fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
No bio...
User ID: 3415
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
Leaving aside the assertion that democrats would do any better of a job running the country
Don't think I ever said this?
My assertion is that an administration who creatively interprets the constitution to give itself more power would do a worse job than the status quo.
there is no right wing authoritarian regime which can be in power without taking care of conservative Catholics.
Doesn't matter. Your life gets worse when the overall economy gets worse due to shitty leadership and capital flight, no matter how much the administration loves Catholics.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
You could literally just take your comment, replace "Republican" with "Democrat", and it would be true
You say the Republicans don't literally all move as one, sure. Neither do the Democrats. You'll always find exceptions, congratulations. You can find them for Dems too.
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/dramatic-rise-republican-support-ukraine
This article shows 20%+ swings in opinion in a very small timeframe, which satisfies the "significant percentage of their base is trained to embrace the current thing immediately on declaration" that I quoted.
I don't even disagree, the Dems also do this bullshit. I hate both groups, you're fucking morons, please pull your collective heads out of your collective asses and wake up to the fact that China is eating your fucking lunch and western society has become so sclerotic and myopic it can barely meet the needs of its people.
I miss when Western society was the pinnacle of human civilization, and not an ouroboros of rent seekers cannibalizing itself for short term returns at the cost of long term prosperity.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
But then you find out people agree that it's silly to spend more than 10m to save a child's life from cancer (so child's life is worth 10m max), but they wouldn't accept 20m to shoot a child (so child's life worth greater than 20m??? wat do).
This is blowing my mind.
I think part of it is that shooting them is a direct action you must take, whereas the cancer absolves some of the "ethical responsibility"
I guess the immediate counter is "assume that the 10m treatment will cure them perfectly and permanently with 0% chance of remission"
I agree that 10 million is probably a bit much to spend, but I also would not accept 20 million to shoot a child.
I'm not sure how to reconcile this.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
There was a time when you could just hit on girls on Facebook. If you had a few mutual friends, she'd accept your friend request and chat with you on the assumption you were cool.
I totally forgot about this. I'm a bit younger than you and caught the tail end of this. It was pretty sweet. I was too awkward to close, but I had decent success a few times with this.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
I 100% agree with you, that is what I would do
But the kind of person who has the conviction, determination and drive to become the president of the USA is also not the kind of person to kick up their feet and cruise control.
I constantly wonder why Elon Musk does anything he's been doing, he seems pretty unhappy and stressed out a lot? If I was worth 100s of billions I'd be living full time on a tropical paradise island that I built into some kind of funhouse compound and I'd have my friends and family rotate in and out to keep me company. Maybe spice it up by going on international trips every other month. I'd be SO MUCH happier than Elon if I had his money.
But Elon is Elon because of that drive. He wouldn't be worth 100s of billions if he didn't have it.
I see it with "retired" successful consultants who then just keep working semi-privately. Their millionaires, why are you still doing this shit? Because they have insane drive and the insane drive is also why they're millionaires. If they could fuck off and relax, they wouldn't have been the massively successful consultants they were/are.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
significant percentage of their base is trained to embrace the current thing immediately on declaration
Unlike Republicans of course, who have never once changed their opinion on supporting Ukraine, or the efficacy of the free market, or the efficacy of free trade, or how small government should be, or if state owned enterprises are good, or anything else in the last ~9 months.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
The American meltdown over Jan 6 was hilarious.
Century of toppling foreign governments, some of which were democratically elected by their people? I sleep
A bunch of Gen X wander around a government building for a few hours, largely make fools of themselves, and then nothing happens? Literally worst thing to happen to America since 9/11 / pearl harbor / the civil war.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
Right, but a third term is in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles the country was built around. So presumably if you're willing to torch constitutional articles in the pursuit of more power, that won't be the only roadblock in the pursuit of more power.
This administration also has a rapidly growing resume of moves to increase its power despite rules or norms that say "no you can't". So this isn't even a conjecture it's just the continuation of an existing pattern of behavior.
I actually chose the words "crony capitalist quasi-autocratic" somewhat carefully, although I'm open to "autocratic" being the wrong word. They have a clear streak of being crony capitalists (TikTok deal, Merger approvals, Intel stake, Nvidia bullshit, etc). And doing that always, always results in shitter outcomes than letting the free market work. It also results in playing favorites and trading political and business favors back and forth.
The quasi-autocratic is again, because if you start undermining the fundamental principles of a democratic government to increase your political power, I really don't know what to call that.
Why would they be so upset, when they voted for Trump (or someone they knew would yield to him) for that third term?
Don't get too caught up in my lazy hypothetical. The thesis there is if you're okay with your team bending rules to increase its power, but there's a credible chance the other team will have a chance to bend those rules as well eventually, you are implicitly accepting that the other team gets to do it as well.
