Do the wealthy, the businesses, abandon rioting, virus infected and indebted cities?

[eiriksmil]

What? How is this responsive to what I wrote?

Let's go back. You need to elaborate a bit, I must have misunderstood.

 

[Danoff]

Let's go back. You need to elaborate a bit, I must have misunderstood.

You asked why wealth should not be equally redistributed. I said it's because of the concept of theft (redistribution of wealth is theft) and human rights (property theft is a violation of human rights).

 

[TexRex]

@Dotini I stand by my earlier assertion, that all questions are free, but I presume you indicating that I'm entitled to a free question (and no stipulation that the question must come directly from me was made) means that it will actually garner a response from you.

This is my question:

So I suspect that you have answers to this then:

Your plan isn't clear though and has holes in it that you could drive a truck through.

First off, where would the money for reparations come from? If it comes from taxes, that's a massive redistribution of wealth that equates to theft. You, or rather the federal government, are taking money from me, who had no involvement in slavery, nor my family, and giving it to someone else. If it's just going to be printed, then holy inflation.

Second, if you're going to give out land, where does that land come from? Federal land isn't exactly where most people want to live. Utah is something like 80% federal land and it's mostly just dry and desolate wasteland.

Third, how would you determine who gets it? If it's based on the color of your skin, that essentially gives some people from the Caribbean, Central, and South America the ability to claim reparations. It would also cancel out anyone from North Africa since North Africans skin color is rarely "black". If it's based on whether you're an African American or not, that also doesn't work. I used to work with a guy who was, quite literally an African American. He was whiter than me and from Zimbabwe. Hell, Elon Musk is an African American.

And you want to see cities have a bad time when it comes to businesses and people with means, then give out reparations. If the money comes from taxes, that will not sit well with a majority of people since it's forced wealth distribution based on, well I'm not sure what you're basing your plan on it, but it'd probably come down to skin color. That's quintessential racism, and government-sponsored racism at that. If the money comes from magic, like the COVID-19 stimulus checks, then businesses will suffer because of rampant inflation. Suddenly you have 37 million people with a significant amount of money, this increases the demand for good and thus increases the price of them. It'd ruin the economy.

It should go without saying that the response ought to be clear, complete and, most importantly, considered, and I posit that the absence of a clear, complete and, most importantly, considered response from you will make your intentions quite clear.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I don't believe you legitimately hold this position that you've been espousing. Rather, I believe you've determined it to be a contrarian position on this particular platform and that espousing it results in the attention of those who oppose such a position being focused on you. I believe this is the case with many of the positions you espouse on this platform.

 

[eiriksmil]

You asked why wealth should not be equally redistributed. I said it's because of the concept of theft (redistribution of wealth is theft) and human rights (property theft is a violation of human rights).

Would you say taxes is theft?

 

[Danoff]

Would you say taxes is theft?

Yes. I have many times. Would you say that "redistribution of wealth" is not theft?

 

[Biggles]

You asked why wealth should not be equally redistributed. I said it's because of the concept of theft (redistribution of wealth is theft) and human rights (property theft is a violation of human rights).

An argument that would have been made by southern slave owners leading up to the Civil War. Or Russian landowners about the land worked by their serfs ... or English landowners in Ireland ... French aristos prior to the French revolution ... white South African farmers during apartheid ... 19th British mill owners using child labour ... we could go on & on & on. Economic injustice is deeply embedded in the fabric of society.

 

[Danoff]

An argument that would have been made by southern slave owners leading up to the Civil War.

Inappropriately...

Or Russian landowners about the land worked by their serfs ... or English landowners in Ireland ... French aristos prior to the French revolution ... white South African farmers during apartheid ... 19th British mill owners using child labour ... we could go on & on & on. Economic injustice is deeply embedded in the fabric of society.

Some of those groups predate the modern concept of human rights altogether, so I doubt it heavily. "Injustice" is not the same as "inequality".

 

[eiriksmil]

Yes. I have many times. Would you say that "redistribution of wealth" is not theft?

Wealth is redistributed every day in the free, open market. So no, not necessarily.

In a society with a higher degree of education, democracy and egality, the economic inequality will naturally be lower as a byproduct.

I figure we will not agree on much here, social democracy is probably scary to you

 

[Danoff]

Wealth is redistributed every day in the free, open market. So no, not necessarily.

In a society with a higher degree of education, democracy and egality, the economic inequality will naturally be lower as a byproduct.

I figure we will not agree on much here, social democracy is probably scary to you

Scary? Not particularly.

Wealth is not particularly "redistributed" in a free market. Currency is exchange for goods and services, but this is presumably an equal or nearly equal exchange of "wealth".

 

[eiriksmil]

Scary? Not particularly.

