Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:53:39 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> You are also claiming that rent control, e.g. attempts to keep some units

>> below market rate so that people can afford them, helps CAUSE homelessness?!

>

> Rent control may or may not cause any homelessness,

Of course, poorly applied it can have negative repercussions. However, in

San Francisco, for instance, at least a couple of years ago, there was an

extreme shortage of available rental units, driving the rents up very high.

Despite Chris' ramblings, it was not possible for people making minimum wage

or close to it to live here. I just can't see how rent control, applied in a

way to actually increase the available affordable housing, could possibly

lead to increased homelessness.

> but if you think about

> it, it certainly can exacerbate market problems -- if you have a housing

> shortage combined with enormous numbers of apartments stuck at far below

> market rate, it's going to tend to drive up the cost of uncontrolled rental

> apartments.

Well, ok, but then the answer is more intervention, not less.

> That doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of stabilizing

> rents, because without taking some measures, unscrupulous landlords can

> just evict people practically at will, but rent control (at least as it's

> practiced here in NYC) is not an ideal solution.

Well, not familiar with how it's practiced, but I certainly agree that the

devil is in the details.

>

>> since people who can't

>> afford a place to live generally will be more likely to be able to rent a

>> place that is below market rate.

>

> Perhaps it works differently elsewhere, but in NYC, rent control on an

> apartment expires when the person (or family? I'm not sure) which is living

> in the rent-controlled apartment stops renting it. I'm not actually sure

> offhand whether or how new apartments are added to the rosters of the

> rent-controlled, but that expiration is why we have a bit of rent fraud

> here, with rent-controlled lease holders subletting illegally and

> pretending to live where they don't in order to hold onto their precious

> rent-controlled apartments. You can't just go in and start renting an

> apartment at way-below-market. If you're very poor you can try to get

> subsidized housing and/or rent assistance (and rent assistance comes to

> just about nothing).

>

Well, that sounds like a policy implemented by forces that are anti-rent

control. It will die out eventually, but continue to exist for people who

already have those apartments. I agree - that doesn't sound like a good

implementation.

> Maybe it works differently elsewhere?

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:07:29 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> In a message dated 1/18/04 1:51:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> mhysmith@... writes:

>

>> No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed

>> housing, even if it was in Siberia.

>

> That's not the point. Gene said he was offering the example as

> counter-evidence that one can intervene in the housing market without causing

> problems. In

> fact, it doesn't support that at all.

It supports it absolutely. An example where there is no 'housing market'

because of complete government intervention would be the limit example. But,

sorry, I guess I need a fresher course in " applied calculus " , LOL.

[Guest guest]

I am sorry, I was being sarcastic as many would prefer homelessness to the

ice plains of Siberia.

I have no problem with markets allocating housing resources. Our state has

gone to a program wherein welfare recipients are given subsidized rent

payment as opposed to government housing. Thus they can rent in the open

market and are in the role of a market consumer. Other than that, I

believe that poor and less fortunate should be provided food, clothing, and

shelter in a civilized society that has the means to do it. The government

should insure this is done as one of its justifications for existing. That

is based on a value position which can't really be argued. As far as

private institutions taking care of such, in reality they do a tremendous

amount, but the government as the collective social body representing

society has a responsibility as well.

Re: Re: money and health

In a message dated 1/18/04 1:51:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> No housing market, but no homelessness either as everyone was guaranteed

> housing, even if it was in Siberia.

That's not the point. Gene said he was offering the example as

counter-evidence that one can intervene in the housing market without

causing problems. In

fact, it doesn't support that at all. If you're suggesting that markets

are

an inferior way to allocate housing resources, then my comments about

famine

and oppression become perfectly relevant. If not, it just isn't relevant

to

the issue we're discussing.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:20:37 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> I just can't see how rent control, applied in a

>> way to actually increase the available affordable housing, could possibly

>> lead to increased homelessness.

>

> Well, by your definition -- " applied in a way to actually increase the

> available affordable housing " -- it can't. The problem is that you're

> defining it by an end result, and the end result isn't always easy to

> accomplish.

>

Haggling, but that wasn't meant to be a 'definition', simply a description

of a desired result of rent control correctly applied. From your description

of N.Y.C. rent control, this can't happen. The end result may be difficult

to accomplish, but it seems to me, not impossible. For instance, given the

impossibly tight rental market in S.F. a couple of years ago... with the

tremendous demand for rental housing, I doubt that a total lack of rent

control would have raised rental prices much if at all. But, obviously,

mathematically, there were more affordable rental units than if there were

NO rent control. The problem is in having enough of them on the market so

that it makes a real difference, and politically, this is very hard to do.

But, the argument with was whether a strong and extensive rent control

policy would leave to more homelessness - I'm still not sure how such a

policy could do that (i.e. result in more affordable housing).

> But like a lot of these political arguments lately, disagreement is in part

> caused by semantics. One person means one thing by " socialism " , I mean,

> " rent control " , and another means another thing. Here in NYC, for example,

> " rent control " has a very specific, limited meaning, and " rent

> stabilization " has another very specific, limited meaning. Laissez-faire

> types, however, might cover _any_ government intervention in the housing

> market, either direct or indirect, with the term, and I gather you're using

> a similarly broader meaning.

>

Well, yes, people using different meanings for the same words always leads

to arguments, though generally not the one they think that they are having.

But again, here, I think that we were talking more generally, since Chris

made the blanket claim that government intervention in general was what

caused homelessness.

>> Well, ok, but then the answer is more intervention, not less.

>

> If there's not enough housing to go around among all economic tiers and

> there are sufficient rent-controlled apartments to drive up the price of

> uncontrolled apartments, what kind of additional control would you

> suggest? The government constructing more housing? Extending control to

> cover all apartments?

