Fun fact: there has been a big East/West divide in Germany, basically since Prussia acquired territory along the Rhine at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Rhineland was more heavily urbanized, more commercial, and liberal (in the classic sense) than in the East, which was largely rural, agrarian and conservative. Prussia's bicameral legislature, created after the revolutions of 1848, included a British-style House of Lords that gave outsized influence to wealthy landowners, and peasant farmers who also made their living in agriculture tended to throw their lot in, electorally, with the landowners, since their interests overlapped to a large degree. The West German urban liberals and East German agrarian conservatives grew to despise each other during the latter half of the 19th century, as Bismarck managed to tip the balance of power further in favor of his conservative friends and allies, even as West Germany's population and economy boomed. The emergence of socialism and communism in West Germany in the late 1800's only made East German conservatives more extreme, as they came to view themselves as the only bulwark holding back the forces of revolution (which wasn't totally wrong). It shouldn't be a surprise that in a more democratic, one-man one-vote era, the West quasi-colonized the East. This would have been the case 150 years ago, too, if not for the the particularities of Prussia's post-1848 constitution.
I'm most of the way through Christopher Clark's excellent book Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 which is where the above was cribbed from.
I agree with the impact of loss of local ownership and the subsequent decline of vested interest in their city. The local grocery store owner isn't as apt to pull up roots to start the business over in another city. The "colonial" effect of distant, major corporations is an interesting theory and likely valid. In the case of St Louis (or others) I also have to wonder about rising crime helping major corporations decide to move away.
> I think that a big problem is the loss of local ownership. A few years ago, a journalist pointed out to me that St. Louis has become a colony.
To the extent I still think about economics as I studied it, this is my biggest departure in thought. In academic theory, this ever-increasing economic efficiency and free trade is great. In practice, it's (at best) a pretty mixed bag. At worst, it's a cover story we use to sop our consciences when we see dramatic exploitation.
What I think is missing from the orthodox story is that it was always very light on property rights and externalities. The assumption was even if people we were trading with were poor, that was fine, because they still had equal rights and the costs, being fulling internalized and understood, were available.
But time has shown they're not, and much of free trade is dumping externalities on someone else instead of absorbing the true costs, and arbitraging legal systems to do things that would be grossly illegal in one's home area.
I think the point about subjugation of East Germany and flyover America is good, but is it really true that East Germany has so little power? Wasn't Angela Merkel from East Germany?
"What is left behind are the colonial subjects of distant economic powers."
Agree. Corporatism is a form of Colonialism. And with self-driving cars reducing the population to be subjects will be completed. All such cars will require a software subscription - perpetual fees paid to the overlords. And who assumes liability? Be prepared for the manufacturers and insurance companies to collude to stick the driver who is not driving and who does not actually own the vehicle to pay.
The meme is correct. The people most free in America are illegals. Become a legal citizen and follow the law and the hits never stop coming. And what privileges do citizens get for all the taxes and fees they pay? They get told to make sacrifices for non-citizens who don't follow the rules!
To clarify, the mention of non-legal citizens is to draw the comparison to legal citizens and contrast the difference in government treatment of the two groups. The former is treated as guests to be exalted. The latter as a problem and a nuisance. And so it is with corporations. "Membership has its privileges" was the old slogan. Today corporations focus on attracting new customers with special offers and low prices. Once they get you in their system, you are just a number and the less you use their customer service the better.
I think you're wrong in a key respect. Businesses love illegals because they're compliant and cheap labor.
In my post, I tried to make the distinction between property rights and power. It's fine to want cheap labor. If a company can hire an immigrant for $7.25/hr when an American would require $12/hr, that's fine.
But when a company can hire a 14 year old kid (as they are doing en mass) and hold the power of deportation over them, that's very obviously a situation in which the company is exploiting the lack of rights that illegal immigrants have. One can say it's a "mutually beneficial exchange" in a sense, but so are many other acts of theft and fraud.