Wealth is not particularly "redistributed" in a free market. Currency is exchange for goods and services, but this is presumably an equal or nearly equal exchange of "wealth".

If you do a bad trade, the person on the other side of the table does a good trade, or opposite. Redistribution or allocation of wealth right there. You don't need to tax or to steal to redistribute wealth.

 

[TexRex]

If you do a bad trade, the person on the other side of the table does a good trade, or opposite. Redistribution or allocation of wealth right there. You don't need to tax or to steal to redistribute wealth.

Totally.

You want an apple. Someone's selling an apple for $0.75, but that apple can't be said to have cost the seller more than $0.15. This cost includes everything that went into creating that apple, obviously, but it also factors the cost to bring the apple to a place that is convenient for you, the buyer, as well as the cost to keep the apple in the best possible condition prior to sale, and even accounts for apples that went bad before they were sold and had to be tossed out. All told, the apple costs $0.15 and they want $0.75 for it. That's a redistribution of wealth that favors the seller to the tune of $0.60.

That's what you're getting at, right?

 

[Danoff]

If you do a bad trade, the person on the other side of the table does a good trade, or opposite. Redistribution or allocation of wealth right there. You don't need to tax or to steal to redistribute wealth.

How can you say that it is redistribution? What do you call a "bad trade" and a "good trade". If someone values a pokemon card at $1000 and it changes hands. How can you say that it is not worth $1000? The person wanted that card at that time for that money. That's a voluntary exchange, which makes it even in at least the eyes of the people making the exchange.

Totally.

You want an apple. Someone's selling an apple for $0.75, but that apple can't be said to have cost the seller more than $0.15. This cost includes everything that went into creating that apple, obviously, but it also factors the cost to bring the apple to a place that is convenient for you, the buyer, as well as the cost to keep the apple in the best possible condition prior to sale, and even accounts for apples that went bad before they were sold and had to be tossed out. All told, the apple costs $0.15 and they want $0.75 for it. That's a redistribution of wealth that favors the seller to the tune of $0.60.

That's what you're getting at, right?

I hope not. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TexRex]

How can you say that it is redistribution? What do you call a "bad trade" and a "good trade". If someone values a pokemon card at $1000 and it changes hands. How can you say that it is not worth $1000? The person wanted that card at that time for that money. That's a voluntary exchange, which makes it even in at least the eyes of the people making the exchange.

Tangent. I was about to quip on the cost of Pokemon cards. I hadn't typed anything yet, but it occurred to me to get an idea of what some of them do actually cost. I started typing into the ol' Google, "most valuable--" and the first autofill search was "--pokemon cards". Google scares me sometimes.

 

[Hayden]

So the point of this thread, I think, is along the lines of...
- Corona virus has revolutionised work from home- making expensive city office spaces near pointless
- Corona virus has decimated overpopulated city areas- where people can not afford to rent/own their own space

There’s a neat little symmetry to these things don’t you think? Perhaps (in this theoretical situation), all the empty office blocks could become affordable housing? Raising the living standard, improving population density and reducing the cost of living in a city.

And the point of this thread, is that this would be a bad thing?

 

[Danoff]

So the point of this thread, I think, is along the lines of...
- Corona virus has revolutionised work from home- making expensive city office spaces near pointless
- Corona virus has decimated overpopulated city areas- where people can not afford to rent/own their own space

There’s a neat little symmetry to these things don’t you think? Perhaps (in this theoretical situation), all the empty office blocks could become affordable housing? Raising the living standard, improving population density and reducing the cost of living in a city.

And the point of this thread, is that this would be a bad thing?

I don't think that people will want to live in empty office blocks downtown in a city when jobs are gone. One of the big reasons that people put up with living on top of each other in cities is because it's where jobs exist. And jobs go to where people are. It's a feedback loop. Even then, people go to extreme lengths to find more affordable housing outside of cities. The only other argument I've seen for urban existence is a concentration of dining and entertainment. But that concentration falls away as people fall away as well. Also dining and entertainment have been hit hard by COVID.

Altogether it is a major blow against highly concentrated metro areas (@Eunos_Cosmo). As has been said here, I think the flight will be to suburbia rather than rural areas. Some people will flee cities for rural areas, but I think most will want suburban infrastructure. So if we take Seattle, for example, this would suggest that Seattle suburbs might do well compared to urban real estate.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't think that people will want to live in empty office blocks downtown in a city when jobs are gone. One of the big reasons that people put up with living on top of each other in cities is because it's where jobs exist. And jobs go to where people are. It's a feedback loop. Even then, people go to extreme lengths to find more affordable housing outside of cities. The only other argument I've seen for urban existence is a concentration of dining and entertainment. But that concentration falls away as people fall away as well. Also dining and entertainment have been hit hard by COVID.