>

Well, I'm not an expert by any means, but it seems to me that if a city

makes care of the less fortunate a PRIORITY, then there must be rent

control, rent stabilization in the sense you described it where there are

limits on hom much rents can go up, and the construction of low income

housing. The controls should be made as extensive as necessary.

>> Well, that sounds like a policy implemented by forces that are anti-rent

>> control. It will die out eventually,

>

> Assuming my description was correct, yes, but you have to understand that

> here in NYC, " rent control " means " indefinite rent freeze not adjusted for

> inflation " . So if someone's been living in a rent-controlled apartment for

> a very long time, they could be paying a small fraction of market rate --

> like a quarter, or even a lot less.

>

Yeah, I know some people in N.Y. who have had their apartment (a very, very,

nice one) since the 1970's and are paying a ludicrously low rate for it. But

as far as not adjusting for inflation - I don't see that as part of a

definition of rent control, but as part of an individual implementation of

it. Just as, e.g. you wouldn't give the U.S. system as a definition of

capitalism, but as a particular example within a more general framework.

> We also have rent stabilization here, which is a system which allows rents

> to go up and new tenants to move in but which regulates that amount rent

> can increase. Some kind of housing board meets every year to debate and

> establish the maximum allowable increase. That protects people from

> suddenly being evicted at the whim of their landlords, but I'm not sure

> that it does much to ensure a full market of affordable housing.

>

Well, if the rates are already not affordable, then it wouldn't. But if they

are, wouldn't it work to keep more of them on the market? It sounds like the

solution would be to make the rules stricter.

[Guest guest]

< Tarrifs, war debts, and monetary policy are all the domain of the

government.

Unequal distribution of wealth is obviously dubious, because we presently

have and have had and have always head an unequal distribution of

wealth... but,

no depresion.

most important to understanding the Great Depression is to

comprehend that there was a domino effect that started and just didn't stop,

until the government finally intervened. Panic and fear motivated people

because they couldn't trust the stock market or their banks or the system.

I'm not going to argue that Roosevelt did everything correctly and different

policy's would not have been better. The depression had been going when he

took office. Hoover had set for several years doing next to nothing and

things had only gotten worse. I would only argue that the depression

revealed above anything, the need for government intervention via

regulations etc. This is when the SEC was created, there were not

accounting standards on Black Tuesday - there were fraudulent companies that

did not exist. There were grossly over inflated financials. There were

extremes going on in margin buying. When the bad fell out, no one could

know if they owned good stock or not so they sold and got out of the market

completely if they were lucky enough to do that in time. You have to have

government controls.

I don't think the US government is exactly responsible for causing the war

debts resulting from WWI. Our intervention in that conflict was debated

long ago and resulted in our intervening, right or wrong. Since we did not

start that war, I don't think you can hold our government responsible for

the debts.

Yes, tarrifs were set by the government for benefit of the domestic

corporations which employed the citizens. That has gone on before this

country and goes on today. When the crash started, they were raised with

the thinking that would help business at home by hindering competition,

which was the opposite of what should have done as it drained even more the

markets in Europe which we needed to sell to. That does not justify that the

government should not have been involved in levying tariffs, rather that it

did the wrong thing at the wrong time, and good financial advisors to the

president and Congress is important.

Distribution of wealth is about how bad it can be distributed. It is

controlled by taxation which is one reason we now have a progressive tax

system and inheritance taxes. It is also controlled by minimum wage laws.

That concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few limited the buying

power of the many and thus threatened the stability of the whole system. It

showed the need for government intervention in a capitalistic system. Do you

think had the government not intervened, those with wealth would have said -

" Oh gosh, maybe I should give some away so the economy can get going? " Not

in reality.

Monetary policy is the government. But you have to bear in mind our

system was developing, expertise in how to manage it was all new. We

actually had only recently transitioned from an agricultural economy to an

industrial. What you have posted is all hindsight now after lessons

learned, much subsequent experience gained. It doesn't demonstate there

should be no government involvement. Rather that government should do more

intelligent actions supportive of the markets. And since that depression

and ever increasing government involvment, there has not been one to equal

the Great Depression.

Financial panic is superfluous, because it was caused by the government's

bad

monetary policy.

" Britain's departure from gold in 1931 and the Federal Reserve's reaction

to

that event sharply intensified the bankng collapse, if indeed they did not

nip

a potential revival in the bud ... The drastic decline in the stock of

money

and the occurrence of a banking panic of unprecedented severity did not

reflect the absence of power on the part of the Reserve System to prevent

them.

Throughout the contraction, the System had ample powers to cut short the

tragic

process of monetary deflation and banking collapse. Had it used those

powers

effectively in late 1930 or even in early or mid-1931, the sucecessive

liequidity crises that in retrospect are the distinctive feature of the

contraction

could almost certainly have been prevented and the stock of money kept

from

declining or, indeed increased to any desired extent. " --Friedman and

Shwartz,

Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Their chart reveals the money stock was significantly *more* stable before

the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Dean Best argues in " Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt Versus

Recovery, 1933-1938 " that the anti-business approach of the US caused

continued

depression, whereas more pro-business approaches of other countries pulled

them

out much faster.

