5 ms·

All I hear is: The poor do not deserve to live anywhere desirable.

falsestprophet 11y ago
We could operate the economy by lottery.
murbard2 11y ago
This has nothing to do with what anyone deserves or doesn't deserve. If you want the poor to live in desirable places, the best way to do that is to give them the money to do so. Trying to control prices directly has a track record of backfiring horribly, for reasons which are well understood by economists and uncontroversial.
- danharaj 11y ago
  What is the difference between horrible and not horrible in this case? NYC is not in flames.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance.
    - busterarm 11y ago
      > The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance. This is demonstrably wrong. Arson was involved in 7% of the fires and almost all in already abandoned buildings. Fire burned the bronx because city budget cuts closed fire departments, reduced fire inspections and caused hydrants to not work. FDNY administration rigged the closures to not affect the neighborhoods they lived in. http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/ http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/
      - murbard2 11y ago
        Could it be that some of the landlords successfully made it look like an accident to collect the insurance money?
      - busterarm 11y ago
        @murbard2: > Could it be that some of the landlords successfully made it look like an accident to collect the insurance money? The linked article directly refutes that claim three different ways.
kenj0418 11y ago
Assuming that you want to allow poor people to live in an area that they couldn't otherwise afford, why are price controls used instead of directly subsidizing housing costs for those with lower income. It seems like the direct subsidy would have a less distorting effect on the market.
cynicalkane 11y ago
There are a very large number of places that are desirable and affordable. In fact, increasing the efficiency of the housing market is one of the best ways to increase the number of such places. The downside is such places will probably not be highly desirable parts of New York City.
- rmxt 11y ago
  Where are these all-knowing economists and why aren't they running NYC already? We'd have all our problems solved if only we removed the market controls! EDIT: I've replied to a post that is undergoing on-going editing.
ancap 11y ago
Is it okay to steal from person A to give to person B if person A has > person B?
- rmxt 11y ago
  Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".
  - ancap 11y ago
    Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - ancap 11y ago
        >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.
busterarm 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A :)

We could operate the economy by lottery.

This has nothing to do with what anyone deserves or doesn't deserve. If you want the poor to live in desirable places, the best way to do that is to give them the money to do so. Trying to control prices directly has a track record of backfiring horribly, for reasons which are well understood by economists and uncontroversial.

danharaj 11y ago
What is the difference between horrible and not horrible in this case? NYC is not in flames.
- murbard2 11y ago
  The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance.
  - busterarm 11y ago
    > The Bronx did go up in flames when landlords set their own buildings on fire as they were taking a loss on their rent controlled buildings, where the rent didn't even cover the mandatory maintenance. This is demonstrably wrong. Arson was involved in 7% of the fires and almost all in already abandoned buildings. Fire burned the bronx because city budget cuts closed fire departments, reduced fire inspections and caused hydrants to not work. FDNY administration rigged the closures to not affect the neighborhoods they lived in. http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/ http://nypost.com/2010/05/16/why-the-bronx-burned/
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Could it be that some of the landlords successfully made it look like an accident to collect the insurance money?
    - busterarm 11y ago
      @murbard2: > Could it be that some of the landlords successfully made it look like an accident to collect the insurance money? The linked article directly refutes that claim three different ways.

kenj0418 11y ago

Assuming that you want to allow poor people to live in an area that they couldn't otherwise afford, why are price controls used instead of directly subsidizing housing costs for those with lower income. It seems like the direct subsidy would have a less distorting effect on the market.

cynicalkane 11y ago

There are a very large number of places that are desirable and affordable. In fact, increasing the efficiency of the housing market is one of the best ways to increase the number of such places. The downside is such places will probably not be highly desirable parts of New York City.

rmxt 11y ago
Where are these all-knowing economists and why aren't they running NYC already? We'd have all our problems solved if only we removed the market controls! EDIT: I've replied to a post that is undergoing on-going editing.

ancap 11y ago

Is it okay to steal from person A to give to person B if person A has > person B?

rmxt 11y ago
Ah, the favorite of all favorites: the "taxes (or, any government regulations involving income) are theft" argument! Following this line of thinking... is it "stealing" when schools are built, police stations are funded, or sanitation workers are paid to pick up trash? Starting from your point of view will likely not get far in a discussion that begins with "rent controls".
- ancap 11y ago
  Please explain how forcibly taking someone's money is not theft.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    It's not even remotely germane to this discussion, but the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair. It's not theft if it's consensual. Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid this "theft" altogether and are in the NYC area, I know some nice places in Van Cortlandt Park where you can set up a log cabin and forget about taxes.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - ancap 11y ago
      >the entire point of living in a (democratic?) society is that it's a consensual affair Allow me to test this theory (that merely living in a society gives consent to what would otherwise be theft) with an analogy: You have two routes to work, route A and route B. On route A it takes you 10 minutes to get to work but you are guaranteed to be mugged. On route B, it takes you 45 minutes to get to work and you won't get mugged. If for whatever reason, perhaps you are running late and if you don't get to work on time you will be fired, you choose to take route A, are you consenting to be mugged? I certainly think not. Really, your theory is not so much about consent as much as it is about the origins of rights. It sounds like you are a believer that rights originate from society (government), which is something I would disagree with. > Judging by your username and posting history, you'd prefer to argue from nuts back to soup, rather than attempt to address valid concerns ("to rent stabilize, or not rent stabilize") within existing fungible frameworks (the rat's nest that is NYC politics). Au contraire! Most people tend to handle these kind of political topics in a very utilitarian way; "which choice is most efficient?", or if you have a horse in the race, "which will net me the most benefit?". While I agree that rent control is terrible economic policy, I want more people to approach this issue, and other political issues, in a principled manner. Rent control is theft, and it should be recognized as such.

busterarm 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A :)