I'm not sure you quite nailed it here. While it's true that many people live in dense cities because jobs are there or because there is dining and entertainment, I'd say a very large amount of city dwellers do actually live in cities specifically to live "on top of each other". Hustle and bustle, lots of people, etc. From your posts, I gather that this probably seems to be a very strange concept to you.

Altogether it is a major blow against highly concentrated metro areas (@Eunos_Cosmo). As has been said here, I think the flight will be to suburbia rather than rural areas. Some people will flee cities for rural areas, but I think most will want suburban infrastructure. So if we take Seattle, for example, this would suggest that Seattle suburbs might do well compared to urban real estate.

As usual, Detroit is instructive. The flight from urban Detroit in the 1950s left the city gutted but the surrounding suburbs flush with wealth. Just look at Grosse Point, Bloomfield, etc - some of the wealthiest suburbs in the country. That this crisis is coinciding with millennials reaching prime family-building age and I think the immediate suburbs of the major urban centers are gonna get big influxes over the next 5 years. I agree that rural areas are probably not going to see much net migration - it's just too big a leap.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure you quite nailed it here. While it's true that many people live in dense cities because jobs are there or because there is dining and entertainment, I'd say a very large amount of city dwellers do actually live in cities specifically to live "on top of each other". Hustle and bustle, lots of people, etc. From your posts, I gather that this probably seems to be a very strange concept to you.

Sorry I left that out. I thought I caught it with dining and entertainment, but I suppose some people enjoy being surrounded by people even when they're not recreating (is that a word?) or working.. and just want to be surrounded by humans. Sounds horrible to me, but regardless, it has also taken a huge hit from COVID.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sorry I left that out. I thought I caught it with dining and entertainment, but I suppose some people enjoy being surrounded by people even when they're not recreating (is that a word?) or working.. and just want to be surrounded by humans. Sounds horrible to me, but regardless, it has also taken a huge hit from COVID.

I'm not sure where you came from, but sometimes I think it wasn't earth.

 

[Hayden]

I don't think that people will want to live in empty office blocks downtown in a city when jobs are gone. One of the big reasons that people put up with living on top of each other in cities is because it's where jobs exist. And jobs go to where people are. It's a feedback loop. Even then, people go to extreme lengths to find more affordable housing outside of cities. The only other argument I've seen for urban existence is a concentration of dining and entertainment...

There are many other reasons people like living in (or near) cities.
- Education (universities in particular)
- Established human relationships (Generations of friends, family, acquaintances)
- Diverse range of social groups (sport, music, arts, politics, hobbies etc)
- Religious/ethnic/community groups (Chinatown, Nationality clubs etc)
- Healthcare, nursing homes etc
- Hustle bustle (as Eunos points out)
- Cheap, reliable, easy public transport
- Connectivity to outside world (airport nearby)
- Feeling of “being a part of it.” (Progressive city attitude)
- Culture (galleries, museums, libraries, etc)
- It’s all they’ve ever known

An exodus of people who are just there for the work (and I’m sure there’s plenty) would probably improve housing affordability and living conditions even further.

.. So if we take Seattle, for example, this would suggest that Seattle suburbs might do well compared to urban real estate.

I don’t disagree with this point at all. It’s worth noting however that if suburban prices get too out of hand, or the real estate gets too far from the benefits of the city, people will again consider city living.

As populations continue to increase, some cities are also running out of geographical space for suburbs- forcing them to build upwards. NYC went through it many years ago, and have done an amazing job of fitting as many people as possible on a small land mass. Places like Sydney are now in a very similar situation. 50 years down the track, far fewer suburban options will exist.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

As populations continue to increase, some cities are also running out of geographical space for suburbs- forcing them to build upwards. NYC went through it many years ago, and have done an amazing job of fitting as many people as possible on a small land mass. Places like Sydney are now in a very similar situation. 50 years down the track, far fewer suburban options will exist.

This is an excellent point...not certain it's relevant to the specific topic, but a good point nonetheless. I'd like to follow this tangent. The NorCal bay area is just about the most expensive place in the USA (and world, really). Lots of highly paid professionals, lots of resistance to development, and not a lot of land. When you look at the map, you think - well there's plenty of room! Look at all those areas without roads.

But then you flip on the topography layer and you're like daaaamn that's a lotta mountains - especially up here in Marin county.

Well then you're like - oh, let's just build up where we do have flat spots! Just like NYC.

But then you get the soils report from your geotech engineer and your foundation from your structural engineer and you have 500 piles going down 100ft at a cost of $10m+ ....

(I've now worked on 2 projects with such foundations. Another had a 12 FOOT thick concrete slab buried 60' underground, which was actually considerably more expensive)

....because all the flat parts are actually just mudflats with some old bricks and ships (literally, there are old ships buried all over the perimeter of SF) mixed in.

