“Oh Balogun is just playing for the U.S. because he couldn’t make the England squad”…Folks, that is the entire promise of our nation.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
And then we’ll beat your ass with them.
@noahqk@Noahpinion Does it not also seem odd that his sufficiency scenario has half a degree more warming that the current policy scenario in the latest Emissions Gap Report? https://t.co/vnLgAmfL4g
As someone who became a parent while living in Venice, I can admit that the homeless population was one of the top 3 reasons we left LA. I’ve always wanted to help the homeless, desperately, but I also witnessed the intensity of the situation balloon from my 20s to 30s living there and I became desensitized to it and gradually more callous about it. When you have a kid, your risk tolerance completely shifts.
I’ve been waiting to hear leaders talk this pragmatically about solving homelessness is CA for my whole adult life. Encampments are disastrous, unsanitary and completely tank the morale of a city. Young people, including myself, downplay the severity in their minds, until their life circumstances change. There needs to be an entirely new approach and conventional affordable housing isn’t it—too slow, too costly, not scalable. We need innovative ideas around providing shelter that’s more affordable.
The second step is re-empowering law enforcement to clean up streets and direct the homeless population towards resources as well as lowering the distribution of drugs that thrive in encampments and zombify the occupants. It’s seems so bizarre that LA and other major cities eventually just waved to white flag and allowed open drug use in certain areas. I drove through some of these areas just yesterday and it’s nothing short of dystopian. Shrugging and saying that’s just the way it is, is nihilistic.
There were good intentions behind decriminalizing camping and offering showers and clean needles and having more restraint in arresting individuals who are homeless but it created an incentive for people to settle permanently into places like skid row and rely on those resources indefinitely. It also incentivized bad actors to exploit those populations and profit from their addictions. It made LA a destination for more of it all. These encampments switched from a bug to a feature.
CA is full of innovation. This is a solvable problem. And it doesn’t require cruelty but it does require an uncomfortable reevaluation of every layer of the problem.
@Lux_Stella_ "It's ok because rich people will scoop up rent control except units and we'll just squeeze out the aspiring middle class" was the most genuinely mind-boggling part for me
@NathanJRobinson "..I’m not sure whether it’s better to retain poorer residents while attracting richer ones, or to retain and attract residents closer to the middle.."
I can. "Labor should be mobile, capital should stay put" .. used to matter when the left had the occasional non-grad student
I'm glad that the author of "Rent Control Is Fine, Actually" calls themself Unlearning Economics, bc it's good to just state things clearly, such as the open animosity that many left economic populists have for the field of economics and economists themselves.
Economists aren't gods, and economics isn't a divine truth, but economists are good--better than most--at something critical for making public policy: They're good at identifying tradeoffs. "Rents are too high, so freeze them" is compelling politics. But in the absence of other pro-supply policies, if you make it illegal to increase rents, landlords will stop upgrading units and convert them to condos, which reduces the supply of units for rent, reduces mobility, and drives up rents for everybody else.
The left econ populists have some clear, and clearly stated, policy ideas:
- Rents are too high, so freeze them.
- Electricity is expensive, so stop rate increases.
- Homes are too expensive, so ban institutional investors.
- Power prices are rising, so ban data center construction.
... All these policies feel like solutions because they're brisk, they name enemies, and they take on the most visible source of frustration. But they are much better as villain-naming exercises than they are as a complete public policy. On their own, each creates other problems: less housing built, less clean electricity built, abdicating energy policy by encouraging AI firms to build data centers abroad in unsavory countries with more emissions, etc.
I can't think of a single economic populist idea that wouldn't be helped with a little dose of economics, which is why it's troubling when I see the left participating in, and even celebrating, the great unlearning of economics.
The core problem with Shoplifting Is Moral Under Leftism discourse, like so many discourses before it, is that our social media algorithms select for this.
We exist online in a system that is designed to find the most childish and inflammatory opinions and amplify them to millions of people.
In an earlier age, gatekeepers existed to stop morons with puerile or reprehensible views from being heard. That had upsides and downsides. But now gatekeepers don't exist and everyone, even the New York Times, is just chasing clicks any way they can.
Invite on the hot doofus to say blowing up stuff is cool and shoplifting is good but plastic cups are a moral travesty. Why not? That'll go viral, you'll probably get a bonus. Watch everyone get mad, lolz, so owned.
This is what our media is doing to us. These people are freaks, they're not normal, but they're shoved in our faces for the purpose of chasing the last three dollars left in media.
Jon Stewart expressed many common misconceptions about what economists believe. We are not market absolutists. Long have we called for environmental regulations. Another John Stuart (Mill) called the environment the "inheritance of the human race, there must be regulations."