Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I don't pretend to have the answer.

But, for fun, we can look at deregulation. In California, to develop a plot, there needs to be road access that can accommodate fire/emergency services. Building that access can be prohibitively expensive.

Good regulation?

Like everything, "it depends." Do the people who are potential buyers value fire/emergency services at a level to justify paying for what might be to other people appear as prohibitively expensive? What kind of insurance against loss is available, or even desirable?

Who should decide what is an appropriate level of fire/emergency services? The demand market, or rent-seekers who are looking for a vein to tap?

Gumdrop Candy Mountain is pretty fucking expensive. Maybe there should be some other options?

It ain't the potential buyers who value the fire services. It is the other people in the area who need to be concerned about an out of control conflagration that threatens their property.

The tragedy of the commons is something a market has a hard time solving. Even if you privatize the entire commons. Fire doesn't respect property boundaries.

[JohnDonne]

@ Fife:

Subsidizing healthcare doesn't create more sick people, but it might create more patients.

Claiming that subsidizing homeless services creates more total homeless is about as sensible as saying healthcare subsidies creates sick people.

So here's a little fun history story -

When they found diamonds in Africa, those who sought a living moved to Africa.

When they found gold in California; those who sought a living moved to California.

When they found out heroin users get free gibs in Seatle, those who sought to live free while high on heroin, moved to Seattle.

We get "snowbirds," every year, from (mostly) New York & Canada. There's no snow here, hence the reason they come here, they don't want snow. If it suddenly starts snowing here, they will stop coming here in the winter.

People go where the things they want are readily available. Uh... DUH?

So then homeless services don't actually create more total homeless? That was my point Kath.

[Kath]

Kthanksbye... Your logic circuits are clearly not firing.

[Fife]

I don't pretend to have the answer.

But, for fun, we can look at deregulation. In California, to develop a plot, there needs to be road access that can accommodate fire/emergency services. Building that access can be prohibitively expensive.

Good regulation?

Like everything, "it depends." Do the people who are potential buyers value fire/emergency services at a level to justify paying for what might be to other people appear as prohibitively expensive? What kind of insurance against loss is available, or even desirable?

Who should decide what is an appropriate level of fire/emergency services? The demand market, or rent-seekers who are looking for a vein to tap?

Gumdrop Candy Mountain is pretty fucking expensive. Maybe there should be some other options?

It ain't the potential buyers who value the fire services. It is the other people in the area who need to be concerned about an out of control conflagration that threatens their property.

The tragedy of the commons is something a market has a hard time solving. Even if you privatize the entire commons. Fire doesn't respect property boundaries.

Nobody offers fire insurance for full reimbursement value in California at a market price?

I had no idea Californians were so exposed to loss. Sounds like a shitty place to live if that's the case.

Maybe environmental hazards should be a consideration for people spending their money on deciding on where to live.

[DBTrek]

@ Fife:

Subsidizing healthcare doesn't create more sick people, but it might create more patients.

Claiming that subsidizing homeless services creates more total homeless is about as sensible as saying healthcare subsidies creates sick people.

Must be why places with and without homeless services have the exact same ratio of homeless people.
Right?

Right?

lulz

Or the places without homeless services basically pawned their problem off on the cities that are actually accountable to their own needy. Why is this concept this so difficult for you?

So cities that subsidized homeless services wound up with more homeless. AKA whatever you subsidize you get more of.
Odd, you were saying the exact opposite just above.

Oops.

[JohnDonne]

Must be why places with and without homeless services have the exact same ratio of homeless people.
Right?

Right?

lulz

Or the places without homeless services basically pawned their problem off on the cities that are actually accountable to their own needy. Why is this concept this so difficult for you?

So you're saying the city that subsidized homeless services wound up with more homeless. AKA whatever you subsidize you get more of.
Odd, you were saying the exact opposite just above.

Oops.

Not to be dissing you, but you shouldn't be acting retarded when you're only several I.Q. points from the real thing.

I already said, when you subsidize homeless services, there are more homeless services, not more total homeless people.

For example, there are formerly homeless people living in affordable housing that would have been homeless without it, thus the entire population of the United states of homeless people has been reduced, even if more homeless people might be attracted to the area to get services.

Not the brightest person, you think that means more homeless people were "created" and thus homeless services are bad.

A smart person, and by extension a smart society would create more affordable housing in their own areas to reduce the total population of homeless even further, thus helping to solve the problem.

Just shuffling populations away from your area to someone else's area only creates the illusion that the problem is solved. Kind of like the guy who throws his dog shit from his yard into his neighbor's yard. Get it now?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Like everything, "it depends." Do the people who are potential buyers value fire/emergency services at a level to justify paying for what might be to other people appear as prohibitively expensive? What kind of insurance against loss is available, or even desirable?

Who should decide what is an appropriate level of fire/emergency services? The demand market, or rent-seekers who are looking for a vein to tap?

Gumdrop Candy Mountain is pretty fucking expensive. Maybe there should be some other options?

It ain't the potential buyers who value the fire services. It is the other people in the area who need to be concerned about an out of control conflagration that threatens their property.

The tragedy of the commons is something a market has a hard time solving. Even if you privatize the entire commons. Fire doesn't respect property boundaries.

Nobody offers fire insurance for full reimbursement value in California at a market price?

I had no idea Californians were so exposed to loss. Sounds like a shitty place to live if that's the case.

Maybe environmental hazards should be a consideration for people spending their money on deciding on where to live.

Funny thing is, people value their homes and possessions higher than the market value.

And, environmental hazards have been considered, and it has been considered that anyone contributing to the potential hazard should contribute to the mitigation.
Not for nothing, but what is that old adage about the value of prevention versus the value of cures?

As I figure it, the question is whether free riders are worse than rent seekers. The answer determines the rest of one's economic ideas.

[DBTrek]

Not to be dissing you, but you shouldn't be acting retarded when you're only several I.Q. points from the real thing.

I already said, when you subsidize homeless services, there are more homeless services, not more total homeless people.

For example, there are formerly homeless people living in affordable housing that would have been homeless without it, thus the entire population of the United states of homeless people has been reduced, even if more homeless people might be attracted to the area to get services.

Not the brightest person, you think that means more homeless people were "created" and thus homeless services are bad.

A smart person, and by extension a smart society would create more affordable housing in their own areas to reduce the total population of homeless even further, thus helping to solve the problem.

Just shuffling populations away from your area to someone else's area only creates the illusion that the problem is solved. Kind of like the guy who throws his dog shit from his yard into his neighbor's yard. Get it now?

... and that was a long lecture by someone who is completely wrong aimed at someone who is completely right.
Bravo.

Subsidize the homeless lifestyle, behold - more homeless. Whatever you subsidize you get more of.
Try again.

[JohnDonne]

If it was my job to make your argument for you, I'm sure I could find at least something. You've got the moral hazard theory, just gotta find some data to prove your point. Why don't you find some data?

[DBTrek]

If it was my job to make your argument for you, I'm sure I could find at least something. You've got the moral hazard theory, just gotta find some data to prove your point. Why don't you find some data?

You've already conceded that providing a more homeless services attracts the homeless from places that do not. I don't need to prove what you already agree with, even if you don't realize you agree.