" Comparisons of the recovery of the US with that of other nations may be

found in the volumes of the League of Nations' World Economic Survey for

the

depression years. A table shows comparisons of unemployment rates. From

it can be

seen that in 1929 the US had the lowest unemployment rate of the countries

listed; by 1932 the US was midway on the list, with 7 nations reporting

higher

unemployment rates and seven reporting lower unemployment. By mid-1938,

however, after over five years of the New Deal, only three nations had

higher

unemployment rates, while 12 had lower unemployment. The US, then had

lost gorund

in comparsison with other nations betwen '32 and '38. [...] Of the 22

other

nations listed, 19 showed a higher rate of recovery in industrial

production than

the US, while only 3 lagged behind. One of these, France, had folowed

policies similar to those of the New Deal in the USA. As the WES put it,

both the

Roosevelt administration and the Blum government in France had 'adopted

far

-reaching social and economic policies which combined recovery measures

with

measures of social reform.' It added: 'The consequent doubt regarding the

prospects of profit and the uneasy relations between business-men and the

Government

have in the opinion of many been an important factor in delaying

recovery,' an

the two countries had, 'unlike the United Kingdom and Germany,' failed to

'regain the 1929 level of unemployment and production.' "

The US with its socialist policies and France took, iirc twice as long to

recover as Britain, pursuing a more business-friendly policy.

Best also points out that under Roosevelt suicides declined compared to

Hoover, but deaths due to " accidental falls " shot through the roof!

Hmm...

someone cooking the books? :-)

I think this is too tangential. The money in health thread-- which is

*supposed* to be about how economics affects health and food, is a good

thread, and

might soon be steered back on topic when I get to 's latest query, but

this is probably better left.

Who's on the nt-politics list? Maybe we can move it there?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > Gene wrote:

> >>> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

> >>> myself,

> >>> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market "

that

> >>> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was

not

> > a

> >>> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

> >>

> > wrote:

> >> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

Wanita wrote:

> > If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv

> > special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough

jewels

> > and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care

of

> > the people.

> >

Gene wrote:

> I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

> socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention

into

> the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

Sorry, Gene. Last I knew was talking about MA homeless and markets. Is

also a socialism thread going on. Will bow out to not add confusion.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/18/04 8:55:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> -------->i'm pretty sure you aren't saying that you think rockefeller is a

> smart, socially sensitive person, but here is a revealing insight into his

> personality. when i was at my second college on an island in maine where

> rockefeller has a summer house, i had a summer job as caretaker of an

> elderly couple who were acquainted with the rockefellers, and socialized

> with them on occasion. the husband was former dean of the theology school at

> u. chicago. anyway, he told me that john rockefeller wore a new set of

> clothes EVERY DAY. that is, he wore brand new clothes every day, discarded

> those he had worn the previous day - socks and all. i have no idea if he

> gave them to charity, or tossed them out. i find that rather bizarre and not

> particularly " socially sensitive " (or maybe *ecologically sensitive*) but i

> suppose i could be wrong if he gave 365 sets of decent clothes to the

> goodwill every year :-) maybe that is one definition of " socially

> sensitive. " LOL

Suze,

I have no idea if that's true or not, though afaik the Rockefeller family are

all Marxists now-- according to Horowitz, who had an affair with Abby

Rockefeller, wrote a biography on them with exclusive interviews from the

family, and whose radical left 60s mag Ramparts received support from them. So

I

would take anything the Rockefeller's say about D. with a little bit of

skepticism.

That said, just because he indulged doesn't mean he wasn't socially

sensitive. You indulge, and I indulge. Each of us have computers, the cost of

which

could probably save hundreds of people in the third world from starvation or

diseases. So you might say we are fundamentally socially demented, since we

consider the luxury of communicating to people we've never met on a computer

screen more important than life-or-death situations of others.

What would be more fair would be to recognize that Rockefeller did more than

95% of people ever have to uplift the living standards of his fellow humans,

and deserves a little luxury for that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:10:58 -0500

> < >

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

>

>>> Gene wrote:

>>>>> Against my better judgement, here I go, responding again. Can't help

>>>>> myself,

>>>>> I guess....So, in your opinion it is " interferences in the market "

> that

>>>>> exacerbates homelessness. Ok - as I understand it, homelessness was

> not

>>> a

>>>>> big problem in the former Soviet Union. Or am I missing something?

>>>>

>>> wrote:

>>>> Your missing a lot of things. Like millions of people dying of famine.

>

> Wanita wrote:

>>> If this is in reference to the Soviet Union, they were not socialist, tv

>>> special I saw went into their vaults under the Kremlin where enough

> jewels

>>> and precious metals were kept by the government to more than take care

> of

>>> the people.

>>>

> Gene wrote:

>> I didn't bring up the Soviet Union because they were an example of

>> socialism. I brought them up because said that state intervention

> into

>> the housing market was the primary cause of homelessness.

>

> Sorry, Gene. Last I knew was talking about MA homeless and markets. Is

> also a socialism thread going on. Will bow out to not add confusion.

>

> Wanita

>

>

>

No problem. I just wanted to clarify that that's not what I meant.

[Guest guest]

>Because, most short-term thinkers will

>never bother to accumulate any capital, and will spend their money (i.e. put

>short-term interests above long-term interests),

Weren't the Enron malefactors thinking short-term? And yet they

accumulated loads of capital.

That's a contradiction then, and I'd say, in the words of the fictional Hugh

Ackston, 'contradictions do not exist; check your premises.'

Enron execs could not have achieved the position they were in in the first

place had they only had in mind short-term goals. I don't know any biographical

information about them, but you cannot accumulate capital, or work your way

up into a high-ranking position without sacrificing short-term goals for

long-term goals.

Since the acquiring of capital yields no short-term benefit, but rather

seriously decreases short-term benefit by, decreasing your effective available

income in the period of time in which you saved it, anyone who accumulates

capital

is ipso facto a long-term thinker.

This must be reconciled to the fact that the Enron folks committed the crimes

they did. If you are to argue this is short-term thinking, then you must

necessarily admit that humans engage in both short-term and long-term thinking.

