What is Digg?22 Comments
- bratpack8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So you are one of those who want the government to come in and 'force' lower prices or to stop the market from meeting the demands it creates? Nice job there Yeago, you are a true believer in freedom and liberty.
Anybody has the right to buy those condos. Can everyone afford them? Nope, but that isn't the point. The point is if you 'force' lower prices (i.e. price cap), you will have shortages (basic basic law of economics).
And you certainly have the right to buy land, and build 'affordable' condo's on it. Hey, you'd be a hero. Perhaps a broke one, but that is certainly your right to choose. That is unless you bring the govt into the picture. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ yeago
Ignorance is sad, but refusal to learn when you have the chance is inexcusable. Even though you obviously believe you have the right to use the violence of government to prevent people (like condo developers) from doing what they want with their own resources, why can't you understand that you are only hurting yourself in the long run?
It doesn't matter what you can afford or which came first, the University or the condos. The fact of life is that economic laws are just as sure as the laws of physics. If you try to use government force to "repeal" the law of gravity, you are going to have very unpleasant unintended consequences. Every infringement on economic freedom ends up hurting the very people it purports to help. Read Lew's article more carefully. He is warning you that, if you use force to get those lower rents closer to the university, you will end up with students not being able to find any housing at any price anywhere near the university. - bratpack8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeago states (in his blog) "Is giving it up to the highest bidder because of some Daddy Knows Best attitude about the market really the only way we can develop our land?"
So your Daddy knows best is some rich person, when you would rather have it 'Government knows best.' Sorry, but I will always side with individuals working voluntarily together in a free-market environment.
I'm wondering if you understand the direct tie between property rights (which include your person) and freedom? Without the former, the later is logically impossible. Remember, the things you own are simply products of your labor (i.e. productivity). When you say government has the right to decide what to do with that property, you are basically saying the government owns at least a portion of you. - Mrhuh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Where are these 300 extra dollars per month I'm 'choosing' not to spend on Luxury apartments? That's just absurd buddy. =)"
Yeago, you pay those 300 extra dollars and more per month in taxes, inflation, tariffs, regulations that create fewer choices and monopolies, etc. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ yeago
"I can't tell which is more high, that figure or you. =)"
Well, that was a real convincing argument, NOT. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Yeago
"I often agree with Lew Rockwell. Nothing I've said suggested I'm for any "nanny state". I simply happen to think that a municipality should--on behalf of voters--have the power to decide the direction of their city in special cases."
Of course!!! And who knows which cases are "special". You do. And therein is your downfall. You just became one of the thousands of special interests that know their case is "special". Guess who wins that free-for-all. (hint - it ain't you).
I do, however, agree that this time Lew Rockwell went a little too heavy on the hyperbole. But the basic facts are correct. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Yeago
" But just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant"
Then what does? (sorry - that straight line was just too good to pass up). Seriously though, the answer is in this sentence:
"It happened because the resources found new and more economically efficient uses, as a reflection of the decisions made by entrepreneurs over which consumers stand in judgment every day in their buying decisions."
In this time and place, the student's needs aren't the most beneficial. Sorry, sometimes life sucks. But in the long run, the most economically efficient use of property leads to a more wealthy society. That's good for everyone. - wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Spending your time resenting people that have more money then you is an exercise in futility. The best thing you can do work as hard as you can for as much as you can. Will there be someone out there who works must less then you for much more? Of course, but all the complaining in the world cannot change those facts. It is up to YOU to make the most of your life and situation.
- Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That at least I can agree with. =)
- stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Voluntary market activities are always more legitimate than government force.
No man is a superman, but the market represents humans cooperating in ways that each one benefits from every transaction he is involved in. Government-controlled markets are systems in which some people are compelled to make transactions they do not find suitable. If you had to choose between everyone benefiting or only your favorite group benefiting, which would you choose?
The market is the best way to redistribute wealth because no government can possibly decide what to do with the people's money better than the people themselves. Will there still be people who are wealthier than others? Will people still make bad choices with their money? Yes. But why resent people for their affluence or save everyone from the consequences of their mistakes?
In a free market society, one becomes wealthy by serving others in a bigger, better, or more efficient way. In a free market society the wealthy *are* heroes. Under our current system the wealthy are frequently charlatans and villains because they have government to stand behind them or indemnify them from their crimes. How many men from Enron actually went to prison? Two? That's not a product of being wealthy, it's a product of government connections.
The market is infinitely more "democratic" than forced economic controls. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ yeago
"just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant"
What you aren't getting is the concept of voluntary versus coerced. I hope that is due to ignorance rather than you not valuing life, liberty and property. I have no right to tell condo developers or anyone else what to do with their investment money, and neither do you, and getting a bunch of people to gang up to prevent them from doing what they want doesn't make it right. But you are correct that the argument from morality is a value judgment.
Even if you don't value life, liberty and property and the rights of people to self-ownership, what you need to understand is that coercion doesn't work in the long run. You might be able to prevent condo development long enough for you personally to get a low rent apartment for the time you need it before the shortage starts, but your goal of low-rent, near-campus housing for students is not going to be realized if the means used to achieve it are coercive. Restricting development by government force is just as coercive as rent control and just as destructive in the long run.
