3 ms·
You don’t need the tools at all. If everyone is at (roughly) the same level of decision making ability as the post implies then it follows that disallowing cert
by strawhatguy 4y ago
You don’t need the tools at all. If everyone is at (roughly) the same level of decision making ability as the post implies then it follows that disallowing certain decisions (like the price of rent) will always be suboptimal.
This is just pure and simple logic.
What ‘successes’ rent control had are hyped to an abnormal extent, since obviously those with rent controlled apartments are most keen on keeping them, and often they are not the ‘poor’. Again the poor are used here as an excuse for upper middle class bad behavior, locking people out of the city.
Turnover in a city is a good thing btw, not a bad one. But cities do seem to design themselves on keeping people out.
- sudosysgen 4y agoThis is not true. Rational actors acting in their own self interest does not always approach a global optimum. An external actor limiting choices can trivially lead to better outcomes, the prisoner's dilemma being an obvious example. The tragedy of the commons is another, where the government historically either intervened to maintain good behaviour, or intervened to enclose the commons, in either case limiting the options of rational players. Turnover in a city can be argued to be good or bad. Turnover across a city is more clearly bad, but as a said it's still arguable. In any case, I believe you're not making a great case as your basic argument that limiting choices of rational actors can never lead to better outcomes is incorrect, and I think it would be a good idea to read/watch the material I linked or referred to in order to get a better idea of what I'm arguing and so you can directly try to refute the rebuttals of points I'm going to be making. It's going to be faster than relitigating most of this conversation up until that point.