Michael Magoon on postwar economic growth theory; Phil Magness on post-liberals; Schuyler Louie and others on housing demand; Casey Handmer on energy in the future
Is it me or them that don't understand a basic economic principle? Peak oil isn't just about supply. It is also a function of demand. Less demand means "peak oil" too. Besides that, increased production costs or decreasing costs of alternatives are additional factors. Lots of reasons it might not mean we are running out even if one couldn't foresee something like fracking.
Well, I think the theory is that it's the higher marginal bidder driving up values, more so than supply constraints. I mean, there are plenty of empty units in Detroit, Chicago, Florida, etc. Denver too, is one of the cooler markets, and SF until recently (and even there, it's only hot in the 'burbs). "If you build it, they will come," doesn't have a lot of empirical support, so far as I'm aware. I don't think anyone says that "supply constraints have no impact on pricing." The argument is that supply constraints don't really explain recent price dislocation or variation between places (except perhaps for one-time shifts around the time a reg is passed). Even more to the point, you need an actual theory of home values to understand why home values shift, and that starts with demand.
There’s increasing discussion about how crime makes places undesirable, and thus lowers values. An AEI guy recently wrote about his time in one of the few mid crime areas on the border between high & low crime areas in Chicago.
High crime rates are terrible for living. El Salvador shows that a focus on putting criminals in jail works for hugely reducing crime.and becoming more popular.
I haven’t read, but believe, that with much less crime, former low house cost high crime areas are seeing bigger housing price increases. Which would happen in Chicago if the voters wanted a mayor to reduce crime enough to put lots of Black criminals in jail. But since any such politician would be called racist, especially by whites who don’t live in high crime areas, that remains unlikely. Tho possibly popular among the majority of Blacks who would prefer much lower crime, likely including many criminals who would then reduce their own crimes.
The best way to reduce the shortage of nice places to live is to make the high crime areas much safer, with much less crime, many fewer victims.
Texas has also championed itself as a civilized place to do business. CA has done the opposite of that. And home values in SF and LA have both decreased!
The post-conservative right seems oddly - one might say smugly, but it’s almost too childishly unreflecting to rise to that level - unacquainted with the idea of limits.
The post-liberals focus on the atomization of society, and oppose excessive individualism, which results in the problems of: fatherlessness in single family homes, low rates of marriage, low rates of births, high rates of mental illness, negative policies for local Somewhere folk, with too much govt & cultural support for global Anywhere folk (like most economists are).
That Deneen was a bit deluded about peak oil 20+ years ago, like so many Club of Rome doomsters since their 70’s Limits to Growth, is a pretty weak critique, even if true.
The big graph showing a reduction of about 150,000 around 29.0 & 28.9 million is in opposition to the other info about a big reduction in govt jobs but a bigger increase in private sector jobs, as well as a huge reduction in jobs by illegal aliens, with a big increase in jobs by US citizens.
If 1.15 million illegal blue collar workers left, and were replaced by 1 million US citizen workers in a Trump pushed deportation strategy, that 150k reduction would certainly not disprove the post-liberal support for tariffs. My guess is that of the 2 million reported self deportations, some half are among the blue collar workers being counted by BLS. The failure of the critique to explicitly contrast US citizen workers vs illegals in the total changes weakens the critique hugely.
Trump’s tariffs are working to reduce US budget deficits, increase investment in factories, and increase US employment. Trump’s deportation policy is reducing US employment of illegals. The tariffs have already proven to be successful on deficits & investment, and when job numbers of citizens are disaggregated from illegals, the number of blue collar citizen workers has likely gone up.
Arnold’s smugness in opposing Trump’s tariffs, despite their clear success so far, remains his own biggest anti-truth/ unwillingness to admit to being wrong (about tariffs being more good than bad, at this time, for American workers.)
In the same way a progressive is suspicious of anyone who knows alot about guns (just knows alot, and does not display some morbid fascination or behave threateningly), post-liberals are suspicious of anyone deeply familiar with economics. It shows they've bent the knee to soft merchant soy ethics, as opposed to a poet-warrior martial spirit.
Historically, there has been a lot of growth that wasn't sprawl. Much of the growth of New York City was up rather than out. But growth up in city centers generally means car ownership is difficult and expensive, so there's not a lot of it now.
Of course, a lot depends on how you define sprawl. A three story apartment complex surrounded by parking lots a half hour from the city center in an area that mostly has single family houses--what is it?
It is sprawl. That one is easy, and it’s no hypothetical.
I am not the brightest bulb maybe but I am not disabled. I was doing everyone the courtesy of supposing we were talking about - what we are always talking about, the present and the recent past. Which is millions of urbanized acres every decade. It doesn’t matter what the smart growth people talk about; they themselves do not matter. All that matters is reality. The postwar world. I’m not sure what would prompt people to dissemble about this, but then I don’t always understand everyone’s motives.
You are, of course, right. The "growing up" was from an era with minimal zoning and without a lot of regulation around housing--not today's permit raj.
"So they grab onto fads like “peak oil” theory."