Unless of course you're only fine with your team bending the rules if they also simultaneously destroy the other team completely, in which case "quasi-autocratic" is only wrong because "autocratic" is better lol
A crony capitalist quasi-autocratic (maybe we need a less inflammatory word that "autocratic" but my point is more "no longer a very democratic form of government that has even less pretense to listen to its citizens or be run well for fear of losing elections") is in no way going to run better than the USA currently.
We know this because the USA is still ran better, today, than the vast majority of counties on Earth. And it is very definitely ran better than the currently crony capitalist quasi-autocratic countries that exist right now.
Also again, what about when the shoe is on the other foot? What if Trump rips a third term, then the American people are so deeply upset with it that they not only elect Kamala Harris (lmao), but they elect her for 12 years straight using the same trick? Would you accept 12 years of Kamalapocalypse in exchange for an extra Trump term? Because that's implicitly an outcome here.
If your response is "well we'd simply ensure the Democrats never win again by cementing red-tribe rule forever" I again direct you to my question of "do you seriously actually think places like Assad Syria or El Salvador are ran better than California?". Governments that no longer need to worry about securing votes go off the rails really fucking fast, every time.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
it would be very good for my ingroup
Would it? Do you anticipate your country being ran better in the long run once this happens? Sure it'll be a nice sugar high, but what happens once it's 10 years from now and the rot and corruption that always (always) sets in once groups are established? Especially in cases where the usual checks and balances to prevent anyone from getting too comfortable or destructive?
Will your in group be doing well when your country's bureaucracy runs even worse than it does now, business investment (with knock on effects on the equity market) is more hesitant due to the increased risk from crony capitalism, and the USA has lost its mandate of heaven leader of the free world and the associated advantages like preferential trade deals and the world reserve currency?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
I'm not saying the defects are smart or wisely spent (they're not!)
But the fact you get to have them at all is a massive form of economic stimulus that benefits the people of America in the short run
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
Love these posts, thank you
I now work in a legal-adjacent field and it's so interesting seeing how courts think.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
That isn't my argument? I wouldn't even vote Dem if I was American.
My argument is both sides of America have gone full retard, are ripping eachother apart myopically while the credible threat of losing global hegemony looms.
My further argument is "nuh uh they started it/are worse/make me really mad" may be true but fundamentally don't matter in the broader context, which exists regardless of your feelings towards it.
It's literally the definition of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sinks, and not only is everyone focused on the chairs, they're screaming that half the crew are worse than you while everyone works together to unlock as many water tight bulkheads as they can. Maybe you're right about them, but you're still sinking!
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
To what extent does Red Tribe get to live with "the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower" while ground under the Blue Tribe's boots?
Brother W.H.A.T.
Have you ever purchased any item that was manufactured overseas? Isn't it nice how cheap they are? They're cheap because the USA ensures global commerce is smooth, very smooth. They're also cheap because the USD is very strong because the USD is the reserve currency.
Do you have any investments? The strength of the USA equity market is in part due to its status as a global superpower.
Do you enjoy anything paid for by the government? Like roads, electricity, massive defect spending on factories and bridges. The USA is able to run obscene defects due to the USD being a reserve currency generating strong demand for it, reducing inflation.
Do you have a 30 year fixed mortgage? Same mechanism there. Did you grow up in a house that had one? Massive W for you guys.
I could go on...
I'm not saying the blue tribe aren't nightmares, I wouldn't even vote Dem if I was American. But let's not be dishonest here, if you live on American soil you enjoy massive benefits as a result.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
so why should I not want to tear it down and replace it with my own?
Because while you're in the process of attempting to do this (poorly, not because you're bad at it, but because the other side will try and stop you) China builds the factories that build more factories and then drone-spams so hard you lose naval control over the key shipping lanes and then lose power projection abilities and then lose status as the world's reserve currency and then get to live without all the fun benefits of being the world's sole superpower.
Also there's no guarantee your system won't also be full of problems once it's settled and starts rotting, as all systems exposed to entropy and human nature do.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
How did you break into my Grok video gen history? Please delete this
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
He also said “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”
Yeah I'm thinking based
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
It was tongue in cheek, obviously he's not going to actually lock the thread
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
What a wonderful comment, perfect analysis and summary
Might as well just lock this comment thread. Although maybe someone will feel like typing out one of these ideas in more detail for old times sake
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
and he just enjoys their squeals?
This is you imputing your revenge fantasy on geopolitics.
he knows how much hate and contempt they and their societies feel towards him
You write this like you think Europeans wake up every day and go "awe fuck trump is alive, fuck I hate that guy", they don't (they reserve that daily affirmation of hatred for Gypsies, lol).
The opinions you see as presented to you by rage and engagement maximizing algorithms are not real life.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
Great response. Thanks for following up.
But it's pretty clear even just poor people that aren't mentally ill and are simply of modest means would also make it poorer.
I think one disconnect here is that I don't entirely understand why you're so focused on the "average wealth" (so to speak) of a hypothetical city/town. I don't really care if my town's GDP (can substitute GDP with income, or net tax receipts, or whatever) per capita drops a small amount while the overall GDP goes up. The overall "line go up" benefits me greatly as the demand for the services my job provides will increase, and the supply of shit I can spend my money on will also increase. Also the amount of money I spend on housing should decrease, which means I can spend more money on funkopops or whatever. Also also ideally the provision of city services should both increase in scope and quality due to economies of scale.
