4 ms·

Marc Andreessen is the epitome of hypocrisy on this topic.

fsckboy 4y ago
no, he's not hypocritical. Now, I don't like MA himself, so this is not a defense of somebody I like, this is a defense of basic Econ 101. Let's say you own a large amount of real estate in a city, much acreage in the wealthy part, much acreage in the middle class part, and much acreage in the poor part of town. As such, you have a good bit of influence at city hall, your development projects employ so many people and the taxes you pay sustain the school system. The city wants to build an airport, everybody agrees it is necessary for growth, you agree, the labor unions agree, everybody. Where do you recommend building it? Should you build it uptown and destroy the property values in the wealthy part of town? How much lower would the property values drop in the poor part of town? See where this is going? The model doesn't have to have one person owning all of this property, it's just easier to see that way, where one person makes the tradeoff, but the market will make the same tradeoff if instead, it could all be owned by individual people, or it could all be owned by a progressive socialist government: you still don't build the airport near the nicest real estate, you build it by the most distressed real estate where it will have little effect on prices. If you want to let the market solve this problem, auction off the right to build the airport to the resident stakeholders. The poor people will jump at a lower price than the other classes of people. So, advocating for an airport (or more housing) and then saying "but don't build it here" is not hypocritical, it's something I like to call rational. Now, should poor people be subjected to all the worst ills, the sewage treatment plant, the power plant, the airport, etc? Regardless of where you stand on that, the solution to improving the lives of poor people is still not building the airport in the best neighborhood. If your socialist government wants to confiscate the rich neighborhood so the commissars have places to live, they still don't want an airport there. If your govt confiscates it and rents it out to proles who want to pay more for housing and dress in rags, vs the proles who want nicer clothes in a shabbier apartment, it still does not make sense to destroy that value.
- joeblubaugh 4y ago
  If you’re going to impose costs on poor people by building an airport where their housing used to be - you should build replacement housing in better-off neighborhoods like Marc’s so they can benefit from what they’re supplying to the rich. Property value is not the only trade-off being made.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    I don't think you've established hypocrisy, which is what I was trying to refute with some simplistic models of the economy as thought experiments.
- tofuahdude 4y ago
  The definition of hypocrisy is: > the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. Andreessen has vocally argued (for years) that we should build more housing. Then when the opportunity comes to do it where he lives - he and his wife NIMBY their way out of it. Pretty simple point to understand. new airport != new housing is my entire retort to your argument.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    He does not think it's a moral imperative to build more housing, it's you who thinks that. He thinks it's a good idea for the economy, and I explained the economic argument to you. Apartment buildings in a mansion neighborhood will, as an airport does, decrease property values, it's not a great leap to understand.

no, he's not hypocritical. Now, I don't like MA himself, so this is not a defense of somebody I like, this is a defense of basic Econ 101. Let's say you own a large amount of real estate in a city, much acreage in the wealthy part, much acreage in the middle class part, and much acreage in the poor part of town. As such, you have a good bit of influence at city hall, your development projects employ so many people and the taxes you pay sustain the school system. The city wants to build an airport, everybody agrees it is necessary for growth, you agree, the labor unions agree, everybody. Where do you recommend building it? Should you build it uptown and destroy the property values in the wealthy part of town? How much lower would the property values drop in the poor part of town? See where this is going? The model doesn't have to have one person owning all of this property, it's just easier to see that way, where one person makes the tradeoff, but the market will make the same tradeoff if instead, it could all be owned by individual people, or it could all be owned by a progressive socialist government: you still don't build the airport near the nicest real estate, you build it by the most distressed real estate where it will have little effect on prices. If you want to let the market solve this problem, auction off the right to build the airport to the resident stakeholders. The poor people will jump at a lower price than the other classes of people. So, advocating for an airport (or more housing) and then saying "but don't build it here" is not hypocritical, it's something I like to call rational. Now, should poor people be subjected to all the worst ills, the sewage treatment plant, the power plant, the airport, etc? Regardless of where you stand on that, the solution to improving the lives of poor people is still not building the airport in the best neighborhood. If your socialist government wants to confiscate the rich neighborhood so the commissars have places to live, they still don't want an airport there. If your govt confiscates it and rents it out to proles who want to pay more for housing and dress in rags, vs the proles who want nicer clothes in a shabbier apartment, it still does not make sense to destroy that value.

joeblubaugh 4y ago
If you’re going to impose costs on poor people by building an airport where their housing used to be - you should build replacement housing in better-off neighborhoods like Marc’s so they can benefit from what they’re supplying to the rich. Property value is not the only trade-off being made.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  I don't think you've established hypocrisy, which is what I was trying to refute with some simplistic models of the economy as thought experiments.
tofuahdude 4y ago
The definition of hypocrisy is: > the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. Andreessen has vocally argued (for years) that we should build more housing. Then when the opportunity comes to do it where he lives - he and his wife NIMBY their way out of it. Pretty simple point to understand. new airport != new housing is my entire retort to your argument.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  He does not think it's a moral imperative to build more housing, it's you who thinks that. He thinks it's a good idea for the economy, and I explained the economic argument to you. Apartment buildings in a mansion neighborhood will, as an airport does, decrease property values, it's not a great leap to understand.