Oh then there's the earthquakes because the fault lines ARE EVERYWHERE

Also, stay away from the ocean-side flats because of Tsunamis...



San Francisco is a terrible place to have a lot of people. Good weather though.

 

[Hayden]

This is an excellent point...not certain it's relevant to the specific topic, but a good point nonetheless...

The point of this thread’s been a bit murky at the best of times, but you’ve added some brilliant insight.

It’s reminded me of a couple more reasons people like living in cities too. History, loyalty, memories, pride & prestige. Hard things to quantify, but extremely important to some people.

 

[eiriksmil]

How can you say that it is redistribution? What do you call a "bad trade" and a "good trade". If someone values a pokemon card at $1000 and it changes hands. How can you say that it is not worth $1000? The person wanted that card at that time for that money. That's a voluntary exchange, which makes it even in at least the eyes of the people making the exchange.

Like I said. We're not getting anywhere. I am probably a little less fan of laissez-faire in practice than you are.

In the example with the cards it's fair no doubt, but if the card was bought for $100 the week before and can sell for $150 the week after (contrary to what the market thought, the market tipped the card to be worth $2000 the week after), there is no question one person made the money, the other person lost. Fully voluntarily, fully fair and a free market. But wealth shifted and I would call that a natural redistribution.

For the record, I have never felt that paying taxes are money stolen from me. If taxes creates less poverty, that in turn should create less crime. So instead of having to get my business broken into and riots in the streets, I pay tax.

 

[ryzno]

Like I said. We're not getting anywhere. I am probably a little less fan of laissez-faire in practice than you are.

In the example with the cards it's fair no doubt, but if the card was bought for $100 the week before and can sell for $150 the week after (contrary to what the market thought, the market tipped the card to be worth $2000 the week after), there is no question one person made the money, the other person lost. Fully voluntarily, fully fair and a free market. But wealth shifted and I would call that a natural redistribution.

For the record, I have never felt that paying taxes are money stolen from me. If taxes creates less poverty, that in turn should create less crime. So instead of having to get my business broken into and riots in the streets, I pay tax.

We must have a different definition of wealth distribution then.
While buying something is technically distributing wealth I don't look at it as redistribution.
I look at redistribution as my tax money claimed to go to one thing gets spent on something completely different.
Social Security springs to mind...

 

[Dotini]

We must have a different definition of wealth distribution then.
While buying something is technically distributing wealth I don't look at it as redistribution.
I look at redistribution as my tax money claimed to go to one thing gets spent on something completely different.
Social Security springs to mind...

The money promised to you by the social security system is an unfunded liability owed in the future. The government spends every penny it can get either through taxation or borrowing in order to keep the system going. When you count unfunded obligations, liabilities or promises made to the future, the national debt is absurdly out of balance.

 

[TexRex]

The money promised to you by the social security system is an unfunded liability owed in the future. The government spends every penny it can get either through taxation or borrowing in order to keep the system going. When you count unfunded obligations, liabilities or promises made to the future, the national debt is absurdly out of balance.

That's a pass on my free question, then?

*gasp*

 

[Dotini]

That's a pass on my free question, then?

*gasp*

I'm sorry, did you post a question to me? I must have missed it - I was gone fishing yesterday.

EDIT: Ok I see it, post #63 above. I received no notification since I am ignoring you. But I will reply to the other party in order to fulfill your free question.

EDIT2: See full answer in #25060 of referenced thread.

 

[TexRex]

EDIT: Ok I see it, post #63 above. I received no notification since I am ignoring you. But I will reply to the other party in order to fulfill your free question.

Peculiar that you'd grant me a free question while ignoring me. Seems like trolling.

 

[DesertPenguin]

And that he openly says he has you on ignore. How can you have an intellectual conversation with someone that actively shuts you out?

 

[Dotini]

And that he openly says he has you on ignore. How can you have an intellectual conversation with someone that actively shuts you out?

Tex and I (a true Texan), do not have a properly functional relationship. But he gets to taunt and slight me, and I get to ignore him. We both seem happy about that. I've tried to improve the relationship through PMs. But really he doesn't want to change anything. And that's okay with me.

 

[TexRex]

And that he openly says he has you on ignore. How can you have an intellectual conversation with someone that actively shuts you out?

I don't have an issue with him ignoring me or saying that he's ignoring me. I don't even question his responding to me despite ignoring me, because I know what it's like to ignore someone and how that manifests on the forum.

I find it odd that he'd say that I'm awarded a free question when that question isn't likely to be seen as a result of me being ignored. I also don't believe he's interested in discussion, as I alluded to above.