tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post38258697989741184..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Economic Enlightenment and Political IdeologyEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91701400245875506502010-06-08T21:49:32.151-04:002010-06-08T21:49:32.151-04:00Your first point about normative and positive seem...Your first point about normative and positive seems true but everything else is nonsense. <br /><br />Is it ok to murder someone? (enlightened disagree) DK - "but what if it was to save 10 trillion bajillion people?" Questioner - "Then we would have added that info to the question."<br /><br />This study doesn't prove anything but gives more evidence to general theory that progressives are either evil or stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50749164145140396102010-06-08T15:31:10.967-04:002010-06-08T15:31:10.967-04:00With all due respect to Tyler Cowen's point, m...With all due respect to Tyler Cowen's point, macro is witchcraft :)Sethhttp://ourdinnertable.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30922245206153227252010-06-08T15:29:26.628-04:002010-06-08T15:29:26.628-04:00Re: 4 - "Housing shortage" does not impl...Re: 4 - "Housing shortage" does not imply those things nor is it the same as "housing supply." <br /><br />A shortage is simply demand exceeding supply. Lower turnover, as you mention, is all you need to create a shortage.Sethhttp://ourdinnertable.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73867937828145816072010-05-12T00:12:10.795-04:002010-05-12T00:12:10.795-04:00Well, you don't use FB or DISQUS and be damned...Well, you don't use FB or DISQUS and be damned if I am going to create another online presence through Typepad or what have you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75198384272863415212010-05-11T05:46:05.790-04:002010-05-11T05:46:05.790-04:00You certainly have the right to comment anonymousl...You certainly have the right to comment anonymously, but this is one of the consequencess - someone else has been commenting here anonymously with a very similar tone and perspective.<br /><br />I agree completely with your second and third paragraphs.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-83895589064170152062010-05-10T17:00:31.203-04:002010-05-10T17:00:31.203-04:00Last couple of weeks? I only started commenting o...Last couple of weeks? I only started commenting on your site 4-5 days ago to the best of my recollection. <br /><br />My position is that the vast majority of building codes have some rent seeking involved in them; that they are not merely neutral decisions divined from the laws of nature. <br /><br />Also, I think there is fairly broad agreement on this point amongst planners and those who oppose "planning" alike; that the current urban, suburban, etc. landscapes, etc. exist not due to some laissez-faire ideal, but as a result of previous planning mentalities. IMHO, if we did take such a laissez-faire approach, we'd have very different types of buildings than we have today, more and less "sprawl" depending on the area, greater exurban expansion, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58156454996879763762010-05-10T16:50:00.496-04:002010-05-10T16:50:00.496-04:00"You really don't know what level of expe..."You really don't know what level of experience I have, do you?"<br /><br />You've been painting quite a vivid picture for me the last couple weeks.<br /><br />"Sorry, but this claim makes no sense at all. Why exactly is your "guess" (your word) commonsensical and my position is not?"<br /><br />In fairness to you, you still haven't stated exactly what your position is - you've simply imputed several to me.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12445630342865590262010-05-10T16:46:32.576-04:002010-05-10T16:46:32.576-04:00"Since we're both equally ignorant...&quo..."Since we're both equally ignorant..."<br /><br />You really don't know what level of experience I have, do you?<br /><br />"Since we're both equally ignorant on whether this is actually true, I see common sense on my side and ideological imperative on yours."<br /><br />Sorry, but this claim makes no sense at all. Why exactly is your "guess" (your word) commonsensical and my position is not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-40206467080264418292010-05-10T16:32:12.913-04:002010-05-10T16:32:12.913-04:00I argued no such thing. Perhaps there are "b...I argued no such thing. Perhaps there are "best practices" in some of these areas, perhaps not. And where there are "best practices", perhaps building codes coincide with those actual "best practices" and perhaps they don't coincide. I don't recall coming down on any side of any of these questions, but feel free to point out where I did if you disagree.<br /><br />Theoretically, I suppose the lumber industry could be behind the building codes dictating the width between joists. The narrower the distance, the more rents they can enjoy. Theoretically this is possible. I've never said it wasn't possible. Since we're both equally ignorant on whether this is actually true, I see common sense on my side and ideological imperative on yours. That's what this boils down to. Don't try to twist what I've said into a statement that rent seeking never happens or that regulators are perfect or that nothing is ever subject to abuse. You never read such a thing in any comment I ever wrote.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-59129058732172784522010-05-10T16:24:40.103-04:002010-05-10T16:24:40.103-04:00"I'm thinking in terms of rules about wir..."I'm thinking in terms of rules about wiring, insulation material, width between joints, etc. etc."<br /><br />All of which are subject to rent seeking. You seem to be arguing that there is one set of best practices in these areas that are not subject to abuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-82762672529382533082010-05-10T16:05:49.907-04:002010-05-10T16:05:49.907-04:00Anonymous -
I am not familiar enough with building...Anonymous -<br />I am not familiar enough with building codes to say - I could see it going either way, and I'm sure it depends on what jurisdiction we're talking about.<br /><br />My guess is that the vast majority of building codes cut down on asymmetric information and lower costs (in a welfare economics sense). However, my guess is there are certain jurisdictions where insiders are especially political powerful and reap considerable economic rent from building codes that they push through.<br /><br />You present what I think is in many ways a false strategy for thinking about this. I'm thinking in terms of rules about wiring, insulation material, width between joints, etc. etc. I can fully agree with you on the problem of the rent-seeking behavior of insiders and it doesn't say a thing about these other sorts of building codes I'm identifying.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-79015937897016828692010-05-10T15:49:08.171-04:002010-05-10T15:49:08.171-04:00"Building codes can cut down on asymmetric in..."Building codes can cut down on asymmetric information and lower costs for consumers."<br /><br />They can also benefit insiders and thus raise costs. Which do you suspect is more common?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10597086073814361172010-05-09T11:15:03.114-04:002010-05-09T11:15:03.114-04:00Ya - the monopsony was what I had in mind. Even i...Ya - the monopsony was what I had in mind. Even if you don't agree with that argument or the Card and Krueger empirical work, simply being aware of those objections is to be enlightened.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72902950285470992842010-05-09T09:48:06.392-04:002010-05-09T09:48:06.392-04:00Also, on 6, if the 'unenlightened' liberal...Also, on 6, if the 'unenlightened' liberal has also studied Marx (or just John Roemer, David Harvey, Jon Elster or Gerry Cohen) then they could strongly agree with Marxist exploitation of labour going in the third world <i>and</i> in the developed world. But asking only about the third world, the person asked would reply "Yes". The question is stupid unless the interviewers explain what they mean by exploited, which itself would have normative implications. <br /><br />Also, the question about minimum wages is also phenomenally important. Even Chicago-schoolers like McCloskey agree that in certain situations (specifically a Monosponistic employer back to Joan Robinson) a price floor (minimum wage) can increase employment (it being the inverse of optimal price regulation in monopoly). Also, see Krueger's work on the minimum wage, or Sam Bowles's work theoretically on the impact of free trade on employment in the US and Mexico. <br /><br />I'm afraid that in this paper we might simply see Klein's predilection for painting libertarians as smarter without considering the normativity of what's going on in the economics he expounds.Simon Hallidayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04289994368497331598noreply@blogger.com