4 ms·

Basically, you’re assuming that this system is going to be like the underfunded and scarce public housing in the United States where a difficult to win lottery

by dangus 3y ago

Basically, you’re assuming that this system is going to be like the underfunded and scarce public housing in the United States where a difficult to win lottery will be necessary to secure an apartment. In that sort of market of scarce supply, slumlords can overcharge for low quality rentals. But they couldn’t do that in a market where the government is offering a real alternative that you can actually get into. From the article it seems like the Parisian government has such a large supply of public housing that it is a serious market force that can influence the rest of the city and the makeup of its neighborhoods. Your description of the situation sounds more like America where a tiny inventory of antiquated public housing units built ~40 years ago (the last time any American politicians cared to lift a finger to address poverty and inequality) are made available by a bleak lottery. Just because the public housing system doesn’t work in America where it’s basically an afterthought doesn’t mean that it isn’t working in other places.

bko 3y ago
Not Paris but NYC: > For many New Yorkers, the most desirable jackpot is not the New York Lotto, but to be selected in the city’s extraordinarily competitive affordable-housing lottery. Tens of thousands of people, and sometimes many more, vie for the handful of units available at a time. Since 2013, there have been more than 25 million applications submitted for roughly 40,000 units. Central planning has been tried over and over and has failed and led to more scarcity. It's like fitting climate change by regulating thermometers. Maybe this time is different? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/nyregion/nyc-affordable-housing-lottery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/nyregion/nyc-affordable-h...
- amanda99 3y ago
  Your top comment sounded pretty sensible and fair but in your responses to comments you now just sound like a troll. Central planning works very well: that's how every corporation, city, and state works. It works well as long as you apply it to a small enough market and e.g. don't try to plan the whole economy. The problem in NYC is that there is not enough affordable housing. 40k units is nothing in the housing supply, and the rent inflation has been way too high lately.
- TimPC 3y ago
  Yes if you support 40,000 units and your demand is much higher you're going to have problems. That tells you the system is underfunded. Central planning hasn't universally failed in every aspect and every application. Central planning tends to do poorly at solving problems that market mechanisms solve effectively, but it's sometimes useful at solving problems that market mechanisms solve poorly. Centrally planned universal healthcare is generally effective and much cheaper than other systems. The US has out of control healthcare costs with its free market system. The next most expensive country to the US has less than 50% of the administration costs so the free market has actually come up with a bureaucracy that is more expensive to administer than what the government creates. In general, central planning fails when market mechanisms are replaced by using force to allocate something. That doesn't mean opt-in programs with voluntary registration are going to experience the same type of failure. We know replacing salaries with a gun and telling people what they have to work on is a bad idea. That doesn't mean all central planning ever is a bad idea. I don't think anyone seriously argues we should abolish federal, state, city governments and let my local neighborhood manage it's own policy but that's the logical extreme of all central planning failing.
  - UncleEntity 3y ago
    Calling the US health care system free market is quite the big stretch. I can honestly not come up with another industry that is subject to higher regulatory burdens. Maybe nuclear power?
    - TimPC 3y ago
      Ah yes, the old libertarian cop-out. The most free market healthcare system in the world is too highly regulated and if we just take the regulations away it will perform better because ideology. This is despite the fact that if you look at healthcare systems in the world most performance metrics improve with more regulation but not less. But lets forget about being data-driven when ideological purity is at stake.
      - UncleEntity 3y ago
        I don't have any real issue with regulations per se but with people claiming that a highly regulated market is 'free market'. I'm actually quite happy with my socialized health care aside from the last time I went to the emergency room they sent me home to die and when I came back a day later they were rapidly pulling out faulty body parts before I did indeed die. Well, then there's the Phoenix VA death list scandal. I know I shouldn't complain as it not like I risked life and limb in service of my country and earned it as a direct result of military service or anything.
- mistermann 3y ago
  The failure is not so much in central planning as it is in human cognition, across the board in every single person involved, operationally or in observance. If we do not try to not fail, then we should not be surprised when we always fail. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLJwTJ7uGPA5Qphbp/trying-to-try https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLJwTJ7uGPA5Qphbp/trying-to-...

by dangus 3y ago

bko 3y ago

Not Paris but NYC: > For many New Yorkers, the most desirable jackpot is not the New York Lotto, but to be selected in the city’s extraordinarily competitive affordable-housing lottery. Tens of thousands of people, and sometimes many more, vie for the handful of units available at a time. Since 2013, there have been more than 25 million applications submitted for roughly 40,000 units. Central planning has been tried over and over and has failed and led to more scarcity. It's like fitting climate change by regulating thermometers. Maybe this time is different? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/nyregion/nyc-affordable-housing-lottery.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/nyregion/nyc-affordable-h...

amanda99 3y ago
Your top comment sounded pretty sensible and fair but in your responses to comments you now just sound like a troll. Central planning works very well: that's how every corporation, city, and state works. It works well as long as you apply it to a small enough market and e.g. don't try to plan the whole economy. The problem in NYC is that there is not enough affordable housing. 40k units is nothing in the housing supply, and the rent inflation has been way too high lately.
TimPC 3y ago
Yes if you support 40,000 units and your demand is much higher you're going to have problems. That tells you the system is underfunded. Central planning hasn't universally failed in every aspect and every application. Central planning tends to do poorly at solving problems that market mechanisms solve effectively, but it's sometimes useful at solving problems that market mechanisms solve poorly. Centrally planned universal healthcare is generally effective and much cheaper than other systems. The US has out of control healthcare costs with its free market system. The next most expensive country to the US has less than 50% of the administration costs so the free market has actually come up with a bureaucracy that is more expensive to administer than what the government creates. In general, central planning fails when market mechanisms are replaced by using force to allocate something. That doesn't mean opt-in programs with voluntary registration are going to experience the same type of failure. We know replacing salaries with a gun and telling people what they have to work on is a bad idea. That doesn't mean all central planning ever is a bad idea. I don't think anyone seriously argues we should abolish federal, state, city governments and let my local neighborhood manage it's own policy but that's the logical extreme of all central planning failing.
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  Calling the US health care system free market is quite the big stretch. I can honestly not come up with another industry that is subject to higher regulatory burdens. Maybe nuclear power?
  - TimPC 3y ago
    Ah yes, the old libertarian cop-out. The most free market healthcare system in the world is too highly regulated and if we just take the regulations away it will perform better because ideology. This is despite the fact that if you look at healthcare systems in the world most performance metrics improve with more regulation but not less. But lets forget about being data-driven when ideological purity is at stake.
    - UncleEntity 3y ago
      I don't have any real issue with regulations per se but with people claiming that a highly regulated market is 'free market'. I'm actually quite happy with my socialized health care aside from the last time I went to the emergency room they sent me home to die and when I came back a day later they were rapidly pulling out faulty body parts before I did indeed die. Well, then there's the Phoenix VA death list scandal. I know I shouldn't complain as it not like I risked life and limb in service of my country and earned it as a direct result of military service or anything.
mistermann 3y ago
The failure is not so much in central planning as it is in human cognition, across the board in every single person involved, operationally or in observance. If we do not try to not fail, then we should not be surprised when we always fail. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLJwTJ7uGPA5Qphbp/trying-to-try https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WLJwTJ7uGPA5Qphbp/trying-to-...