Driverless car proponents like Tim Lee have been using bogus arguments for years about safety. They constantly compare average accident rates to autonomous rates, when the autonomous miles are being driven in non average situations. Just from his piece the majority of one companies miles came in Phoenix suburbs. Guess where humans have really low crash rates, and where crashes tend to be low speed with few injuries? We do know that accidents, and particularly fatal accidents cluster at specific times, weather conditions and tracks of roads also driver ages.
"If you are young and ambitious in one of these towns, you have very few opportunities. So you move away. What is left behind are the colonial subjects of distant economic powers."
The city no doubt has problems and no doubt having less local institutions has changed the makeup of all US communities but what is your basis for what I quote? The metro area population has changed very little over the last 10 years. Are you just saying people continue to move to the suburbs?
It is true that some STATES have been shrinking but I challenge you to show how that translates to towns like St Louis.
It is true that lots of urban office space sits empty nationwide but I'm not at all clear how that translates to a lack of opportunities. My daughter works remotely for Walmart and my son works 100% remotely (never been to the office nor meet a coworker in person) in Tulsa while living outside that metro area in a city of 50k with nothing else nearby. Why do you say there aren't opportunities in a country with historically low unemployment pretty much everywhere?
I just loved Wu's graph comparing Boston's homeless population to all the places where the temperature doesn't drop to the low teens F several times every Winter. There is a cheaper fix for Boston's homeless problem- give them bus tickets to Los Angeles or even plane tickets to Hawaii.
Wu's plan is overly complicated. Down the road from where I live, there are a couple of spots on the riverbank where the homeless like to camp. Every couple of weeks or so, some new ones show up, pitch their tents, and set up households with chairs, ice chests, other assorted junk, and typically a dog. Sooner or later, the city trucks show up, and city workers dismantle the camps and load the tents and other belongings on the trucks. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't solve the homeless problem, but at least it prevents permanent encampments from being established.
Michele Wu intends to get rid of the homeless encampment at Mass & Cass - by re-locating the drug addicts/homeless/mentally ill/criminals to the Shattuck hospital. Shattuck is in a residential area, Mass & Cass industrial. This is a typical brilliant progressive plan.
As you note, many of these people are mentally ill, including the drug addicted. I am no public policy expert, but it is hard to see a better alternative than finding some sort of care facility for them. They either can't or won't care for themselves. It used to be that people like this were involuntarily committed to institutions. It doesn't seem like we have come up with anything that is much better.
About a mile from the Shattuck is the old Boston insane asylum. They turned it into a site for a failed communist biotech - now contract filling, Audubon property, and a development. Get rid of the communist contract filling company and the Audubon and bring back the insane asylum. The Shattuck is not supervised, they roam.
On driver-less cars statistics, we need to keep in mind that even if they were perfect drivers and made no errors, there accident rate would only be half that of a human drivers when human drivers are the vast majority of drivers.
Perhaps having economists moving into the social science mush areas they may use their math abilities to demonstrate that many of the beliefs in these areas are just mythical and p-hacking nonsense. They may demonstrate that leaving out one relevant variable like "cultural value systems" from analysis of social science data on something like DEI will create nonsense results.
I fond that last section especially interesting - thinking about how much of the local economies of smaller cities populated by satellites of national organizations. It really does transform the desirability to remain in second (or 3rd) tier cities and towns.
The USA is supposed to be federal. Most domestic government is supposed to come from the state or the locality, not that city on the Potomac. That would give you a higher ratio of legislators to population. I’m not sure that changing the numbers would help. It might make lawmakers more responsive.
We have centralized government more than is good for us.
Just fyi, it's "Rich Men North of Richmond."
