"Anonymous" comments about a previous posting:
I also read Supervisor Frost's article [in her newsletter] regarding rent control. As such, I have two questions for you:
Answers:
1. Why don't economists bless rent control? Who cares? Orthodox economics is a form of advanced superstition, like 19th century medicine. Then, Doctors believed bleeding patients would cure them. Similarly, orthodox economists, from "righty" Mankiw to "lefty" Krugman, did not predict the Great Recession, arguably the biggest economic event in nearly a century.
Lest you think I'm just some crackpot, opining about the bankruptcy of an entire "science," here's what Nobel Laureate economist Joe Stiglitz said about economics: "When the recession began there were many wise words about having learnt the lessons of both the Great Depression and Japan’s long malaise. Now we know we didn’t learn a thing."
Steve Keen, who did predict the Great Recession, and won the Revere prize for doing so, also wrote Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned which describes the dismal scholarship and awful record of predictions by economists published in the mainstream press--inaccuracies surprisingly similar to the economics that preceded the Great Recession too, as Joe Stiglitz says.
So the high priests of economics don't think much of rent control. So what?
Meanwhile, economists aside, where's Ms. Frost's proposal for a better solution, for example restoring inclusionary zoning? What about a living minimum wage? Or a Job Guarantee? What about taxing the unearned increment (the premium paid land speculators), and using the money to fund affordable housing?
Where does she propose any solution besides economically crushing renters as rents rise?
This is a real problem, too. See this Business Journal article for how dramatic that rise has been. Sacramento's rents are rising far faster than wages or even general inflation.
Rent control may be a second-rate solution, soothsayers and economists may even agree, but what's the alternative that actually works, even a little bit? Why is all we hear from Frost: "Suppress anything the little people do to control their destiny! Off with their heads!" Okay, now I exaggerate. She didn't say that; she implied it.
And no, relying on that quasi-religious faith that the magical market will build more housing isn't and hasn't been working any more than deregulating Wall Street prevented Ponzi schemes, or orthodox economics predicted the Great Recession.
2. California is a “lefty” state, so why hasn't it passed rent control?
First, let's deal with the distortion: Right-wing politicians called Barack Obama, a man who governed to the right of Richard Nixon, a "Kenyan Socialist" to move the popular perception of what's the center of public policy solutions rightward. Calling something "lefty"--even an Eisenhower Republican like Obama--that really isn't lefty has been a very successful technique that doesn’t lack funding, either. The Kochs spent $889 million promoting it in 2016. The entire political spectrum has inexorably moved rightward with those millions impelling that move, buying up the media, paying to primary any representatives who step out of line, and so on.
Calling California--a state that repeatedly elected Ronald Reagan--unambiguously "lefty" is at least an exaggeration. When it had the chance, California did not elect a genuine lefty (Upton Sinclair).
Real lefties exist, too, like Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders, and they would likely meet resistance, even in California. They would certainly find the media resistant to their message. Mainstream media virtually ignored Sanders' presidential run while it gave billions in free publicity to Trump.
Even the "liberal" Sacramento Bee--a paper with a multimillionaire CEO and a history of labor trouble--regularly publishes a Business section, but only publishes labor news in a single column every other week.
And just so we're clear about the distinction: right wing policies favor capital; left wing policies favor labor.
Supervisor Frost consistently favors plutocrats over working America. She talks as though she's the Fiscal Conservative™, but ignores genuine solutions to fiscal problems (I've sent her some, too). Her solution for public policy problems appears to be either handing the plutocrats all the money, or austerity, certainly not figuring out how to provide concrete benefits for the population at large--stuff like stable rents, a living wage, free tuition, or working transit.
Her preferred solution--cutting public spending--austerity--disproportionately favors the wealthy, who aren't as dependent on public services, and can pick up any assets of the recently crushed poor that have been forfeit or foreclosed, perhaps because their rent became unaffordable, on the cheap. This subjects poor people to debt peonage--just what Mr. Potter wanted in It's A Wonderful Life.
If you don't think debt peonage is on the agenda of Ms. Frost's plutocratic masters now, see this (includes a graph of private indebtedness as a fraction of GDP). The economist who pays attention to this?...Steve Keen.
Another example: Federal funding for higher education is down 55% since 1972. Gosh, I wonder why our colleges keep raising tuition, and why our kids graduate as debt peons? Wasn't that "lefty" Hillary Clinton one of the Senate votes to make student loans immune from even bankruptcy relief?
People still believe Bill Clinton, the guy who deregulated Wall Street and ended welfare "as we know it," colluding with Newt Gingrich's Republican congress, is a "lefty." Before the "end" of welfare, 76% of those needing public assistance got it; after: 26%. It threw a half million people off of food stamps. But Clinton's a "lefty," doncha know!
So let's say rent control is a bad solution for even those bad, bad lefties in California. What's a good one that works without squeezing the economic life out of renters?
We're waiting, Sue.
I also read Supervisor Frost's article [in her newsletter] regarding rent control. As such, I have two questions for you:
- In her article she provided a source that there are virtually zero nationally recognized economists that agree with your position. Why do you think that is?
