My God, you are an idiot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm all in favor of what happens when technology comes along and takes apart old things and makes them all efficient and shiny and newfangled. But I really don't think cities will cripple the reasons why cities are cities. The opposite is true.

As we're in agreement on the first and last points, I'll deal with the middle one. Why do you see cities remaining necessary hubs when offices are based at home?

Ports? That's a big reason a lot of cities will always remain, on some level, population hubs. Lots of industry around that.
Factories? Not many of those in cities anymore.
Office towers? With higher energy costs, higher taxes, and lack of need, who needs those?
Stadiums? Halls? Museums? Okay. Those will always be draws for cities.
Housing? Taxes are going to skyrocket. The burbs can always kill the cities in that area.
Education? To stay in most cities, you have to send the kids to super-expensive private schools. I see this as a prime reason for suburban growth.

Cities have draws, no doubt, but I don't see any way the majority of them create adequate economic activity to remain anything but hollowed out shadows of what they once were. They grew up largely around blue collar manufacturing jobs, professional services, and retail business that grew around them. Blue collar jobs are disappearing, retail's shrinking radically, and professional services can be done from elsewhere, at a fraction of the tax burden. I wouldn't buy in one other than the exceptions I mentioned.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can't not shoot the messenger with you. You're impervious to any point that isn't made with the most rote, linear use of language, and any point that asks one to think in the realm of businessman, as opposed to economist.

You couldn't even notice I was talking about multipliers in aggregate. I can't figure out for sure where you drug the public v. private argument from, but I can only conclude that, in your bizarrely narrowing view, the idea anyone would comment on them in total is just... well, Unpossible! "We must take them apart, sector by sector! Sebby has discussed them separately in the past, so I will use his point of months ago to suggest he's doing the same thing here, and Fucking Cazart! - I will then have an argument against him!"

Never mind that maybe I was asking you to think outside of your self-imposed rigid confines and run the argument to the next level. That I might assume a rational person would, in the absence of a dichotomy, conclude none was assumed! That I might have meant the temporariness of the economic impacts I was referencing addressed ALL economic impacts.

Fuck it.

This is bizarre and non-sensical. To give you one simple example, which does not mean that I am unaware of your cosmic approach to all things magically "business" about which you have deep personal insight born of experience, but what's temporary about a bridge or a broadband network? Do you see why "people will be using the bridge for commerce for years" is a direct response to your assertion that this type of stimulus fades? It's not a question of "aggregation." It's question of whether you are dismissing this effect or just ignoring it.

And if you respond that the bridge might need to be replaced in 50 years, or that the broadband network will be obsolete in five I might just have to put you on ignore after all.

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you don't make sense or could be wrong sometimes?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is bizarre and non-sensical. To give you one simple example, which does not mean that I am unaware of your cosmic approach to all things magically "business" about which you have deep personal insight born of experience, but what's temporary about a bridge or a broadband network? Do you see why "people will be using the bridge for commerce for years" is a direct response to your assertion that this type of stimulus fades? It's not a question of "aggregation." It's question of whether you are dismissing this effect or just ignoring it.

And if you respond that the bridge might need to be replaced in 50 years, or that the broadband network will be obsolete in five I might just have to put you on ignore after all.

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you don't make sense or could be wrong sometimes?

I'm nonsensical? You just argued that the multiplier on a bridge, or a broadband network, is indefinite. And this demonstrates, perfectly, that you are a hopeless fucking academic who doesn't know shit about the subject on which he pontificates on any real, practical level.

When a bridge is completed, the construction people are done. Finished. One off project, and then it's Over. The suppliers are done, the GCs, done, subs done, the vendors, everybody - done. And done quickly. That removes 80% of the economic activity that project creates. It is true, as you note, that there is residual activity accruing from future maintenance of the bridge, and the economic activity that might spring up around it (stores, gas stations, etc.), and some new business done because of the new connection. But the lion's share of the impact? Unquestionably temporary. And in a time of huge economic uncertainty, and decreasing access to credit, the chances of substantial business impact appearing around the bridge, just because, "Hey! It's a new bridge!" is all the less likely. Do you think guys putting up big box stores do so solely because a new bridge is built? It is a factor. But hardly the most important. They look at demographics, they look at the consumer market broadly. The developers first have to land an anchor tenant (you know what that is, yes?), and the anchor is usually some national retailer. National retailers make decisions in large part based on their stock prices ("Can we afford to expand and still meet expectations for next quarter?"). Those beancounters look at stimulus as welfare - a temporary fix that cures the symptom, not the problem. In this climate, "But there's a new bridge nearby!" alone isn't going to bring Costco. You are grossly overestimating the impact of infrastructure spending. And this is not shocking - you have looked at the thing in the most simplistic, business illiterate, but academically sound fashion one could.