Is it me or them that don't understand a basic economic principle? Peak oil isn't just about supply. It is also a function of demand. Less demand means "peak oil" too. Besides that, increased production costs or decreasing costs of alternatives are additional factors. Lots of reasons it might not mean we are running out even if one couldn't foresee something like fracking.
Well, I think the theory is that it's the higher marginal bidder driving up values, more so than supply constraints. I mean, there are plenty of empty units in Detroit, Chicago, Florida, etc. Denver too, is one of the cooler markets, and SF until recently (and even there, it's only hot in the 'burbs). "If you build it, they will come," doesn't have a lot of empirical support, so far as I'm aware. I don't think anyone says that "supply constraints have no impact on pricing." The argument is that supply constraints don't really explain recent price dislocation or variation between places (except perhaps for one-time shifts around the time a reg is passed). Even more to the point, you need an actual theory of home values to understand why home values shift, and that starts with demand.
There’s increasing discussion about how crime makes places undesirable, and thus lowers values. An AEI guy recently wrote about his time in one of the few mid crime areas on the border between high & low crime areas in Chicago.
High crime rates are terrible for living. El Salvador shows that a focus on putting criminals in jail works for hugely reducing crime.and becoming more popular.
I haven’t read, but believe, that with much less crime, former low house cost high crime areas are seeing bigger housing price increases. Which would happen in Chicago if the voters wanted a mayor to reduce crime enough to put lots of Black criminals in jail. But since any such politician would be called racist, especially by whites who don’t live in high crime areas, that remains unlikely. Tho possibly popular among the majority of Blacks who would prefer much lower crime, likely including many criminals who would then reduce their own crimes.
The best way to reduce the shortage of nice places to live is to make the high crime areas much safer, with much less crime, many fewer victims.
People leave California because it is too expensive, it is too expensive because there are not enough houses where people want to live.
So they move, at great personal cost, to Texas.
Texas has also championed itself as a civilized place to do business. CA has done the opposite of that. And home values in SF and LA have both decreased!
"...get more output by using additional amounts of one of the outputs,"
I'm pretty sure the second outputs should be inputs
The post-conservative right seems oddly - one might say smugly, but it’s almost too childishly unreflecting to rise to that level - unacquainted with the idea of limits.
The post-liberals focus on the atomization of society, and oppose excessive individualism, which results in the problems of: fatherlessness in single family homes, low rates of marriage, low rates of births, high rates of mental illness, negative policies for local Somewhere folk, with too much govt & cultural support for global Anywhere folk (like most economists are).
That Deneen was a bit deluded about peak oil 20+ years ago, like so many Club of Rome doomsters since their 70’s Limits to Growth, is a pretty weak critique, even if true.
The big graph showing a reduction of about 150,000 around 29.0 & 28.9 million is in opposition to the other info about a big reduction in govt jobs but a bigger increase in private sector jobs, as well as a huge reduction in jobs by illegal aliens, with a big increase in jobs by US citizens.
If 1.15 million illegal blue collar workers left, and were replaced by 1 million US citizen workers in a Trump pushed deportation strategy, that 150k reduction would certainly not disprove the post-liberal support for tariffs. My guess is that of the 2 million reported self deportations, some half are among the blue collar workers being counted by BLS. The failure of the critique to explicitly contrast US citizen workers vs illegals in the total changes weakens the critique hugely.
Trump’s tariffs are working to reduce US budget deficits, increase investment in factories, and increase US employment. Trump’s deportation policy is reducing US employment of illegals. The tariffs have already proven to be successful on deficits & investment, and when job numbers of citizens are disaggregated from illegals, the number of blue collar citizen workers has likely gone up.
Arnold’s smugness in opposing Trump’s tariffs, despite their clear success so far, remains his own biggest anti-truth/ unwillingness to admit to being wrong (about tariffs being more good than bad, at this time, for American workers.)
In the same way a progressive is suspicious of anyone who knows alot about guns (just knows alot, and does not display some morbid fascination or behave threateningly), post-liberals are suspicious of anyone deeply familiar with economics. It shows they've bent the knee to soft merchant soy ethics, as opposed to a poet-warrior martial spirit.
Ian Buruma's book "Occidentalism" gets into this.
Where is the alternate America where growth hasn't been sprawl??
Historically, there has been a lot of growth that wasn't sprawl. Much of the growth of New York City was up rather than out. But growth up in city centers generally means car ownership is difficult and expensive, so there's not a lot of it now.
Of course, a lot depends on how you define sprawl. A three story apartment complex surrounded by parking lots a half hour from the city center in an area that mostly has single family houses--what is it?
It is sprawl. That one is easy, and it’s no hypothetical.
I am not the brightest bulb maybe but I am not disabled. I was doing everyone the courtesy of supposing we were talking about - what we are always talking about, the present and the recent past. Which is millions of urbanized acres every decade. It doesn’t matter what the smart growth people talk about; they themselves do not matter. All that matters is reality. The postwar world. I’m not sure what would prompt people to dissemble about this, but then I don’t always understand everyone’s motives.
You are, of course, right. The "growing up" was from an era with minimal zoning and without a lot of regulation around housing--not today's permit raj.