They do; but, I would argue that this isn't an example of short-term thinking

at all. According to their analysis, they figured " if we do x, we benefit

over the short term by y, and over the long term by z, and the likelihood we get

caught is a%, therefore the benefit of doing the action outweighs the risk. "

They thought long-term, and expected not to get caught in that long term, and

were wrong. (or they may have counted on not getting punished appropriately

if they did get caught.)

I seriously, seriously doubt that were the Enron execs faced with the sure

knowledge that in the long-term they would get caught and be punished

appropriately (assuming that by " appropriate " we mean jail or financial loss

outweighing

the benefits to someone interested in remaining a free individual who wishes

to maximize their financial worth), and in the short-term they would win big,

that they would have chosen the short-term goal.

The problem with your assumption, which my

> Enron example is meant to illustrate, is that there are plenty of

> short-term strategies which allow substantial capital gains. You're

> assuming that short-term strategists must be spendthrift, or that they must

> be so incompetent that they can't often hold onto capital long enough to

> build it into lots of capital, but neither assumption is born out by the

> real world.

You need to save the money to buy the capital. While some people might

simply be born with wealth, and attempt a short-term strategy to make a killing

and

get out, I doubt that is the majority of cases. I might be wrong, but if I'm

not, capitalism would have a selective effect for long-termers.

> >I see no reason for their to be specific associations of inspectors for

> the

> >buyer alone. An inspector is an inspector, and would lend his services to

> >whoever would pay for them. Although consumer agencies often have vast

> >amounts of

> >money. Ralph Nader has $4 million dollars in stocks that generate the

> income

> >for his organizations, for example.

>

> You're seriously comparing a few million dollars with billions?

It depends what it's used for. The question isn't " who has more money, " but

rather, whether they organization has sufficient funds to carry out its

purpose. If the consumer agencies purpose is to draft up building " codes " that

can

be incorporated into voluntary contracts, it requires relatively little

funding. An inspector would presumably be operating for his own profit, and

would

be the hire either of the builder or the buyer so long as he was paid, and

wouldn't need funds to " compete " with other inspectors. Sure, the builders

could

bribe the inspectors, but not any easier than they can bribe inspectors now.

So yes, you could have corruption, but there's no reason to believe there

would be a *greater* degree of corruption now, making the point moot. Again, no

one claims libertarianism would grant uptopianism and magically dissolve the

human desire to cheat. Just that it has incentives and mechanisms to prevent

it.

>

> Anyway, back to the main point.

>

> Surely you agree that builders have an incentive to corrupt the inspection

> process, right?

Yes.

One way to do this is to create a faux-independent

> inspectors company or association. Another is to corrupt an inspectors

> company or association.

Agreed.

(I'm not trying to enumerate all possible

> scenarios, BTW, just a few examples, and it's probably that more than one

> scenario would play out simultaneously. Anyway, to the degree that

> association-imprimatur would be important, and it's a shorthand that will

> inevitably arise even without legal licensure, I think legit associations

> would be corrupted and bogus ones created, and dishonest and misled

> inspectors would tend to affiliate themselves with each other into trade

> associations.)

Inspector's are bribed now. There is nothing preventing an inspector from

being bribed now, and, in fact, it happens all the time. The only prevention is

the risk of getting caught and punished-- which would occur in a libertarian

society as well.

To the degree that this corruption becomes publicly

> evident, buyers will have an incentive to seek corruption-free inspectors

> from other companies and eventually if not at first from other associations.

Agreed.

>

> Builders also have an incentive to keep buyers using " their " inspectors

> from " their " association and inspection companies, but to the degree it

> pushes them to keep the inspection process honest, it's a long-term

> incentive, so I think there will always be enough builders trying to

> corrupt the process to result in the competing-association umbrella

> scenario.

While I agree that creating a faux-independent inspector association would be

a way to cheat the system, I find it highly unlikely that all inspectors

would dichotomize into builder front association inspectors and buyer

association

inspectors.

To go back to the organic cert. analogy, you don't find Horizon and other big

boys in the agro business making front groups that pretend to certifiy

organic, but really are just corporate fronts to claim that they inspected the

farm

and found it met the qualifications when it was really using pesticides and

sewer sludge and whatnot. Why not? There are no mechanisms that prevent that

(at least prior to fed. gov't certification of organic) that would not exist

under libertarianism.

Anyway, the inspector's goal is to provide the service of inspection, not

according to whether it is " safe " or not but to whether it meets the specific

details of the contract, and the idea that front groups will function to

flat-out

lie about these specific details, when a second opinion could simply prove

them wrong, strikes me as pure fantasy.

>

> The problem is that for the inspection system to work, people have to trust

> it, but if builders and buyers each have their own pet inspectors and

> associations (and in my scenario each association would doubtless serve

> each contingency, just to different degrees) nobody's going to believe the

> process is objective.

How could it be anything other than objective? It's quite simple. You have

a contract that specifies every detail of what you wish to receive, and this

includes any details that would currently be part of " code " under the current

system, only your contract is tailor fitted to your desires, and you get this

code from consumer organizations that provide it and you talk it over with your

lawyer, etc. The inspector's job is not to make a subjective evaluation of

the safety of the building, but to check whether the specifications in the

contract are fulfilled or not. They either are or aren't. How can that be

anything other than an objective process?

>

> >But building inspection is not an " opinion " . It's a concrete fact how many

> >outlets there are in each room and how far apart they are, or any other

> given

> >fact about the place.