Broadband? Brilliant. The govt needs to build up more broadband... Where do I start? This will enhance what? Do you think development follows broadband? You surely realize that broadband does zilch for retailers other than Amazon, and is a pipeline of communication enhancement that actually decreases development (fewer office towers and corporate parks for workers who telecommute, to cite one example).

Did you ever stop to think you sound like a gunner in Econ 101?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm nonsensical? You just argued that the multiplier on a bridge, or a broadband network, is indefinite. And this demonstrates, perfectly, that you are a hopeless fucking academic who doesn't know shit about the subject on which he pontificates on any real, practical level.

When a bridge is completed, the construction people are done. Finished. One off project, and then it's Over. The suppliers are done, the GCs, done, subs done, the vendors, everybody - done. And done quickly. That removes 80% of the economic activity that project creates. It is true, as you note, that there is residual activity accruing from future maintenance of the bridge, and the economic activity that might spring up around it (stores, gas stations, etc.), and some new business done because of the new connection. But the lion's share of the impact? Unquestionably temporary. And in a time of huge economic uncertainty, and decreasing access to credit, the chances of substantial business impact appearing around the bridge, just because, "Hey! It's a new bridge!" is all the less likely. Do you think guys putting up big box stores do so solely because a new bridge is built? It is a factor. But hardly the most important. They look at demographics, they look at the consumer market broadly. The developers first have to land an anchor tenant (you know what that is, yes?), and the anchor is usually some national retailer. National retailers make decisions in large part based on their stock prices ("Can we afford to expand and still meet expectations for next quarter?"). Those beancounters look at stimulus as welfare - a temporary fix that cures the symptom, not the problem. In this climate, "But there's a new bridge nearby!" alone isn't going to bring Costco. You are grossly overestimating the impact of infrastructure spending. And this is not shocking - you have looked at the thing in the most simplistic, business illiterate, but academically sound fashion one could.

Broadband? Brilliant. The govt needs to build up more broadband... Where do I start? This will enhance what? Do you think development follows broadband? You surely realize that broadband does zilch for retailers other than Amazon, and is a pipeline of communication enhancement that actually decreases development (fewer office towers and corporate parks for workers who telecommute, to cite one example).

Did you ever stop to think you sound like a gunner in Econ 101?

Translation: You're right, but I'm too big a dick to admit it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Translation: You're right, but I'm too big a dick to admit it.

I'll let my (half) namesake take it from here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm nonsensical? You just argued that the multiplier on a bridge, or a broadband network, is indefinite. And this demonstrates, perfectly, that you are a hopeless fucking academic who doesn't know shit about the subject on which he pontificates on any real, practical level.

When a bridge is completed, the construction people are done. Finished. One off project, and then it's Over. The suppliers are done, the GCs, done, subs done, the vendors, everybody - done. And done quickly. That removes 80% of the economic activity that project creates. It is true, as you note, that there is residual activity accruing from future maintenance of the bridge, and the economic activity that might spring up around it (stores, gas stations, etc.), and some new business done because of the new connection. But the lion's share of the impact? Unquestionably temporary. And in a time of huge economic uncertainty, and decreasing access to credit, the chances of substantial business impact appearing around the bridge, just because, "Hey! It's a new bridge!" is all the less likely. Do you think guys putting up big box stores do so solely because a new bridge is built? It is a factor. But hardly the most important. They look at demographics, they look at the consumer market broadly. The developers first have to land an anchor tenant (you know what that is, yes?), and the anchor is usually some national retailer. National retailers make decisions in large part based on their stock prices ("Can we afford to expand and still meet expectations for next quarter?"). Those beancounters look at stimulus as welfare - a temporary fix that cures the symptom, not the problem. In this climate, "But there's a new bridge nearby!" alone isn't going to bring Costco. You are grossly overestimating the impact of infrastructure spending. And this is not shocking - you have looked at the thing in the most simplistic, business illiterate, but academically sound fashion one could.

Broadband? Brilliant. The govt needs to build up more broadband... Where do I start? This will enhance what? Do you think development follows broadband? You surely realize that broadband does zilch for retailers other than Amazon, and is a pipeline of communication enhancement that actually decreases development (fewer office towers and corporate parks for workers who telecommute, to cite one example).

Did you ever stop to think you sound like a gunner in Econ 101?

Is this not engaging, or did I miss something?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Is this not engaging, or did I miss something?

I'll trust you.

I like my crazies better than your crazies.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'll let my (half) namesake take it from here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

Translation: "Hank 8,8763, Rest of World 0." Or, "having nothing else to say, I will retreat to one of my most tired tropes."

Let's review (yes, I left out the less fruitful bits of the exchange):

Ty: Here's Delong saying some stuff about the stimulus effects of infrastructure spending.

