6 ms·

It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Presumably the kids can learn from the parents, get connected, etc. Also, Mam

by Taek 11mo ago

It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Presumably the kids can learn from the parents, get connected, etc. Also, Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Lots of people predicting that Mamdani's criminal policies, economic policies, and lack of experienced staffers will lead the city to dark days.

dmbche 11mo ago
You want your elected officials to "keep connections" accross generations? You also think New York can't find someone that's at least as competent as someone in a multigenerational dynasty?
- Taek 11mo ago
  Based on what I saw in the debates, I'm sure there are lots of people in NYC more capable than anyone on the ballet. But yes, someone with connections is going to be more operationally effective than someone without them. If the leader isn't themselves well connected, they should at least have close advisors who do.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Aristocracies are more stable but less efficient. That creates an incentive for corruption when growth inevitably stalls. Which leads to catastrophic instability.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway. So what incentive is there to make or take a bribe? It won't change who your parents are.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.
    - terminalshort 11mo ago
      Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo. > only that the incentive for corruption is absent What historic civilisation are you thinking of?
  - TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
    Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.
    - terminalshort 11mo ago
      Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."
      - TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
        "illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1] "Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2] Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corruption https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption
Spivak 11mo ago
I really don't get the doom and gloom on this, NYC now has a mayor that might inadvertently fuck over the city trying to do right by working class folks instead of a mayor who does it as a matter of course. Forget policy disagreements, just the fact that we have a successful politician any side of the isle that is not currently gargling the balls of rich people and actually has some principles is so refreshing. You are demand better of your government than "the blatant corruption you've learned to live with."
lisbbb 11mo ago
I'm against any and all political dynasties. They fly in the face of what representative government should be about. We have many people qualified to become political leaders but they never get the chance due to how the system operates. I'm not sure NYC knows what it is getting into with this guy, but yeah, the alternatives were lousy. Sliwa? The whole Guardian Angels thing was one hell of a marketing job, I'll say that. Does anyone really believe a bunch of former gang thugs with some martial arts training accomplished very much? The Cuomo family is corrupt to the core. Terrible for NY State. Good luck, NYC. You're gonna need it!
nobody9999 11mo ago
>Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Which policies are "incredibly controversial?" And be specific. Here'a a direct link to his platform for your reference" https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform No rush. I'll wait.
- ComplexSystems 11mo ago
  I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about. There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial?
  - cosmicgadget 11mo ago
    There is a lot of daylight between "break from the status quo" and "incredibly controversial". I am not getting much from either of you.
  - eesmith 11mo ago
    > NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). The platform page points out how the status quo was recently broken: "Eric Adams has taken every opportunity to squeeze tenants, with his hand-picked appointees to the Rent Guidelines Board jacking up rents on stabilized apartments by 12.6% (and counting)–the most since a Republican ran City Hall." Sure sounds like Adams made a controversial change to the status quo to me. The position is "As Mayor, Zohran will immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants". I read that as want to return to status quo ante Adams.
  - nobody9999 11mo ago
    >There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial? You mean like the rent freeze[0] in 2020/2021 (and apparently in 2014-2016[1], although I don't recall that and am too lazy to check my old leases) on the very same apartments that Mamdani is proposing the same? >I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about. Really? Funny that. As a resident of NYC, I reviewed the policies proposed by Mamdani and none of them seem all that controversial (or even all that much in the way of veering from the status quo). I will say that the whole public grocery stores seems a little over the top, but market forces haven't eliminated food deserts in many lower income neighborhoods. As such, why is it bad to try such a thing? GP called Mamdani's policy proposals "incredibly controversial." I haven't seen even one such policy. As such, I asked for an example of such a "controversial" policy to help me understand where GP was coming from and provided a comprehensive list of Mamdani's policy proposals as an aid to identifying such policies. I explicitly asked for specific proposals so we could discuss why (or why not) they might be "controversial." How is that a bad "attitude"? [0] https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet-26-07-2025.pdf https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45819654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45819654 Edit: Fixed prose.
kelnos 11mo ago
> It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Because they're undemocratic. Concentrating political capital within a family means raises barriers to entry. People with new -- possibly better -- ideas don't get a meaningful chance to see those ideas implemented. These sorts of setups destroy the idea that politics and elections can be a meritocracy, but instead are determined by birthright. You end up with aristocracies populated by the extended family, friends, and business partners of the family in power. You also get stagnation. You're less likely to see other points of view represented in the political process, and that affects outcomes.
- Taek 11mo ago
  It's a tradeoff between new ideas and operational effectiveness. Yes, there are benefits to rotating out a dynasty, but there are also benefits to keeping one. A dynasty is only undemocratic if people aren't voting for them. If they are winning elections, it's still a democracy.

by Taek 11mo ago

dmbche 11mo ago

You want your elected officials to "keep connections" accross generations? You also think New York can't find someone that's at least as competent as someone in a multigenerational dynasty?