That all being said yes, there is absolutely a line that if you fill up a city with impoverished people, it will go to shit. Detroit is I think a good example of this. Although the mechanism of action here was different, it had the same result of what happens when your tax base is of extremely low quality. And even then, after the exogenous shocks, it is bouncing back now I understand, kind of showing that cities are profound economic engines thanks in large part due to their scale alone. And also how lower residential and commercial rents present a much more vibrant ecosystem for capitalism to thrive.
If you accept that, then you should be open to the idea that the line might be higher than "Connestoga Charlies" and it may in fact be people of median means.
I absolutely accept that, but I am not convinced on putting it so high we're including the "median taxpayer" so to speak.
I think if the median/average adult was a net economic drain, industrial society/economy would not work. The whole of human civilization works because adults create more value than they consume, which results in the ever expanding pool of infrastructure, knowledge, and productive capacity that we've been piling on top of itself for the last 10,000 years.
You should be thinking "fuck, these hard working people who pay their taxes and aren't an obvious drain on society are actually a net drain on society" (at least if we look at direct receipts/expenses).
This may be true, given Western governments all love to run infinite deficits. This is however a top-level society problem. If our society is unsustainable, we need to fix that (it is, we do). But I don't see what that has to do with making building easier and cheaper. I would even posit that basically any fix to Western society's issues basically mandatorily has to include making building shit easier to help us un-fuck everything.
If you go to any town or city's subreddit where some new development is approved you find rage that these are not anywhere close to affordable and appear to just be catering to the affluent.
These people are stupid and don't understand how anything works. They are literally the "no take, only throw" meme.
How do we look at it? What tools do we have to measure this? This just seems like a hand-wavey way of smuggling in "Connestoga Charlies are all net contributors, too!" :hugging_face: but you were skeptical of me even bringing that type of person up at all so I assume you believe, again, there's a line somewhere. Where is it?
This is a really interesting question I don't have a great answer to.
I definitely don't believe "Connestoga Charlies are all net contributors, too". As a resident of Toronto, sympathy for the homeless is at rock-bottom, even amongst the libs I inhabit this city with.
I was skeptical because tying YIMBYism to homeless people is 1) a pretty unfair comparison (I don't want to spam low income housing, I just want the free market to work) and 2) deeply ironic given homelessness is robustly connected to the fact we don't build enough housing.
I assume the metric I'm looking for (imagining? Inventing?) is "net economic contribution" which would be some blend of tax collection vs social spending, and some type of dollar/economic gain for the additional stimulation of the economy via demand for goods/services, and the additional stimulation of the economy from using one's labour to produce more goods/services for others. Then subtract any crime/chaos/suffering that one inflicts on others and society. Connestoga Charlies are obviously deeply negative here.
Instinctively, I think the line for when this "net economic contribution" is positive is actually pretty low. Presumably somewhere around "working near full time at minimum wage job".
While the laptop class (lawyers, accountants, consultants, finance, tech, etc) capture a huge % of the economic value of society, they obviously are not the primary drivers of the massive prosperity we enjoy. They instead exist because of it.
I say this as one of the laptop class, while my skills are economically valuable, they obviously contribute very little to the production of shoes or carrots, which is what our wealth ultimately actually comes from. My job would be worthless in a society that didn't have legions of people who put shingles on rooves or whatever (as that society would be starving and falling into anarchy), even if I contribute an order of magnitude more tax dollars than they do.
Ultimately, I think the "anti-YIMBY" people (I am not even sure if you are?) need to present their solution, not just nitpick YIMBYs. Because the status-quo of western construction/the ability to build shit in response to human needs is profoundly and fundamentally broken. This is causing massive issues across society. The status quo is unstainable, full stop (unless you disagree, but that's a different argument).
So given the status quo is fucked, and if you don't like the idea of "let people build things on their land that other people want/need", what do you propose to do about it?
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
The point of my post is to advance the premise that even (e.g.) well-meaning white families with jobs who follow the law and don't have high medical burden might also be social dead weight.
Thank you for the clarity
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
5mo ago
Yeah this argument felt much more like "why bother YIMBYing if it's just a bunch of low tax per capita extremely unproductive Guatemalans?"
You can have both good housing policy and good immigration policy. I actually think that should be the baseline expectation for a western country but our politicians seem to disagree.
high housing price areas are also all very liberal so making basically assures they'll never listen to you.
In a way they are, given they're allergic to building stuff.
Absolutely not
The entity you work for will happily extract every (measurement of choice) unit of value out of you. You should do the same. Something something that's what makes markets work!
If it helps, don't view your salary as a direct exchange of money for a given amount of your time. View it as a combo of "paying for time" and "retainer to have you hanging around to be available immediately when needed".
More options
Context Copy link