tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post6626285794337584825..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Ryan Murphy is being slippery and non-sensical...Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81501453715597020682012-08-20T19:59:30.194-04:002012-08-20T19:59:30.194-04:00Daniel,
I will stop calling people liars if it is...Daniel,<br /><br />I will stop calling people liars if it is okay with you that I write, something like:<br /><br />No matter how bad anything is that I may write, "I will never be as mendacious, deceitful, intellectually dishonest and a disgrace to all thinking people everywhere as is Niall Ferguson (or any other libertarian or right wing wacko about whom your write or comment)?<br /><br />http://www.samefacts.com/2012/08/watching-conservatives/something-to-be-thankful-for-2/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-68331226610910224452012-08-20T12:20:15.855-04:002012-08-20T12:20:15.855-04:00Daniel,
BTW, it is an urban myth that people leav...Daniel,<br /><br />BTW, it is an urban myth that people leave cities because of "white flight," as shown by your defense of people who fly the Stars and Bars<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-8555680327950626312012-08-20T12:16:28.221-04:002012-08-20T12:16:28.221-04:00Daniel
This little thought exercise pretty much p...Daniel<br /><br />This little thought exercise pretty much pitches the entire right wing/libertarian view on the dung heap of bad ideas.<br /><br />Given: pubic roads, airports, canals, harbors, river and harbor dredging, etc., promote more people having greater freedom to live and associate and speak with people with whom they want to live with, work, speak and associate than than private roads, airports, canals, harbors, river and harbor dredging.<br /><br />So which trumps: the freedoms of speech, association, and travel or [what]?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-86992842807468017892012-08-20T11:58:38.547-04:002012-08-20T11:58:38.547-04:00Should have worded it "rather than only willi...Should have worded it "rather than only willingness to pay."<br /><br />I assumed we were talking about the benefit of public roads - it's harder to evaluate 'infrastructure' as a single thing. Infrastructure is important in cities, of course, moreso than anywhere else. I get now what you mean by ghettoization, I thought you were making the claim that charging for roads would lead to ghettoization, which I found confusing. Infrastructure encompasses many things, some of which lead to vibrant cities, and some that negatively affect urbanization (though perhaps that factor is outweighed by others). Since the conversation started at roads, that's what I had in mind.Ryan Langrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15080552998325983982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-59732952372872560202012-08-20T11:34:18.624-04:002012-08-20T11:34:18.624-04:00All I'm saying is that poor people presumably ...All I'm saying is that poor people presumably would benefit more from transportation infrastructure than their ability to pay implies. I have nothing against private roads. You are right when it comes to private cars on roads, but of course there's more to public infrastructure than just roads and more than just cars on the roads. You are taking Ryan Murphy too seriously when he frames this as an argument about private roads.<br /><br />I agree on your assessment of CBA. I'm critiquing one way of using it, and I've always considered it valuable too.<br /><br />I don't understand what you mean by "the loss of the network externality formed by dense cities". Good agglomeration economies are one of the big benefits of good public infrastructure, right?<br /><br />re: <i>"Your point about worrying about ability to pay, rather than willingness to pay, is not an economist's point, it is a value judgment--which is fine, since there is no such thing as a policy proposal without a value judgment."</i><br /><br />Well first I wouldn't say "rather than" willingness to pay. Willingness to pay is important as well and I'm not brushing that aside. But I feel like we grapple with willingness to pay a lot. We often wave our hands at ability to pay and that worries me. I think it is an economist's point insofar as I'm an economist delimiting what these models can and can't tell us.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-4448189837242142692012-08-20T11:28:01.175-04:002012-08-20T11:28:01.175-04:00Why do you think that private roads would lead to ...Why do you think that private roads would lead to urban ghettoization? The usual argument from Urban Economics is that subsidized roads (at least in comparison to other forms of less-rich-biased mass transit) have contributed to "white flight" and ghettoization. <br /><br />What you are doing is not undermining CBA - you are undermining CBA as a guide to personal values, values that are ultimately at the root of desired public policy. [CBA doesn't necessarily spit out 'right-wing' conclusions either, which some people assume].<br /><br />Even Stephen Landsburg, who tries explicitly to turn CBA into a guide to policy and a moral yardstick is not completely comfortable with it, and argues that a "CBA that adjusts a little for income inequality."<br /><br />I disagree with you on an empirical point, your CBA: that the value of the roads' network externality is larger than the loss of the network externality formed by dense cities.<br /><br />Your point about worrying about ability to pay, rather than willingness to pay, is not an economist's point, it is a value judgment--which is fine, since there is no such thing as a policy proposal without a value judgment.Ryan Langrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15080552998325983982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36227074384011164952012-08-20T09:14:41.486-04:002012-08-20T09:14:41.486-04:00You need to read his post more closely. There was ...You need to read his post more closely. There was a lot that was bad in it, but he never said that anyone should be denied the freedom to live outside cities.<br /><br />He does mention Coase too, and that is a good argument for it. It's not strictly an argument for government roads, of course. Transaction costs can be reduced in large firms too. But it is a case for public provision.<br /><br />Try to comment without calling people liars, AH.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-18588458143501239482012-08-20T09:10:35.757-04:002012-08-20T09:10:35.757-04:00this is too funny.
Daniel finally has to face the...this is too funny.<br /><br />Daniel finally has to face the fact that the right lies.<br /><br />BTW, it is hilarious to read libertarians arguing against public roads because they want to deny people the freedom to live other than in cities.<br /><br />Last, its is equally funny to see people lacking the ability to apply Coase. The biggest reason we have public roads is that it is the most efficient way to have good roads. Gov't is many times more efficient at providing roads and the same applies to airports, canals, piers and harbors. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.com