Taek 11mo ago
Based on what I saw in the debates, I'm sure there are lots of people in NYC more capable than anyone on the ballet. But yes, someone with connections is going to be more operationally effective than someone without them. If the leader isn't themselves well connected, they should at least have close advisors who do.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Aristocracies are more stable but less efficient. That creates an incentive for corruption when growth inevitably stalls. Which leads to catastrophic instability.

terminalshort 11mo ago
There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway. So what incentive is there to make or take a bribe? It won't change who your parents are.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo. > only that the incentive for corruption is absent What historic civilisation are you thinking of?
- TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
  Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."
    - TheCoelacanth 11mo ago
      "illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1] "Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2] Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corruption https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption

Spivak 11mo ago

I really don't get the doom and gloom on this, NYC now has a mayor that might inadvertently fuck over the city trying to do right by working class folks instead of a mayor who does it as a matter of course. Forget policy disagreements, just the fact that we have a successful politician any side of the isle that is not currently gargling the balls of rich people and actually has some principles is so refreshing. You are demand better of your government than "the blatant corruption you've learned to live with."

lisbbb 11mo ago

I'm against any and all political dynasties. They fly in the face of what representative government should be about. We have many people qualified to become political leaders but they never get the chance due to how the system operates. I'm not sure NYC knows what it is getting into with this guy, but yeah, the alternatives were lousy. Sliwa? The whole Guardian Angels thing was one hell of a marketing job, I'll say that. Does anyone really believe a bunch of former gang thugs with some martial arts training accomplished very much? The Cuomo family is corrupt to the core. Terrible for NY State. Good luck, NYC. You're gonna need it!

nobody9999 11mo ago

>Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Which policies are "incredibly controversial?" And be specific. Here'a a direct link to his platform for your reference" https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform No rush. I'll wait.

ComplexSystems 11mo ago
I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about. There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial?
- cosmicgadget 11mo ago
  There is a lot of daylight between "break from the status quo" and "incredibly controversial". I am not getting much from either of you.
- eesmith 11mo ago
  > NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). The platform page points out how the status quo was recently broken: "Eric Adams has taken every opportunity to squeeze tenants, with his hand-picked appointees to the Rent Guidelines Board jacking up rents on stabilized apartments by 12.6% (and counting)–the most since a Republican ran City Hall." Sure sounds like Adams made a controversial change to the status quo to me. The position is "As Mayor, Zohran will immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants". I read that as want to return to status quo ante Adams.
- nobody9999 11mo ago
  >There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial? You mean like the rent freeze[0] in 2020/2021 (and apparently in 2014-2016[1], although I don't recall that and am too lazy to check my old leases) on the very same apartments that Mamdani is proposing the same? >I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about. Really? Funny that. As a resident of NYC, I reviewed the policies proposed by Mamdani and none of them seem all that controversial (or even all that much in the way of veering from the status quo). I will say that the whole public grocery stores seems a little over the top, but market forces haven't eliminated food deserts in many lower income neighborhoods. As such, why is it bad to try such a thing? GP called Mamdani's policy proposals "incredibly controversial." I haven't seen even one such policy. As such, I asked for an example of such a "controversial" policy to help me understand where GP was coming from and provided a comprehensive list of Mamdani's policy proposals as an aid to identifying such policies. I explicitly asked for specific proposals so we could discuss why (or why not) they might be "controversial." How is that a bad "attitude"? [0] https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet-26-07-2025.pdf https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45819654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45819654 Edit: Fixed prose.

kelnos 11mo ago

> It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Because they're undemocratic. Concentrating political capital within a family means raises barriers to entry. People with new -- possibly better -- ideas don't get a meaningful chance to see those ideas implemented. These sorts of setups destroy the idea that politics and elections can be a meritocracy, but instead are determined by birthright. You end up with aristocracies populated by the extended family, friends, and business partners of the family in power. You also get stagnation. You're less likely to see other points of view represented in the political process, and that affects outcomes.

Taek 11mo ago
It's a tradeoff between new ideas and operational effectiveness. Yes, there are benefits to rotating out a dynasty, but there are also benefits to keeping one. A dynasty is only undemocratic if people aren't voting for them. If they are winning elections, it's still a democracy.