- You indicated that you believe her argument is "right-wing". If that is the case, why has California (arguably the most liberal state in America) not even allowed rent control bills to get passed by a single committee?
Answers:
1. Why don't economists bless rent control? Who cares? Orthodox economics is a form of advanced superstition, like 19th century medicine. Then, Doctors believed bleeding patients would cure them. Similarly, orthodox economists, from "righty" Mankiw to "lefty" Krugman, did not predict the Great Recession, arguably the biggest economic event in nearly a century.
Lest you think I'm just some crackpot, opining about the bankruptcy of an entire "science," here's what Nobel Laureate economist Joe Stiglitz said about economics: "When the recession began there were many wise words about having learnt the lessons of both the Great Depression and Japan’s long malaise. Now we know we didn’t learn a thing."
Steve Keen, who did predict the Great Recession, and won the Revere prize for doing so, also wrote Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor Dethroned which describes the dismal scholarship and awful record of predictions by economists published in the mainstream press--inaccuracies surprisingly similar to the economics that preceded the Great Recession too, as Joe Stiglitz says.
So the high priests of economics don't think much of rent control. So what?
Meanwhile, economists aside, where's Ms. Frost's proposal for a better solution, for example restoring inclusionary zoning? What about a living minimum wage? Or a Job Guarantee? What about taxing the unearned increment (the premium paid land speculators), and using the money to fund affordable housing?
Where does she propose any solution besides economically crushing renters as rents rise?
This is a real problem, too. See this Business Journal article for how dramatic that rise has been. Sacramento's rents are rising far faster than wages or even general inflation.
Rent control may be a second-rate solution, soothsayers and economists may even agree, but what's the alternative that actually works, even a little bit? Why is all we hear from Frost: "Suppress anything the little people do to control their destiny! Off with their heads!" Okay, now I exaggerate. She didn't say that; she implied it.
And no, relying on that quasi-religious faith that the magical market will build more housing isn't and hasn't been working any more than deregulating Wall Street prevented Ponzi schemes, or orthodox economics predicted the Great Recession.
2. California is a “lefty” state, so why hasn't it passed rent control?
First, let's deal with the distortion: Right-wing politicians called Barack Obama, a man who governed to the right of Richard Nixon, a "Kenyan Socialist" to move the popular perception of what's the center of public policy solutions rightward. Calling something "lefty"--even an Eisenhower Republican like Obama--that really isn't lefty has been a very successful technique that doesn’t lack funding, either. The Kochs spent $889 million promoting it in 2016. The entire political spectrum has inexorably moved rightward with those millions impelling that move, buying up the media, paying to primary any representatives who step out of line, and so on.
Calling California--a state that repeatedly elected Ronald Reagan--unambiguously "lefty" is at least an exaggeration. When it had the chance, California did not elect a genuine lefty (Upton Sinclair).
Real lefties exist, too, like Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders, and they would likely meet resistance, even in California. They would certainly find the media resistant to their message. Mainstream media virtually ignored Sanders' presidential run while it gave billions in free publicity to Trump.
Even the "liberal" Sacramento Bee--a paper with a multimillionaire CEO and a history of labor trouble--regularly publishes a Business section, but only publishes labor news in a single column every other week.
And just so we're clear about the distinction: right wing policies favor capital; left wing policies favor labor.
Supervisor Frost consistently favors plutocrats over working America. She talks as though she's the Fiscal Conservative™, but ignores genuine solutions to fiscal problems (I've sent her some, too). Her solution for public policy problems appears to be either handing the plutocrats all the money, or austerity, certainly not figuring out how to provide concrete benefits for the population at large--stuff like stable rents, a living wage, free tuition, or working transit.
Her preferred solution--cutting public spending--austerity--disproportionately favors the wealthy, who aren't as dependent on public services, and can pick up any assets of the recently crushed poor that have been forfeit or foreclosed, perhaps because their rent became unaffordable, on the cheap. This subjects poor people to debt peonage--just what Mr. Potter wanted in It's A Wonderful Life.
If you don't think debt peonage is on the agenda of Ms. Frost's plutocratic masters now, see this (includes a graph of private indebtedness as a fraction of GDP). The economist who pays attention to this?...Steve Keen.
Another example: Federal funding for higher education is down 55% since 1972. Gosh, I wonder why our colleges keep raising tuition, and why our kids graduate as debt peons? Wasn't that "lefty" Hillary Clinton one of the Senate votes to make student loans immune from even bankruptcy relief?
People still believe Bill Clinton, the guy who deregulated Wall Street and ended welfare "as we know it," colluding with Newt Gingrich's Republican congress, is a "lefty." Before the "end" of welfare, 76% of those needing public assistance got it; after: 26%. It threw a half million people off of food stamps. But Clinton's a "lefty," doncha know!
So let's say rent control is a bad solution for even those bad, bad lefties in California. What's a good one that works without squeezing the economic life out of renters?
We're waiting, Sue.
Further evidence Frost is all wet...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.domain.com.au/news/how-a-video-game-proved-that-increasing-supply-wont-fix-the-housing-affordability-crisis-20180416-h0ymjz/