Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Rejoinder
I should point out one small problem I have with Glaeser's general argument. When you decrease the number of people who pay taxes at all, you increase the number of people who are willing to tax high-income individuals. Although the earned income tax credit was championed by none other than Milton Friedman, there is an element of public choice theory that of course has been borne out in reality. Without getting in to all of that, the general point still stands, which is that government is terrible at the equitable distribution of wealth because politicians have no incentive to actually respond to poor people.
If they are no longer poor, they will not vote for Democrats! The Republicans don't get their votes anyhow. Government has always responded to those who have enough money and influence to ask it for money. The poor do not hire K St. lobbyists.
Finally. I have one more thing to ad about this despicable bailout. You are now poorer by $800b not just because you paid taxes into that pool, but more because they pulled that money out of thin air. Today there are suddenly $800b more dollars. That makes every dollar you own worth $800b less all of the dollars in circulation. Not only is your stock account down, your house worth less etc, but now the politicians have decided that your dollars themselves should be each worth a little less. Congratulations.
Libertarian Egalitarianism
I first became aware of Edward Glaeser when he was promoting his theory (which is demonstrably correct) that zoning laws are a primary driver of real estate bubbles in liberal cities (San Fran, DC et al.)
Today, he posted what I consider to be the clearest enunciation of my economic viewpoint. This should be tattooed on the eyelids of all of the young evangelicals who prance around saying that they support BHO and the Dems because Christ told us to care for the poor.
Guess what! Free markets help the poor more than the transfer of wealth from tax payers to rich-well connected people. This 'bailout' / 'stimulus', it is designed to make rich people who have politicians ears richer. The fundamental conceit of socialism is the 'transfer of wealth.' Unfortunately it always results in the transfer of wealth to a few who are close to the throne.
If you want to be Christ-like you achieve this by giving your money to the poor. Its as simple as that. The reason we do not want the government to take our money and give it to the poor for us is: 1) then we were not being Christ like at all, but rather abdicating that responsibility on to others, and 2) the government doesn't really give money to the poor but rather to special interest groups, and 3) when we give money to the government, not only does it not give it to the poor, and rather give it to special interest, but then the poor get even poorer because there are fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, and fewer innovative products that save the poor money while increasing their standard of living.
The Utter Idiocy of the Thinking Class
This is exemplary of the problem with our chattering classes. NOAA released a report that says that CO2 increases affect the earth's climate for 1,000 years. Fair enough. I think there are conceptual problems with that but whatever, there is certainly a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now thanks to humans, and it will certainly have an effect on our climate. Take a look at these headlines though.
First of all, the idea that the climate anywhere would be substantially the same in 1,000 years regardless of human action is of course ridiculous. Second, the idea that all changes in the climate will have ill effects for humans and the 'environment' is equally ridiculous. But the truly stupid things are that a) scientists think they can predict (using 'complex' computer models) complicated interactive systems 10 years out let alone 1,000 years is insane, and b) that they do not take into account that radical changes in technology and science will have occurred if humanity still exists 1,000 years from now.
Can you imagine trying to explain to an average person in 1,000 the world in which we live? That will make explaining the world of 3,008 to us seem like explaining that 1+1=2... The media, and the scientists they help fund, are just trying to keep you scared. The Bible of course tells us time and time again not to worry.
Now, of course I am not saying that we should not be interested climate, or general creation care. We very much should. I am saying that we need to be extremely careful about buying in to predictions of gloom and doom that are tenuous at best, and I think facially absurd.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Urban Rural Political Divide: Part II
So. As promised, (or threatened) I want to also talk about this from the other direction: does politics lead to geographic separation. I think that this is mainly the case for low-density urban development, as there are little empirical data on folks fleeing the city for very rural places (anecdotally I am sure many do, as I would like to, but its nothing like a phenomenon).
David Brooks wrote an interesting book on this called Paradise Drive, but the focus there was a bit different. In a nutshell, right of center people choose to live in lower density and left of center folks choose to live in higher density. Why?
1. Children–More children equals more conservative. There are so many available data to support this idea that I will leave the cites up to the reader (as again I lack the time). The most liberal women are the least fecund, conservatives are the most. When you have a child (or especially more than one) city living is difficult and annoying. Even without children, married couples, who don't need to go to bars etc are likely to live in the burbs. This is the most obvious reason, but there are subtler ones.
2. Religion–This directly relates to point #1 (religious are much more fertile), but I think there is a more nuanced ancillary reason. I have no children and I prefer lower density. In the Jeffersonian sense religious people like some kind of nature, rather than the paean to man that cities are. Second, Christians in particular, which obviously make up the vast majority of religious in the US, at least partly desire to remove themselves from pagan culture. That is easier in the suburbs where you can be alone. The more dense, the more you are constantly exposed to any number of objectionable sights and sounds etc. As strange and silly as this may sound, I think it is a powerful motivator.
3. Taste Culture–Liberals, yuppies, activists, these are all taste culture people. This often coincides with religion. If you worship created, rather than Creator, you are likely in this 'taste culture' idea. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with it per se, but I think it can be related to the worship thing. What do I mean? Well, religious folks might draw their friends from church or school or scouts etc. Yuppies et al tend to derive friends from taste culture. They are 'foodies' or hikers, or insert social category here. High density living caters to this more simply because there are more opportunities for interaction and specialization.
4. Legal–This is a catch all category but perhaps the most profound. Firstly that the zoning laws of cities (along with higher density) make property more expensive. Therefore families move to the suburbs. But it is more complicated. Taxes are often lower in the suburbs, which is obviously a concern of conservatives (b/c you know, we are honest and actually pay our taxes, unlike Dem pols). It is also often easier to do what you like with your property in the suburbs, though with neighborhood covenants this is increasingly less true. The big one is of course that the draconian gun laws of cities drive conservatives out.
About 80% of the country according to the census is urban. Obviously, this does not mean urban urban, but rather developed vs. rural. There are those who believe that culture emanates like a radio wave out of the cities, and there is some truth to that. But I believe one of the reasons the U.S. is still tolerable compared to some other Western societies is that we have allowed for semi-urban development, without the problems and pitfalls. We need to encourage this. The lefties decry this as 'sprawl' and there is something to that argument that we can't ignore. Some suburban spaces are ugly, wasteful and dehumanizing. But hello! So are a lot of very high density urban spaces! What we need to is develop sensibly for a variety of needs. If we let the left command suburban policy to make it more dense, we will lose these spaces and the heart of America.
There is a lot more to talk about here so feel free to chime in. Next I will deal with the future, and how I think these categories are going to become even more difficult as I believe we are on the cusp of a transport revolution along the lines of the auto 100 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)