>

> That's where you're wrong. I have enough experience with contracting and

> construction to know that even obviously concrete facts like the number of

> outlets in a room can become uncertainties for several reasons. It's not

> always possible to physically test every outlet to make sure it's

> connected, for example. It's also not always possible to examine the

> wiring inside the walls. Builders can use quality materials in visible

> spaces and crap where it can't be found without tearing down structures --

> and it's simply not feasible to inspect every last thing as it's

> installed. When you get to less-obvious facts, like the quality of sheet

> rock used here or there, or the load capacity of a given structure, things

> get murkier and murkier and murkier.

But that's an uncertainty that would be neither more nor less certain under a

libertarian system.

> The number of outlets per room, per wall, per foot -- that sort of thing

> will usually be agreed upon by both inspectors. It's when you get to the

> less concrete, less certain things -- especially derived variables, like my

> load-bearing example -- that you'd see a lot more disagreement between

> inspectors in your parties. You'd also find that buyer inspectors often

> have to take things on faith based on builder-supplied paperwork (like the

> grade and source of lumber, metal, etc. used in various elements of the

> building) and with that, it becomes possible for unscrupulous people to

> expand their fraud using forgery and outright deception (like saying

> such-and-such a structural member has such-and-such a load-bearing

> capacity, and here's the cooked " proof " ).

But how does the ability to cheat in this manner increase under a libertarian

system?

> Yes, a lot of this could come to light eventually, but with codes and

> standards, you prevent a lot of that subjectivity and an enormous amount of

> damage before it ever happens. Yes, the tradeoff is that codes often lag

> technology and don't always allow innovative buildings, but our system is

> less responsive than it could be.

There's no difference in terms of objectivity. There's nothing in a code

that can't be included in a contract. If it's recognized that a certain

material

has such and such a load capacity, you incorporate that into the contract

just as it is incorporated into today's codes.

>

> >The inspector's job would be to see if the

> >house meets the specifications of the contract.

>

> If a builder builds a house and then puts it on the market, he's not

> building it to specification. Even if he's hired to build a house, the

> odds still are that the buyer hasn't contractually specified every last

> detail of the house. After all, the builder is the one with the building

> expertise, not (generally) the buyer.

That's why the buyer has a lawyer, and consumer organizations supply advice,

mock contracts, codes etc. Granted this is just my scenario, perhaps other

people have better ideas, but I don't seen any fault in mine so far.

The thing you seem to be overlooking is that if we have to get from here to

there somehow, it's going to be a conscious decision. If you have a real

movement for libertarianism, you'd have to have alternative mechanisms for these

kinds of things to emerge, and people would *do* them.

> So in your scenario, either sales contracts would have to become massively

> labyrinthine in order to (attempt to) specify everything, in which case

> they'd need entire legal teams to prepare, or builders could go around

> saying " Hey, you can't sue me, I never said the building would [perform in

> XYZ manner -- e.g. not fall down when an earthquake put severe shear

> stresses on the column support members in the basement] " .

I don't think so. To again use organic certification as an example, you

don't buy a piece of fruit and rewrite the organic standards every time you buy

it. You have one of several standards that are being used for the definition of

" organic, " and you have one of several organizations that certifies it and

inspects the farm.

Some of the standards are based in law (California...Act, etc), but the

certification programs just use that as an established standard, they aren't

bound

under the Act in any way whatsoever. They could use their own private

definition, like NOFA or some other farming associations. And it is implicit

when

you buy the piece of fruit, that you have a contract with the provider that that

fruit meets the standards, but you don't rewrite those standards each time.

Just the same, you could have several options of contract " cores " provided by

various organizations. These organizations might provide inspection teams or

the inspectors might be independent. A person chooses a given core for the

contract that basically is meant to replace what today's building code does,

and then there is supplemental contractual agreement beyond it to personalize

the house. You might have different competing contractual cores due to equally

acceptable ways of doing things, or due to increased safety with increased

cost, so that one could choose extra safety or moderate safety depending on the

area they live in (subject to earthquakes or not?) and the amount they want to

spend).

So you don't have rewrite the gargantuan contract, but you select a core, and

you do it with your lawyer, she reviews it, etc.

With codes,

> there's no unique contract for every single building and every single sale

> which requires teams of lawyers to create and inspect every single time,

> there's a uniform standard (which can be flexible) and a building is either

> up to code or not. An enormous burden is taken off both the buyer and the

> seller, and because the inspector is disinterested, there's a better chance

> of getting faithful results.

You could have exactly the same in a libertarian model, only the building

code would not be enforced by law.

Disinterested? The inspector in our system, or libertarianism, isn't

disintered; he's self-interested. Any inspector under either system could be

bribed.

The mechanisms to prevent this are equivalent or comparable under each

system.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 12:33:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> <Our government innovated a new monetary policy that has destabalized, not

> stabalized, the monetary supply.

>

> ***I don't follow what or who you are talking about. Roosevelt or Bush or

> someone inbetween?

Sorry, I used the word " policy " and I shouldn't have. I was referring to the

Federal Reserve System, which is an institution, not a policy.

>

> <I nothing.?

>

> ***Hoover did nothing to respond to the depression. He took the position

> that the markets would correct themselves and government should stay out of

> it. If it reflects anything, it reflects the incorrectness of such thinking

> because things only got worse and Hoover became one of the most unpopular

> presidents we ever had.

But that's not true-- Hoover didn't do anything himself, but the monetary

policy of Britain and US were directly responsible for the aggravation of the

liquidity crisis. I'm not talking about Hoover himself, but the government at

the time. So, Hoover washed his hands of it, but that doesn't mean that the

market was allowed to take care of it. It wasn't.

>

> <Tarriffs are immoral and do not protect anyone. I think

> demonstrated

> that before the Great Depression. Hasn't comparative advantage been

> understood since the 19th century?

>

> ***I don't know who you mean by . Nor do I know what you mean by

> comparative advantage.