Fun fact: there has been a big East/West divide in Germany, basically since Prussia acquired territory along the Rhine at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Rhineland was more heavily urbanized, more commercial, and liberal (in the classic sense) than in the East, which was largely rural, agrarian and conservative. Prussia's bicameral legislature, created after the revolutions of 1848, included a British-style House of Lords that gave outsized influence to wealthy landowners, and peasant farmers who also made their living in agriculture tended to throw their lot in, electorally, with the landowners, since their interests overlapped to a large degree. The West German urban liberals and East German agrarian conservatives grew to despise each other during the latter half of the 19th century, as Bismarck managed to tip the balance of power further in favor of his conservative friends and allies, even as West Germany's population and economy boomed. The emergence of socialism and communism in West Germany in the late 1800's only made East German conservatives more extreme, as they came to view themselves as the only bulwark holding back the forces of revolution (which wasn't totally wrong). It shouldn't be a surprise that in a more democratic, one-man one-vote era, the West quasi-colonized the East. This would have been the case 150 years ago, too, if not for the the particularities of Prussia's post-1848 constitution.
I'm most of the way through Christopher Clark's excellent book Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 which is where the above was cribbed from.
I agree with the impact of loss of local ownership and the subsequent decline of vested interest in their city. The local grocery store owner isn't as apt to pull up roots to start the business over in another city. The "colonial" effect of distant, major corporations is an interesting theory and likely valid. In the case of St Louis (or others) I also have to wonder about rising crime helping major corporations decide to move away.
Conversation broadcast back in time from the year 2043:
Dave: "H.A.L (Hyundai Automated Livery), take me to Vegas- I feel like playing some poker and visiting some strip clubs!"
H.A.L.: "I'm sorry, Dave, I cannot do that- you have exceeded your yearly carbon quota."
Dave: "WTF, H.A.L.?? It is only January 15th!"
> I think that a big problem is the loss of local ownership. A few years ago, a journalist pointed out to me that St. Louis has become a colony.
To the extent I still think about economics as I studied it, this is my biggest departure in thought. In academic theory, this ever-increasing economic efficiency and free trade is great. In practice, it's (at best) a pretty mixed bag. At worst, it's a cover story we use to sop our consciences when we see dramatic exploitation.
What I think is missing from the orthodox story is that it was always very light on property rights and externalities. The assumption was even if people we were trading with were poor, that was fine, because they still had equal rights and the costs, being fulling internalized and understood, were available.
But time has shown they're not, and much of free trade is dumping externalities on someone else instead of absorbing the true costs, and arbitraging legal systems to do things that would be grossly illegal in one's home area.
I think the point about subjugation of East Germany and flyover America is good, but is it really true that East Germany has so little power? Wasn't Angela Merkel from East Germany?
Lorenzo Warby talks about “vampire elites”, people who prosper on the backs of their cohort’s problems.
https://www.lorenzofromoz.net/p/race-and-other-annoyances
Interesting. Thanks.
"What is left behind are the colonial subjects of distant economic powers."
Agree. Corporatism is a form of Colonialism. And with self-driving cars reducing the population to be subjects will be completed. All such cars will require a software subscription - perpetual fees paid to the overlords. And who assumes liability? Be prepared for the manufacturers and insurance companies to collude to stick the driver who is not driving and who does not actually own the vehicle to pay.
The meme is correct. The people most free in America are illegals. Become a legal citizen and follow the law and the hits never stop coming. And what privileges do citizens get for all the taxes and fees they pay? They get told to make sacrifices for non-citizens who don't follow the rules!
To clarify, the mention of non-legal citizens is to draw the comparison to legal citizens and contrast the difference in government treatment of the two groups. The former is treated as guests to be exalted. The latter as a problem and a nuisance. And so it is with corporations. "Membership has its privileges" was the old slogan. Today corporations focus on attracting new customers with special offers and low prices. Once they get you in their system, you are just a number and the less you use their customer service the better.
I think you're wrong in a key respect. Businesses love illegals because they're compliant and cheap labor.
In my post, I tried to make the distinction between property rights and power. It's fine to want cheap labor. If a company can hire an immigrant for $7.25/hr when an American would require $12/hr, that's fine.