Sebby: Ah hah! Summers [sic] admits that stimulus necessarily fades as soon as the project's over.

Ty: Um, actually, he basically said the opposite.

Me: Delong actually gave two numbers, one of which fades when the project is done but the other one persists.

Sebby: You're always focusing on the finite and can't see the aggregate big picture you academic twit!.

Me: I'm just explaining to you why Delong did not admit what you said he admitted, and here's a stylized example to think about.

Sebby: I can partially undermine your stylized example by focusing on the finite and ignoring the aggregate, while at the same time conceding the basic point.

If you had set out to, I don't think you could have achieved a better self-parody.

I should probably stop there, but you know that I can't.

So, yeah, useful infrastructure has some stimulus effect for the useful life of the infrastructure. For an individual bridge, it might be quite small, and no, of course no business is going to open a new location just because the bridge is there. But, again, assuming it's a useful bridge, it reduces someone's cost of doing business and/or consumption. It's faster and cheaper to get goods and people to locations on either side of the bridge.

And Delong wasn't talking about one bridge, he was talking about $500 billion in infrastructure spending, and yes, he was talking about it in an abstract, modeled way. There are real world challenges that mean his numbers might be wrong. That would have been a fair response to his argument. But it isn't the one you made.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Translation: "Hank 8,8763, Rest of World 0." Or, "having nothing else to say, I will retreat to one of my most tired tropes."

Let's review (yes, I left out the less fruitful bits of the exchange):

Ty: Here's Delong saying some stuff about the stimulus effects of infrastructure spending.

Sebby: Ah hah! Summers [sic] admits that stimulus necessarily fades as soon as the project's over.

Ty: Um, actually, he basically said the opposite.

Me: Delong actually gave two numbers, one of which fades when the project is done but the other one persists.

Sebby: You're always focusing on the finite and can't see the aggregate big picture you academic twit!.

Me: I'm just explaining to you why Delong did not admit what you said he admitted, and here's a stylized example to think about.

Sebby: I can partially undermine your stylized example by focusing on the finite and ignoring the aggregate, while at the same time conceding the basic point.

If you had set out to, I don't think you could have achieved a better self-parody.

I should probably stop there, but you know that I can't.

So, yeah, useful infrastructure has some stimulus effect for the useful life of the infrastructure. For an individual bridge, it might be quite small, and no, of course no business is going to open a new location just because the bridge is there. But, again, assuming it's a useful bridge, it reduces someone's cost of doing business and/or consumption. It's faster and cheaper to get goods and people to locations on either side of the bridge.

And Delong wasn't talking about one bridge, he was talking about $500 billion in infrastructure spending, and yes, he was talking about it in an abstract, modeled way. There are real world challenges that mean his numbers might be wrong. That would have been a fair response to his argument. But it isn't the one you made.

I want to be judged by the number of times I've had my writing published, added to the number of times I won themoth.org.

Can we settle this fight between you and Sebby on those grounds or would it be a tie?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Translation: "Hank 8,8763, Rest of World 0." Or, "having nothing else to say, I will retreat to one of my most tired tropes."

Let's review (yes, I left out the less fruitful bits of the exchange):

Ty: Here's Delong saying some stuff about the stimulus effects of infrastructure spending.

Sebby: Ah hah! Summers [sic] admits that stimulus necessarily fades as soon as the project's over.

Ty: Um, actually, he basically said the opposite.

Me: Delong actually gave two numbers, one of which fades when the project is done but the other one persists.

Sebby: You're always focusing on the finite and can't see the aggregate big picture you academic twit!.

Me: I'm just explaining to you why Delong did not admit what you said he admitted, and here's a stylized example to think about.

Sebby: I can partially undermine your stylized example by focusing on the finite and ignoring the aggregate, while at the same time conceding the basic point.

If you had set out to, I don't think you could have achieved a better self-parody.

I should probably stop there, but you know that I can't.

So, yeah, useful infrastructure has some stimulus effect for the useful life of the infrastructure. For an individual bridge, it might be quite small, and no, of course no business is going to open a new location just because the bridge is there. But, again, assuming it's a useful bridge, it reduces someone's cost of doing business and/or consumption. It's faster and cheaper to get goods and people to locations on either side of the bridge.

And Delong wasn't talking about one bridge, he was talking about $500 billion in infrastructure spending, and yes, he was talking about it in an abstract, modeled way. There are real world challenges that mean his numbers might be wrong. That would have been a fair response to his argument. But it isn't the one you made.

The bridge, the broadband, the highway, the airport... whatever you're referring to, in aggregate, I can dismantle. Your last point, the only useful one - is that this is an argument of degree. I admitted as much (recall I nevertheless support stimulus spending). I was merely noting that the bang for the buck is fleeting. You came up with shit examples. I shot them down.