's law of comparative advantage. Countries mutually benefit by

specializing according to resources and trading. If America is rich in oil and

Mexico is rich in coal (these are just fabricated examples), and America is

producing both oil and coal, and Mexico is doing the same, each will benefit if

they

can trade, because Mexico will be able to produce cheaper coal than oil and

America will be able to produce cheaper oil than coal, so if they trade,

America's cheap oil will put Mexico's oil producers out of business, and

Mexico's

cheap coal will put America's coal-producers out of business, and America will

produce more oil to supply Mexico, and Mexico will produce more coal to supply

America. If America used 10 units of resources for 1 unit of product in it's

coal and 7 units of resources for 1 unit of product for it's oil, and vice

versa for Mexico, without trade they would each spend 17 units of resources for

every 2 units of product, but with trade they each spend 14 units of resources

for every 2 units of product. Thus, more wealth is created and Americans and

Mexicans benefit.

If either erect tarrifs to " protect jobs " they are just supporting a

worthless and inefficient industry, and the net result is spending more

resources to

attain less wealth.

It would work the same way if America's resource was, say, the knowledge of

computer engineers, and Mexico's resource was, say, cheap unskilled labor.

Morality depends upon perspective. If one believes

> that each respresenting his own interests yields a better system, than

> tariffs to help protect and stablize domestic industries who happen to

> employ real live people who have families that must eat, would be very

> moral.

It would be immoral for several reasons. First, it's dishonest. It implies

that the employed people and the employers represent a value that they simply

do not have. If foreign labor can do the job cheaper, they represent a

greater value. Second, it's short-sighted, and it is just to prevent temorary

political unrest and represents a bogus issue to get elected on, ignoring that

in

the long-run what you get is " creative destruction-- the industry goes down the

tubes to be replaced by something better.

In New England in the, damn, I can't remember, I think late 19th century, all

the factories went down south to reap the benefits of cheap electricity and

labor. All the domestic industries were destroyed, but, lo and behold, no one

in New England is wishing they had a job in a textile factory. We have better

jobs now.

>

> <Granted, FDIC has had stabilizing effects. But that's a governmet band

> aid

> for government-induced problems.

>

> ***I disagree the FDIC was in response to anything government. It was in

> response to the lack of government involvement in industry - there were at

> that time, no standarized accounting principles, many unethical business

> practices, poor management on the part of many bank entrepeneurs. England

> had changed from a gold standard and gold reserves were being drained from

> this country - that wasn't this government, it was a foreign.

It was still government. It was England's government. I'm not against " our "

government in any way that I'm " for " England's government.

That said, I'm not really equipped to debate this, and need to do more

reading before I come to solid conclusions, never mind defend them publicly.

I'm going to read this, which I suspect would be of interest to you as well:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 12:33:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> ***Hoover did nothing to respond to the depression. He took the position

> that the markets would correct themselves and government should stay out of

> it. If it reflects anything, it reflects the incorrectness of such thinking

> because things only got worse and Hoover became one of the most unpopular

> presidents we ever had.

By the way, it's been years since I've studied this era so I'd forgotten...

but skimming through the table of contents in a history of the Depression just

now, this is certainly, entirely, false. Hoover intervened in the market a

great deal much in the way Roosevelt did.

But you did remind me of something. Calvin Coolidge is my favorite

president-- he didn't do anything.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>>There ARE folks like Rockefeller, who actually strikes me as

a rather smart, socially sensitive person.

-------->i'm pretty sure you aren't saying that you think rockefeller is a

smart, socially sensitive person, but here is a revealing insight into his

personality. when i was at my second college on an island in maine where

rockefeller has a summer house, i had a summer job as caretaker of an

elderly couple who were acquainted with the rockefellers, and socialized

with them on occasion. the husband was former dean of the theology school at

u. chicago. anyway, he told me that john rockefeller wore a new set of

clothes EVERY DAY. that is, he wore brand new clothes every day, discarded

those he had worn the previous day - socks and all. i have no idea if he

gave them to charity, or tossed them out. i find that rather bizarre and not

particularly " socially sensitive " (or maybe *ecologically sensitive*) but i

suppose i could be wrong if he gave 365 sets of decent clothes to the

goodwill every year :-) maybe that is one definition of " socially

sensitive. " LOL

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 2:00:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> As for my favorite president? I would have to agree with Lew Rockwell on

> this one. It would be Henry on. Why? He died shortly after

> inauguration.

LOL!

Well, anyway, to , I highly suggest reading Rothbard's online book which

I posted in the second to last email. I've read a bit of it now, and he

simply demolishes the conventional understanding of the Depression. In fact,

Hoover was a super-interventionist, and had done all he could as Secretary of

Commerce to convince Harding and Coolidge to take interventionist polices. They

didn't, and surprise surprise, the depressions the presided over were cured very

shortly by the market. By contrast, Hoover took massive interventionist

policies as an immediate response to the stock market crash, which was a

necessary

crash to reduce the inflation that was initially caused by government policy

of inflating the market with credit, and which looked much like previous

depressions and should have been cured by the market just the same, but was kept

in

massive depression by Hoover's *interventionist* policies, not his

non-existent non-interventionist policies. Unless you consider public works and

taxes

" laissez-faire " ! Of course Roosevelt just continued Hoover's policies to a

greater extent, and the economy just got worse, and worse, and worse, and worse,

and worse, until the war.

I *highly* recommend reading the book.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<Our government innovated a new monetary policy that has destabalized, not

stabalized, the monetary supply.

***I don't follow what or who you are talking about. Roosevelt or Bush or

someone inbetween?

