3 ms·

Your thesis here is that since housing is unaffordable in California, and California is a democracy, therefore democracy produces unaffordable housing?

netsharc 3y ago
The old quote is, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.". It feels like whatever -ism you want to organize society under, you have to have checks and balances, in order to prevent things like grift causing 900k apartments...
- rendall 3y ago
  It might be too broad a brush to paint capitalism or democracy as the unique cause of the Bay Area problem of unaffordable housing, given that affordable housing exists in both capitalist and democratic regions in the US and around the world.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Whether "unique" is in the claim is not a trivial detail. One should always be wary of bugs in the interpreter, they are far less battle tested than compilers, operating systems, etc.
  - netsharc 3y ago
    My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...
    - rendall 3y ago
      I am an immigrant from the US to the socialist hellhole of Finland, and it's quite delightful here.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity, but few people are, and I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process, even if you forewarn them.
      - netsharc 3y ago
        Interesting comment, we've gone meta. > It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. What is "it" here? > I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity Of what? I'm guessing the complexity of the conversation? > I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process I'm wary of asking for "try me" and ending up doing this, and wary that this warning means whatever it is people called foul about is something you're getting wrong but insist you're right on, without ever reflecting about others' opinions/their foul call. How about that for meta... Ah you're the original "maybe we need to redefine a lot of words" commenter. Sigh, I think your mistake is believing what it says on the tin/the dictionary definition, on things like "we are ruled by democracy [or communism, pick your poison]"
        mistermann 3y ago
        If you would like to see a demonstration of your (very reasonable) intuitions disproven, my email is in my profile. :)
        netsharc 3y ago
        This is as enticing a proposal as "Let's get out of this pub and go to my van by the river". Smiley face.
mistermann 3y ago
Yes. Do you believe this is not logical, if one is allowed to use "pedantic" logic?
infamouscow 3y ago
In a democracy, over the long term, short term interests win out over long term interests. This is true of both the citizens and the politicians. In a monarchy, long term interests win out over short term interests because they're dynastic and stay within a family. There is a natural incentive for long term thinking that comes with a monarchy. This problem is not democracy itself, but the incrementalism that occurs in democratic systems. At least in representative democracies, every few years another person is elected to carve out provisions to benefit their special interests. In theory, this would be the constituents. But in practice, after the politicians realize voters are unorganized, uninformed, and as self-interested as everyone else, the politician also focus on themselves (and you would too). Compound that over hundreds of years and it's should be clear as day why democratic governments inevitably grind to halt, become ineffective, collapse, and are recreated from a clean slate.
- sshumaker 3y ago
  Monarchies usually result in long-term thinking? I’m sure we haven’t read the same history books. Most monarchs throughout history have been very self-interested and their decisions have been focused on their own personal interest - the definition of short-term. I’m not claiming democracy is any better - humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking unfortunately.
  - passivegains 3y ago
    I mean, some of those personal interests were long term too. "Peasants need food within the next few days or they'll die": short term interests of the people. "I need aristocrats to take everyone's grain so I can make them be knights and keep people from overthrowing me": long term interests of the monarch. the people are very good at identifying their short-term interests (not starving,) but it's hard to figure out long-term collective interests (exactly how much grain to give up for however many armored guys on horses you need.) this is why modern democracies are usually republics.
- rendall 3y ago
  I do think this is an interesting perspective even though I disagree that monarchies result in more long-term thinking. You do raise the issue of how to structure government to encourage more long-term, or rational, planning. I don't think that short-term thinking is inherent to democracy any more than a two-party duopoly is inherent to democracy. As with the US and UK duopoly, short-term, self-interested government policies may be due to election incentives or the frameworks in which elections take place.

netsharc 3y ago

The old quote is, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.". It feels like whatever -ism you want to organize society under, you have to have checks and balances, in order to prevent things like grift causing 900k apartments...

rendall 3y ago
It might be too broad a brush to paint capitalism or democracy as the unique cause of the Bay Area problem of unaffordable housing, given that affordable housing exists in both capitalist and democratic regions in the US and around the world.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Whether "unique" is in the claim is not a trivial detail. One should always be wary of bugs in the interpreter, they are far less battle tested than compilers, operating systems, etc.
- netsharc 3y ago
  My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...
  - rendall 3y ago
    I am an immigrant from the US to the socialist hellhole of Finland, and it's quite delightful here.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity, but few people are, and I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process, even if you forewarn them.
    - netsharc 3y ago
      Interesting comment, we've gone meta. > It is almost guaranteed to be misleading, but it isn't incorrect. What is "it" here? > I'm very comfortable increasing the complexity Of what? I'm guessing the complexity of the conversation? > I've yet to meet someone who doesn't call foul very early in the process I'm wary of asking for "try me" and ending up doing this, and wary that this warning means whatever it is people called foul about is something you're getting wrong but insist you're right on, without ever reflecting about others' opinions/their foul call. How about that for meta... Ah you're the original "maybe we need to redefine a lot of words" commenter. Sigh, I think your mistake is believing what it says on the tin/the dictionary definition, on things like "we are ruled by democracy [or communism, pick your poison]"
      - mistermann 3y ago
        If you would like to see a demonstration of your (very reasonable) intuitions disproven, my email is in my profile. :)
        netsharc 3y ago
        This is as enticing a proposal as "Let's get out of this pub and go to my van by the river". Smiley face.

mistermann 3y ago

Yes. Do you believe this is not logical, if one is allowed to use "pedantic" logic?

infamouscow 3y ago

In a democracy, over the long term, short term interests win out over long term interests. This is true of both the citizens and the politicians. In a monarchy, long term interests win out over short term interests because they're dynastic and stay within a family. There is a natural incentive for long term thinking that comes with a monarchy. This problem is not democracy itself, but the incrementalism that occurs in democratic systems. At least in representative democracies, every few years another person is elected to carve out provisions to benefit their special interests. In theory, this would be the constituents. But in practice, after the politicians realize voters are unorganized, uninformed, and as self-interested as everyone else, the politician also focus on themselves (and you would too). Compound that over hundreds of years and it's should be clear as day why democratic governments inevitably grind to halt, become ineffective, collapse, and are recreated from a clean slate.

sshumaker 3y ago
Monarchies usually result in long-term thinking? I’m sure we haven’t read the same history books. Most monarchs throughout history have been very self-interested and their decisions have been focused on their own personal interest - the definition of short-term. I’m not claiming democracy is any better - humans are notoriously bad at long-term thinking unfortunately.
- passivegains 3y ago
  I mean, some of those personal interests were long term too. "Peasants need food within the next few days or they'll die": short term interests of the people. "I need aristocrats to take everyone's grain so I can make them be knights and keep people from overthrowing me": long term interests of the monarch. the people are very good at identifying their short-term interests (not starving,) but it's hard to figure out long-term collective interests (exactly how much grain to give up for however many armored guys on horses you need.) this is why modern democracies are usually republics.
rendall 3y ago
I do think this is an interesting perspective even though I disagree that monarchies result in more long-term thinking. You do raise the issue of how to structure government to encourage more long-term, or rational, planning. I don't think that short-term thinking is inherent to democracy any more than a two-party duopoly is inherent to democracy. As with the US and UK duopoly, short-term, self-interested government policies may be due to election incentives or the frameworks in which elections take place.