You are perfectly free to say "I don't care as long as I get mine," but just understand that any time you try to use government force to get something you want (no matter how noble), THAT is what you are saying. - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@joybran
"He is warning you that, if you use force to get those lower rents closer to the university, you will end up with students not being able to find any housing at any price anywhere near the university."
I agree, controlling rents will obviously create a surplus of demand and thus lots of disappointed students, but developing near-campus luxury condos has the same effect. BOTH options frustrate demand, with one exception. Refusing luxury development does not actually decrease the supply of student housing, whereas developing luxury condos does. I am not for price controls, except in extreme cases. I don't think rent control is necessary here--I think development restrictions suffice.
Look, you can call me ignorant but I'm operating with the goal of favoring the use of near-campus facilities for students. You obviously don't have that goal. But just because you don't have the same values doesn't make me ignorant and you Armchair Economist of the Year. - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1woops. wrong thread.
- Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yep, I'll do you the service you refuse to do me and say that's a perfectly valid ideology! I happen to think in practice its not so dreamy, but its certainly a functional philosophy. See ya!
And if I didn't love the debate, I never would have dugg this article in the first place! - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Uhm. So you're saying you pay 300/month in taxes?
- Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@jeffiek
"Of course!!! And who knows which cases are "special". You do. And therein is your downfall. You just became one of the thousands of special interests that know their case is "special". Guess who wins that free-for-all. (hint - it ain't you)."
Dismissive rhetoric and bombastic arguments are so much fun than actual debate. =)
Now, moving past the flowery presentation of your point, I disagree that its really as arbitrary as that. I simply happen to think that democratic mechanisms (read: VOTE) should have some influence in how these things go, instead of leaving it up to the ever-so-noble can-do-no-wrong entrepreneurial he-man of libertarian wet dreams. I agree that "who decides?" is a complicated answer. But giving it up--by default--to the highest bidder isn't really any better IMHO.
These issues are really fun to talk about, but digg debates quickly become "YOU AHR IGNORANT AND I WINN WINN WININ WINN" intellectuoso pissing contests. And with that, I depart. Its been fun! If you'd like to continue, I'd love to reply at my blog. Except of course these debates are only fun for most of you only when the masses of diggers are there to give you fanboy points for cleverisms. =) - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think any absolute ideology is destined to have negative effects. There is no golden path. Market mechanisms are extremely efficient in some cases. But leaving everything up to the market always is asking for catastrophe, at least sometimes. Obviously, if you're on the extreme right of this spectrum you're not going to agree and I really don't think an internet discussion is really going to change either of our minds.
I often agree with Lew Rockwell. Nothing I've said suggested I'm for any "nanny state". I simply happen to think that a municipality should--on behalf of voters--have the power to decide the direction of their city in special cases. I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary, however, you're going to have to use more reasonable rhetoric than "poor students are choosing not to live in luxury condos" and "students contribute less than alumni to Universities". These statements are outright misleading, and anyone who can't see where I'm coming from when I see that--despite claiming themselves to be staunch individuals--are practicing groupthink. - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@bratpack
But yes, I think taking a 'Daddy knows best' attitude--always--about the market always is bound to fail. For example, I don't hear any libertarians suggesting we should have allowed our Airline industry to remain shattered after 9/11. Markets fail and sometimes government intervention is necessary.Also, anyone who touts "I will always side with individuals working voluntarily together in a free-market environment." really needs to give Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" a thorough read. This "let the market decide everything, always, forever" attitude nearly led to the destruction of the global fishing industry. - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Sorry Lew, you're way off on this one. Students are 'choosing' not to live in luxury apartments? I'm a student and I don't go out 5 nights a week, and luxury condos are nowhere near my budget! Absurd! Too much to discuss here. More in my blog.
- Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Sorry Lew, you're usually good but you've got this one exactly backwards.
"There is nothing to prevent students from buying luxury apartments. They are perfectly free to do so, even if it means giving up their cars, laptops, cell phones, 5 nights out per week." Crazy! I'm a student and I don't go out five nights a week. Where are these 300 extra dollars per month I'm 'choosing' not to spend on Luxury apartments? That's just absurd buddy. =)
"And let us not forget about those who will buy the luxury apartments. They are mostly aging graduates of the university who come into town for football games and other sports events. They give fantastic amounts of money to the university to provide sports complexes, buildings, and many amenities that are enjoyed by students too. They make a huge contribution that is, I dare say, more substantial than the complaining students."
Exactly backwards, Lew. Luxury condo's wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the University. University wouldn't be there if it wasn't for tuition-paying students. These 'complaining' students are the engine behind the whole thing, much as you don't want to give them credit. - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Hmm... this is kind of a tough place to have a real debate. I explain myself better here:
http://yeago.net/works/resentment-against-luxury-goverrnment-cant-fix-this-problem-either - Yeago, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I can't tell which is more high, that figure or you. =)
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is