<I don't call bad monetary policy " doing nothing. "

***Hoover did nothing to respond to the depression. He took the position

that the markets would correct themselves and government should stay out of

it. If it reflects anything, it reflects the incorrectness of such thinking

because things only got worse and Hoover became one of the most unpopular

presidents we ever had.

<Tarriffs are immoral and do not protect anyone. I think

demonstrated

that before the Great Depression. Hasn't comparative advantage been

understood since the 19th century?

***I don't know who you mean by . Nor do I know what you mean by

comparative advantage. Morality depends upon perspective. If one believes

that each respresenting his own interests yields a better system, than

tariffs to help protect and stablize domestic industries who happen to

employ real live people who have families that must eat, would be very

moral.

< Granted, FDIC has had stabilizing effects. But that's a governmet band

aid

for government-induced problems.

***I disagree the FDIC was in response to anything government. It was in

response to the lack of government involvement in industry - there were at

that time, no standarized accounting principles, many unethical business

practices, poor management on the part of many bank entrepeneurs. England

had changed from a gold standard and gold reserves were being drained from

this country - that wasn't this government, it was a foreign. What occurred

was massive distrust among the public towards the bank institutions. They

started withdrawing money in mass - so much for money supply or monetary

policy if it is tucked in mattresses.

***The situation with banks and the stock market back then, is very similar

to what is happening today with medicine. The public is losing faith and

doesn't know who to trust. The costs are escalating to such a rediculos

point, no one is going to be able to afford healthcare anyway. I would agree

the government has not helped the situation, but the government acting on

behalf of the collective group is the only power structure that can

counterbalance the industry ills. They have not and will not do so

themselves because they respresent their own self interests, not ours. Our

system is based on that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:28:58 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 1/19/04 12:33:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>mhysmith@... writes:

>

>> ***Hoover did nothing to respond to the depression. He took the position

>> that the markets would correct themselves and government should stay out of

>> it. If it reflects anything, it reflects the incorrectness of such thinking

>> because things only got worse and Hoover became one of the most unpopular

>> presidents we ever had.

>

>

>By the way, it's been years since I've studied this era so I'd forgotten...

>but skimming through the table of contents in a history of the Depression just

>now, this is certainly, entirely, false. Hoover intervened in the market a

>great deal much in the way Roosevelt did.

>

>But you did remind me of something. Calvin Coolidge is my favorite

>president-- he didn't do anything.

>

>Chris

Yup, Hoover did all kinds of things.

As for my favorite president? I would have to agree with Lew Rockwell on

this one. It would be Henry on. Why? He died shortly after

inauguration.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> I don't know what the typical rent in San Francisco is, but one person

> working 60 hours a week at $6/hr would be making $1440 a month. If a

> one room apartment goes for $1100 that leaves enough money for basic

> necessities if one lives very frugally, and a diet based on lentils

> and cheap butter would afford decent nutrition for minimal cost. A

> person working the same hours at the same pay could split a two-room

> apartment that goes for $1600 and have $640/month left over for other

> necessities.

And then there's the other solution--if you can't afford to live in San

Francisco, then don't! There are plenty of other areas with high costs

of living. I have a friend who lived in Montana a few years ago and was

able to rent a huge two-bedroom apartment for something like $400/month.

I've played this game before, so I'll short-circuit the next step. Yes,

there is a demand for service personnel in San Francisco. There is also

an economic law which tells us that when demand is held constant and

supply is reduced, the price goes up, and vice-versa. When low-wage

workers begin their exodus from San Francisco, two things will happen:

rent will go down, and service wages will go up. Those who remain will

be able to afford housing. Problem solved.

For the record, I think that the real reason that San Francisco has such

a big homeless problem is its homeless-friendly policies:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0305/p01s02-uspo.html

" For example, while most municipalities offer benefits to the homeless

in the form of a small cash stipend and other benefits such as vouchers

or shelter beds, San Francisco still gives about one-third of its

homeless population its benefits all in cash - as much as $395 a month. "

Crikey! Even I didn't think it was that bad.

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> --Friedman and Shwartz, Monetary History of the

> United States, 1867-1960.

The Austrian school offers an alternative to the Monetarist explanation

which I find convincing.

Here's a general explanation of the Austrian theory of the business

cycle as developed by Mises:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=630 & FS=The+Hangover+Theory%3F

And here's an excellent article by addressing the Great

Depression specifically, including a rebuttal to most of the points

brought up by :

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1008

> Their chart reveals the money stock was significantly *more* stable

> before the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Absolutely. It's hard to imagine now, but there was no inflation until

the creation of the Federal Reserve and departure from the gold

standard. The value of the dollar remained fairly stable, with minor

fluctuations, for well over a century after the birth of this country.

[Guest guest]

Idol wrote:

> That doesn't mean we should give up

> on the idea of stabilizing rents, because without taking some

> measures, unscrupulous landlords can just evict people practically at

> will, but rent control (at least as it's practiced here in NYC) is

> not an ideal solution.

You're probably more familiar with the apartment situation in New York

than I am, so maybe you don't realize how bizarre that sounds to a yokel

like me, but...what benefit would a landlord derive from kicking people

out without legitimate cause?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 3:03:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> The Austrian school offers an alternative to the Monetarist explanation

> which I find convincing.

I'm already convinced. Thanks for the links, but I started reading

Rothbard's _America's Great Depression_ last night, which should be sufficient.

The

first chapter is describing the Austrian theory of business cycles, and the

five introductions gave a good overview.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 3:07:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> And then there's the other solution--if you can't afford to live in San

> Francisco, then don't! There are plenty of other areas with high costs

> of living. I have a friend who lived in Montana a few years ago and was

> able to rent a huge two-bedroom apartment for something like $400/month.

