3 ms·

Comment is getting downvotes but agree. If you do not band together with like-minded individuals for your common good you will be outcompeted by other people wh

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Comment is getting downvotes but agree. If you do not band together with like-minded individuals for your common good you will be outcompeted by other people who do.

epistasis 6y ago
Right, and the people that banded together to profit from this are the existing homeowners and landlords in Vancouver. The foreign investors are tiny in both numbers and political power compared to Vancouver landowners as a whole, and it really was existing landowners who profited, while flying a "preserve our great culture" flag by trying to not let new buildings be built. The investors are the like-minded people who banded together to raise property values and benefit from it directly, while also exerting their will to keep new people out, or at least keep out everyone except the very wealthiest. Calling this behavior "protective" of the city is tantamount to saying that the city is only for the investors.
- beambot 6y ago
  > The foreign investors are tiny in both numbers and political power The exact topic of this article: Small quantities of investors with different economic incentives can result in big effects. > The investors are the like-minded people who banded together I rather doubt that it was a concerted effort to band together. It's more akin to "curse of the commons": Each individual actor acting in their best interest results in emergent behavior. The solution being pursued is to change the rules to dissuade certain behaviors that negatively impact the populace as a whole.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    The effects of those small number of extra investors isn't huge however. In London it was 20% of the rise, but not most of it. It does fan flames, but there's got to be a spark to be fanned.
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
I see this repeated elsewhere, and I don't understand it. I don't want to suggest that you're bigoted as this is getting alarmingly close to a culture war topic, and I recognize the difficulty in conveying that in person, much less over the internet, where "I don't mean to offend but..." is usually followed by something offensive. But I do want to understand your analysis of the game-theoretic conditions that you believe lead to smaller groups outcompeting larger groups. Why would the most beneficial group of people that we want to band with be optimal when limited to a subset of the population, whether that's simply a random selection, or a potentially bigoted selection/identification mechanism like skin color, wealth, religious sect, family name, etc.? I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group, the larger group by definition has a larger capability...intra-group communication may be slightly more difficult with language barriers and cultural differences, and the relative contributions of sub-groups of members may differ based on their resources, but the sum total would still be greater.
- theflyinghorse 6y ago
  > I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group... Ability to pool resources, ability and will to bend rules for the sake of promoting group's interests (ie. nepotism).
- ziml77 6y ago
  It's not about bigotry, its that foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in. The closer someone is, the more emotionally attached they'll be and the more that other successes (from reducing exploitation of people) will benefit them.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    > foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in As opposed to the domestic billionaires who have deep compassion for the interests of the working class?
esoterica 6y ago
"Like-minded individuals" and people who share your citizenship are not the same. By your logic, liberal silicon valley techies should band together to fire/cancel/censor conservatives who do not share their values. After all, like-minded people need to band together to out-compete the outsiders who think differently right?
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  >"Like-minded individuals" and people who share your citizenship are not the same. Of all the people in the world the people geographically close to you and that share citizenship or nationality are the most likely to think like you or share goals that benefit both parties.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    That is obviously categorically false, as evidenced by the political polarization within the US, as well as the large number of minority groups across the world (including in the US) who get persecuted by their own governments and fellow citizens. Even if nationality is sometimes moderately correlated with the values you hold, when a stronger correlation exists, your alleged ideological commitment to forming in-groups and out-groups based on shared values should mean that people have the right (or even obligation) to discriminate based on non-nationality-based factors (e.g. liberals discriminating against conservatives in tech).
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      No, I said more likely to share, not will share. You can still disagree with your countrymen. Nationality is correlated with the values you hold in the broadest sense. Easy example: a natural born citizen in the US is far less likely to believe in the validity of Sharia law than someone born in an Arab state. In even more abstract terms, what is good for you is likely to be location dependent. People in Germany have different problems from people in the US or France, and those are different from African, Asian, and South American countries. There are of course common trends, but to pretend all of politics is some shared set of problems is ridiculous. People discriminate based on traits all the time. Liberals in tech do discriminate against conservatives (or perceived conservatives) all the time. They are free to do so, most people don't see many things as something you can protect as a class.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

