual YIMBYs in the Bay and elsewhere don't realize about the housing crisis is that it will require massive mobilization action by both public and private actors to solve. For instance, I rarely hear the YIMBY crowd sing the praises of public housing, a model that has been successful[1] in Singapore, Vienna, and many other cities across the globe. I find the anti-government sentiments and libertarian beats on this website frequently tiring at best, gravely ill-conceived at worst. [1]https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-vienna-and-singapore/ https://www.shareable.net/public-housing-works-lessons-from-...
  - refurb 7y ago
    to mixed economies like those that exist in Scandinavia and much of Western Europe. Right. A system that includes both government and free markets, just like the OP said.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Yet public housing is a terrible failure in essentially every city with housing cost issues in the US.
pdonis 7y ago
> governments are the least-worst solution No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments.
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  > No, they're not, because while externalities and other forms of misaligned incentives are departures from the norm in free markets, they are the norm in governments. How do you figure? A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. Government is the body responsible for balancing and managing those negative factors against the desirable results being produced.
  - veeralpatel979 7y ago
    > A totally free market results in monopolies, which are rife with externalities that exist for the purpose of maintaining the monopoly. I'd have to disagree. Not many markets have monopolies - where you only have one firm in the market. Tech is an exception. In fact, I'd say that many government policies, while necessary, are a major contributor to monopolies, by imposing high costs to enter markets.
    - arrosenberg 7y ago
      That discounts history far too much. We have more competitive markets today because of antitrust regulation passed over 100 years ago and vigorously enforced up through the 90s. Tech would be more competitive today if the DOJ had completed the Microsoft prosecution instead of settling. Our markets are becoming less competitive today because of government action due to regulatory capture - the intentional weakening of the regulatory state from within. We need more powerful, dedicated regulators in order to maintain competitive, free markets.
    - gzer0 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
bonestamp2 7y ago
Zoning isn't always the cause of this problem either. Zoning may very well be logical in that it properly restricts housing development when the town/city resources can't accommodate more residents -- sometimes there is a finite amount of freshwater, power and other resources available to an area... especially in California where mountainous terrain separates significant concentrations of people within and near some major cities. That's not to say those resources can't be scaled up, but those changes require time and money where forcing new zoning may create new problems quickly while trying to solve an old one. Zoning laws might be the right method in some cases, but I'd also like to see laws, tax incentives, etc for solutions that solve multiple problems. For example, some of my coworkers work remotely 100% of the time. Many more would do the same if they were allowed. One of my coworkers moved to a farm far from his city apartment when he was able to work remotely. Not only does that help with the housing situation, it reduces emissions, reduces traffic, etc. An incentive for moving employees to remote work could dramatically reduce, maybe even reverse urban inflow. It could also be very helpful to the economy as it would distribute more high earning individuals over a larger area, instead of most living in and around major cities. For example, I know a couple people who moved back to the midwest when they were allowed to work remotely. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution either, but it is one of many options that should be considered.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kilotaras 7y ago

> Take climate change. If every corporation took a carbon negative stance like Stripe and Microsoft, that would make a big dent in carbon emissions. But then some corporation would move away from that, get extra money and eat competition who is more green/moral/etc. Competitive economy maximizes profits in the space allowed by regulations. That's a feature, not a bug. But it also means that expecting some sectors/inputs to become unfashionable and die out is very close to wishful thinking.

veeralpatel979 7y ago
In theory, yes. But I don't see Microsoft or Stripe going anywhere soon. They've built many great products and delivered a lot of value to users and displacing them will not be easy. Spending money on lowering climate emissions may help improve their public image, which is a good tradeoff.