>

I agree. I'd forgotten to mention that. I would never attempt to live in

Boston earning anything less than $90,000/year. *Most* people who work in

Boston live outside of Boston, and sensible people live in the cheapest places

outside Boston and commute. Heck, I know people in *my* town who work in

Boston,

which is about 1.5 hours away.

Also, while I'm not implying that most people who are homeless " want " to be,

I would certainly choose living in my car over living on my own anywhere if I

was working a minimum wage job, and if I had one or fewer children to take

care of. That way I could save money over the short-term to help boost up my

living standards in the long-term, rather than live from paycheck to paycheck

with inadequate heat and other necessities.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 9:05:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->it wasn't the rockefeller's who told me that, but rather my employer

> who was an acquaintance of rockefeller.

I realized that the second time I read your post, after I responded, but I

still got the impression he heard it from the Rockefellers, to whom he talked

regularly. That said, the story actually is starting to sound vaguely familiar

to me.

> >>>>That said, just because he indulged doesn't mean he wasn't socially

> sensitive.

>

> ---->this is true, although neither of us has the means to indulge to such

> an extreme as he allegedly did.

That's missing the point. Although it's worth noting that we have many

things that make life a heck of a lot easier and in some ways more fulfilling

that

he never had a chance to indulge in, like computers, refrigerators,

televisions, video games, and CD players.

For that reason it's impossible to quantify whether we indulge " more " or

" less " than Rockefeller, but more importantly, any line you draw between

" socially

sensitive " indulgence and " socially insensitive " indulgence is completely

arbitrary. A more sensible morality would compare the indulgence with the

contribution to the society, not to other people's indulgences.

You and I have made a much smaller contribution to " society " if you will.

You can't blame Rockefeller for taking a big-ass slice of pie, when he baked the

pie.

actually, my theory is that he might have

> been a germ-a-phobe, hence the new duds daily. LOL

Maybe. I wonder if he boiled his milk. :-P

> >>>You indulge, and I indulge. Each of us have computers, the cost of

> which

> could probably save hundreds of people in the third world from starvation or

> diseases. So you might say we are fundamentally socially demented, since we

> consider the luxury of communicating to people we've never met on a computer

> screen more important than life-or-death situations of others.

>

> -->yep, you could.

Right. On the other hand, you could point out that if you took all the

wealth in the world and divided it up equally among the population, most people

would be starving shortly after. And you could point out that it defies human

nature to sacrifice everything you've worked for for people you don't know, and

further that it wouldn't work, because were everyone to give the product of

their labor to starving folks indiscriminately, there would be no incentive for

productive folks to work at all, thus, no starvation would be prevented. And

you could point out that the most helpful ventures to the third world in the

long-term are the ones that the " givers " will profit from, not charity, hence a

morality that looks down on folks who profit and use that profit for their own

pleasure is somewhat backwards.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>> So I

would take anything the Rockefeller's say about D. with a little bit of

skepticism.

----->it wasn't the rockefeller's who told me that, but rather my employer

who was an acquaintance of rockefeller.

>>>>That said, just because he indulged doesn't mean he wasn't socially

sensitive.

---->this is true, although neither of us has the means to indulge to such

an extreme as he allegedly did. actually, my theory is that he might have

been a germ-a-phobe, hence the new duds daily. LOL

>>> You indulge, and I indulge. Each of us have computers, the cost of

which

could probably save hundreds of people in the third world from starvation or

diseases. So you might say we are fundamentally socially demented, since we

consider the luxury of communicating to people we've never met on a computer

screen more important than life-or-death situations of others.

-->yep, you could.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

-

>but...what benefit would a landlord derive from kicking people

>out without legitimate cause?

Say you have a building with a number of serious problems. Rats,

perhaps. One tenant keeps making a fuss, threatening to publicize the

issue if the landlord does nothing about it. The rest just accept their fate.

There are countless reasons a landlord might want to kick tenants out on a

whim, and the tenant protections we have evolved because of them.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Mr.. rebuts my points but he has no good arguments to his

rebuttals, no facts presented. In fact, he himself says the widespread

opinion of historians is in line with the points I brought up.

There are many points in there I would challenge, such as WWII not pulling

the US out of depression because there were shortages of goodies for

Americans to buy. That does not reflect depression, that reflects a war

economy were factories were buzzing making military uniforms instead of

ladies stockings. Shortages of food items such as sugar were due to Europe

being busy blowing up their fields instead of planting and harvesting, thus

America was supplying them. For what they could not buy, their money

accumulated in savings and once the war was over, contributed to a major

growth economy. Same happened after World War I. His discounting of

Greenspans statements that greed was a major problem in the 90's I think

goes too far considering how bad it really was as Enron, Tyco, and Imclone

well represent. So everyone has an opinion and he's got his.

As far as inflation before the Federal Reserve, in 1919, post WWI America

experienced a 77% increase in prices. I do believe this is called

inflation. This resulted from the lack of spending during the war and all

those paychecks soldiers had not been able to spend. Demand way exceeded

existing production.

Re: Re: money and health

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> --Friedman and Shwartz, Monetary History of the

> United States, 1867-1960.

The Austrian school offers an alternative to the Monetarist explanation

which I find convincing.

Here's a general explanation of the Austrian theory of the business

cycle as developed by Mises:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=630 & FS=The+Hangover+Theory%3F

And here's an excellent article by addressing the Great

Depression specifically, including a rebuttal to most of the points

brought up by :

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1008

> Their chart reveals the money stock was significantly *more* stable

> before the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Absolutely. It's hard to imagine now, but there was no inflation until

the creation of the Federal Reserve and departure from the gold

standard. The value of the dollar remained fairly stable, with minor

fluctuations, for well over a century after the birth of this country.