But when a company can hire a 14 year old kid (as they are doing en mass) and hold the power of deportation over them, that's very obviously a situation in which the company is exploiting the lack of rights that illegal immigrants have. One can say it's a "mutually beneficial exchange" in a sense, but so are many other acts of theft and fraud.
Driverless car proponents like Tim Lee have been using bogus arguments for years about safety. They constantly compare average accident rates to autonomous rates, when the autonomous miles are being driven in non average situations. Just from his piece the majority of one companies miles came in Phoenix suburbs. Guess where humans have really low crash rates, and where crashes tend to be low speed with few injuries? We do know that accidents, and particularly fatal accidents cluster at specific times, weather conditions and tracks of roads also driver ages.
"If you are young and ambitious in one of these towns, you have very few opportunities. So you move away. What is left behind are the colonial subjects of distant economic powers."
The city no doubt has problems and no doubt having less local institutions has changed the makeup of all US communities but what is your basis for what I quote? The metro area population has changed very little over the last 10 years. Are you just saying people continue to move to the suburbs?
It is true that some STATES have been shrinking but I challenge you to show how that translates to towns like St Louis.
It is true that lots of urban office space sits empty nationwide but I'm not at all clear how that translates to a lack of opportunities. My daughter works remotely for Walmart and my son works 100% remotely (never been to the office nor meet a coworker in person) in Tulsa while living outside that metro area in a city of 50k with nothing else nearby. Why do you say there aren't opportunities in a country with historically low unemployment pretty much everywhere?
I just loved Wu's graph comparing Boston's homeless population to all the places where the temperature doesn't drop to the low teens F several times every Winter. There is a cheaper fix for Boston's homeless problem- give them bus tickets to Los Angeles or even plane tickets to Hawaii.
Wu's plan is overly complicated. Down the road from where I live, there are a couple of spots on the riverbank where the homeless like to camp. Every couple of weeks or so, some new ones show up, pitch their tents, and set up households with chairs, ice chests, other assorted junk, and typically a dog. Sooner or later, the city trucks show up, and city workers dismantle the camps and load the tents and other belongings on the trucks. Rinse and repeat. It doesn't solve the homeless problem, but at least it prevents permanent encampments from being established.
Michele Wu intends to get rid of the homeless encampment at Mass & Cass - by re-locating the drug addicts/homeless/mentally ill/criminals to the Shattuck hospital. Shattuck is in a residential area, Mass & Cass industrial. This is a typical brilliant progressive plan.
As you note, many of these people are mentally ill, including the drug addicted. I am no public policy expert, but it is hard to see a better alternative than finding some sort of care facility for them. They either can't or won't care for themselves. It used to be that people like this were involuntarily committed to institutions. It doesn't seem like we have come up with anything that is much better.
About a mile from the Shattuck is the old Boston insane asylum. They turned it into a site for a failed communist biotech - now contract filling, Audubon property, and a development. Get rid of the communist contract filling company and the Audubon and bring back the insane asylum. The Shattuck is not supervised, they roam.
On driver-less cars statistics, we need to keep in mind that even if they were perfect drivers and made no errors, there accident rate would only be half that of a human drivers when human drivers are the vast majority of drivers.
Perhaps having economists moving into the social science mush areas they may use their math abilities to demonstrate that many of the beliefs in these areas are just mythical and p-hacking nonsense. They may demonstrate that leaving out one relevant variable like "cultural value systems" from analysis of social science data on something like DEI will create nonsense results.
I fond that last section especially interesting - thinking about how much of the local economies of smaller cities populated by satellites of national organizations. It really does transform the desirability to remain in second (or 3rd) tier cities and towns.
Kling wrote:
"Long-time readers know that I see the economics profession headed in the direction of sociology. "
This is like waking up in a fleabag hotel in Times Square and saying you are on the road to The Big Apple.
The USA is supposed to be federal. Most domestic government is supposed to come from the state or the locality, not that city on the Potomac. That would give you a higher ratio of legislators to population. I’m not sure that changing the numbers would help. It might make lawmakers more responsive.
We have centralized government more than is good for us.