Comment is getting downvotes but agree. If you do not band together with like-minded individuals for your common good you will be outcompeted by other people who do.

epistasis 6y ago

Right, and the people that banded together to profit from this are the existing homeowners and landlords in Vancouver. The foreign investors are tiny in both numbers and political power compared to Vancouver landowners as a whole, and it really was existing landowners who profited, while flying a "preserve our great culture" flag by trying to not let new buildings be built. The investors are the like-minded people who banded together to raise property values and benefit from it directly, while also exerting their will to keep new people out, or at least keep out everyone except the very wealthiest. Calling this behavior "protective" of the city is tantamount to saying that the city is only for the investors.

beambot 6y ago
> The foreign investors are tiny in both numbers and political power The exact topic of this article: Small quantities of investors with different economic incentives can result in big effects. > The investors are the like-minded people who banded together I rather doubt that it was a concerted effort to band together. It's more akin to "curse of the commons": Each individual actor acting in their best interest results in emergent behavior. The solution being pursued is to change the rules to dissuade certain behaviors that negatively impact the populace as a whole.
- epistasis 6y ago
  The effects of those small number of extra investors isn't huge however. In London it was 20% of the rise, but not most of it. It does fan flames, but there's got to be a spark to be fanned.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

I see this repeated elsewhere, and I don't understand it. I don't want to suggest that you're bigoted as this is getting alarmingly close to a culture war topic, and I recognize the difficulty in conveying that in person, much less over the internet, where "I don't mean to offend but..." is usually followed by something offensive. But I do want to understand your analysis of the game-theoretic conditions that you believe lead to smaller groups outcompeting larger groups. Why would the most beneficial group of people that we want to band with be optimal when limited to a subset of the population, whether that's simply a random selection, or a potentially bigoted selection/identification mechanism like skin color, wealth, religious sect, family name, etc.? I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group, the larger group by definition has a larger capability...intra-group communication may be slightly more difficult with language barriers and cultural differences, and the relative contributions of sub-groups of members may differ based on their resources, but the sum total would still be greater.

theflyinghorse 6y ago
> I don't understand why a broader grouping (possibly global) of people wouldn't outcompete a smaller group... Ability to pool resources, ability and will to bend rules for the sake of promoting group's interests (ie. nepotism).
ziml77 6y ago
It's not about bigotry, its that foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in. The closer someone is, the more emotionally attached they'll be and the more that other successes (from reducing exploitation of people) will benefit them.
- esoterica 6y ago
  > foreigners are detached from what is good for the people in the areas they're buying property in As opposed to the domestic billionaires who have deep compassion for the interests of the working class?

esoterica 6y ago

"Like-minded individuals" and people who share your citizenship are not the same. By your logic, liberal silicon valley techies should band together to fire/cancel/censor conservatives who do not share their values. After all, like-minded people need to band together to out-compete the outsiders who think differently right?

R0b0t1 6y ago
>"Like-minded individuals" and people who share your citizenship are not the same. Of all the people in the world the people geographically close to you and that share citizenship or nationality are the most likely to think like you or share goals that benefit both parties.
- esoterica 6y ago
  That is obviously categorically false, as evidenced by the political polarization within the US, as well as the large number of minority groups across the world (including in the US) who get persecuted by their own governments and fellow citizens. Even if nationality is sometimes moderately correlated with the values you hold, when a stronger correlation exists, your alleged ideological commitment to forming in-groups and out-groups based on shared values should mean that people have the right (or even obligation) to discriminate based on non-nationality-based factors (e.g. liberals discriminating against conservatives in tech).
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    No, I said more likely to share, not will share. You can still disagree with your countrymen. Nationality is correlated with the values you hold in the broadest sense. Easy example: a natural born citizen in the US is far less likely to believe in the validity of Sharia law than someone born in an Arab state. In even more abstract terms, what is good for you is likely to be location dependent. People in Germany have different problems from people in the US or France, and those are different from African, Asian, and South American countries. There are of course common trends, but to pretend all of politics is some shared set of problems is ridiculous. People discriminate based on traits all the time. Liberals in tech do discriminate against conservatives (or perceived conservatives) all the time. They are free to do so, most people don't see many things as something you can protect as a class.