You characterize the exchange however you like. The fact remains, I'll crush you over and over and over on this point. Why? Because a rubber-meets-the-road example trumps esoteric, theoretical projection every time.

Want to talk aggregate? Who's been right on the economy for years, and who hasn't? You're out of your depth. And that's pathetic, because I'm anything but an expert.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The bridge, the broadband, the highway, the airport... whatever you're referring to, in aggregate, I can dismantle.

Only because you have undue confidence in your own predictive powers. Your broadband response is a case in point. You think you can project all the effects of broadband investment, and therefore are confident that they aren't stimulative. I think its silly to confidently project all of the effect, and I think, like your analysis of cities, you are merely repeating decades-old predictions of doom that haven't done very well over those decades. Better broadband access for an urban area may well attract new businesses that wish to take advantage of it (the better question is whether this is growth or merely displacement from elsewhere).

People have been predicting a future world of isolated telecommuting since at least the mid-90s. Guess how many people are telecommuting all the time? Not many. Why? Well, maybe the technology isn't there yet. Or maybe people are social animals and prefer not to be in one place at least part of the time.

But whatever the reason, looking at a world in which technology may reduce costs by easing transportation and concluding that this will leave the world poorer is strange indeed. I and just about everyone who thinks about these things think that's backward. It's the mercantilist thinking of the past.

I know, you have a strong streak of Less's overpopulation fear in you, believing that there are just lots of people that can't do anything in the modern world that's less labor intensive. Strangely for you, I think that is incredibly lacking creativity.

Want to talk aggregate? Who's been right on the economy for years, and who hasn't? You're out of your depth. And that's pathetic, because I'm anything but an expert.

Well, I've not seen any rioting or any of your more extreme projections come to pass (yet anyway), but dismissing those are primarily hyperbole, yes, your projections from the last few years look pretty good right now.

But remember that our primarily disagreement is about why we are here and whether it's inevitable. Which is weird because we mostly agree on what should be done about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As we're in agreement on the first and last points, I'll deal with the middle one. Why do you see cities remaining necessary hubs when offices are based at home?

Well, I don't think very many people are going to work out of their houses. Some people have done that, and information technology makes it more possible to do that, but it's just not a lot of people. My SIL has been doing it for several years, but she has seen many people try it and fail. She has had to work extra hard to maintain her position at her company without the face time in the office, and most people can't pull that off.

Ports? That's a big reason a lot of cities will always remain, on some level, population hubs. Lots of industry around that.
Factories? Not many of those in cities anymore.
Office towers? With higher energy costs, higher taxes, and lack of need, who needs those?
Stadiums? Halls? Museums? Okay. Those will always be draws for cities.
Housing? Taxes are going to skyrocket. The burbs can always kill the cities in that area.
Education? To stay in most cities, you have to send the kids to super-expensive private schools. I see this as a prime reason for suburban growth.

So you totally get that the economy is changing and that many industries which were responsible for lots of jobs in some places have dried up, causing a lot of dislocation. There are specific cities that grew up around ports and factories which have shut down, and now there is less reason for people to live there. But there's also lots of reason for people to live and work near other, and I don't think these reasons are going away. E.g., cities are transportation hubs which make it more economical to locate there despite higher rents. Many jobs creates the need for other jobs, which then are more efficiently located nearby. Housing and job density supports certain kinds of services -- opticians, Ethiopian restaurants, private schools -- which then add reasons for others to want to live nearby.

The fact that people prefer to live in cities explains why housing there costs more per square foot. In some cities, things crater so badly that the whole places seems hopeless. Detroit, say. But that's not a function of it being a city, but of dependence on an industry that went away.

If computers mean there's no advantage to location, and jobs can go anywhere, then why is Silicon Valley booming? Why are all those people paying so much to live there?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I want to be judged by the number of times I've had my writing published, added to the number of times I won themoth.org.

Mat 7:1-5

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The bridge, the broadband, the highway, the airport... whatever you're referring to, in aggregate, I can dismantle. Your last point, the only useful one - is that this is an argument of degree. I admitted as much (recall I nevertheless support stimulus spending). I was merely noting that the bang for the buck is fleeting. You came up with shit examples. I shot them down.

I don't mean to get in the way of a good fight between you and Adder, but give me a fucking break. It is beyond obvious that infrastructure spending can have huge continuing economic effects. When you turn turn roads into highways near cities, people then go and develop the land near them because all of a sudden you can get from there to somewhere else in less time, and the land is much more valuable. The same is true with bridges, railroads, airports, etc. Try to picture Pennsylvania with $500 bb less having been spent on its highways, and then try to pretend that it wouldn't have made a huge difference to the economy. It's absurd.

OK, resume trashing Adder.

[sgtclub]

Any legs to the gun running story and Holder?