Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Mardoc]

So fundamentally this is one of those situations where it wasn't planned to look like it does, it just sort of grew, with one change on top of another, trying to fix the pressing issue of the day without paying attention to side effects. Like the US tax code or health care system.

Which means change is either going to be very minor and evolutionary (banning the one type of cladding), or completely starting over from scratch, nowhere in between. Because anything medium sized will hurt someone specific in a big way, while either giving out general benefits that are too small to notice, or being written/administered in a way that someone connected to power ends up rich.

[Mardoc]

Of course, that's all hunky-dory until you take zoning into account. In large cities, people don't build as many apartments as are required, they build only as many as are zoned, the sector is in permanent deficit. If there is an unsatisfied demand for expensive flats, how do you force people to build cheap ones?

On this specific point - you don't have to. Just zone for more housing in total, and all the prices will drop, resulting in a greater stock of cheap flats that used to command higher prices. The only people who lose are the landlords, who are apparently the government, which explains why it doesn't happen.

[darrelljs]

So fundamentally this is one of those situations where it wasn't planned to look like it does, it just sort of grew, with one change on top of another, trying to fix the pressing issue of the day without paying attention to side effects.  Like the US tax code or health care system.

A bit long for QotM, but...QotM.

Darrell

[Bacchus]

Of course, that's all hunky-dory until you take zoning into account. In large cities, people don't build as many apartments as are required, they build only as many as are zoned, the sector is in permanent deficit. If there is an unsatisfied demand for expensive flats, how do you force people to build cheap ones?

On this specific point - you don't have to. Just zone for more housing in total, and all the prices will drop, resulting in a greater stock of cheap flats that used to command higher prices. The only people who lose are the landlords, who are apparently the government, which explains why it doesn't happen.

Not at all, if you zone liberally, and without restriction, what will be built, in London at least, are luxury blocks at above-average prices. You have to appreciate what London is -- it's a target for either relocation or a second (third, fourth) home for pretty much the entire world, starting with the ultra-rich. Arab sheikhs, Ukrainian oligarchs, American fund managers, Indian moguls, French footballers, Chinese property barons, Madonna and Angelina Jolie -- London is even more attractive than New York, for a whole set of reasons, but starting with the simple fact of geographical proximity to ... well, almost everywhere. Basically, if market forces had it, London would soon be Monaco writ large, which isn't in the plans of anyone in power, for better or for worse. (here is a fun example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ondon.html)

[Mardoc]

Not at all, if you zone liberally, and without restriction, what will be built, in London at least, are luxury blocks at above-average prices. You have to appreciate what London is -- it's a target for either relocation or a second (third, fourth) home for pretty much the entire world, starting with the ultra-rich. Arab sheikhs, Ukrainian oligarchs, American fund managers, Indian moguls, French footballers, Chinese property barons, Madonna and Angelina Jolie -- London is even more attractive than New York, for a whole set of reasons, but starting with the simple fact of geographical proximity to ... well, almost everywhere. Basically, if market forces had it, London would soon be Monaco writ large, which isn't in the plans of anyone in power, for better or for worse. (here is a fun example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ondon.html)

London is a lot bigger than Monaco (250-750X, depending on whether you count land area or population).  This scenario isn't actually possible.

If literally everyone in the world with a pre-tax income greater than 150,000 pounds/year bought a second home in London  the population of London would increase from 8.8 million to 11.5 million, assuming none of them are already there (source= http://www.globalrichlist.com/ ), and all can keep their income when moving away from their job.  London's popular, but I don't think it's popular enough for literally everyone in the world with a strong income.

Sure, I believe that the first renovation might be aimed at the super wealthy.  Maybe even the tenth.  But you're not going to end up comparable to Monaco and its 38,000.

[MJW (ya that one)]

If Trump doesn't leverage the fact that the budget must be passed now (wall, health care subsidies) the GOP won't be able to do anything until Trump leaves office. Holding the budget hostage is the only way to get 100% on your side and do anything and getting 100% on your side is the only way now that people realize that it's never worth it to work with the other party when you are out of power. 20% congressional approval is not sustainable. I'm sure that the GOP won't have what it takes, thinking things could get better and selfishly wanting someone other than Paul Ryan to matter, and allow the DEMs to take over in 2024 and get in the first strike.

[T-hawk]

20% congressional approval is not sustainable.

But it is. Each congressman just needs 51% in their own district (or even less than that in multi-way races.) It doesn't matter if everyone else rates them at 0%. Congress can stay under 20% forever if the reds keep voting 51% red and blues vote 51% blue.

[AdrienIer]

There also seems to be a lot of "congress is crap but my congressman/woman is ok" , hence why incumbents always seem to win

[MJW (ya that one)]

20% congressional approval is not sustainable.

But it is.  Each congressman just needs 51% in their own district (or even less than that in multi-way races.)  It doesn't matter if everyone else rates them at 0%.  Congress can stay under 20% forever if the reds keep voting 51% red and blues vote 51% blue.

That is true. But what is not sustainable is not being able to do anything. This causes a transition were the parties change the rules so you get kicked out of the caucus if you rebel. What happens is that the minority realizes that they don't have to worry about reelection anymore because the party-out of power gains seats. So they vote "no" on everything. This forces the big party to get to 100% to do anything. The government to become increasingly ossified until the hardcore partisans figure out they can use the budget to force the moderates to surrender because the moderates cannot use the threat of working together with the other party anymore. The budget must be passed. This transition was delayed in USA because the system was set up in such a way to create an artificial number of competitive districts but that system has failed. For example in 2006 there were 30 house GOP districts were Kerry won but now there are only 10 GOP districts were Clinton won.    

The GOP did come close on healthcare but only because of the coercive effect of failing a promise of seven years.

[scooter]

There also seems to be a lot of "congress is crap but my congressman/woman is ok" , hence why incumbents always seem to win

I'm not even sure it's that. Most people couldn't tell you who their representative was off the top of their head. They'd probably insist they dislike their representative too, and then change their mind when they found out their rep is from their preferred party.

Very few people vote in congressional primaries, and in the generals, most people just pick the political party they prefer with very little regard to the candidate. So really, in red and blue districts the people who care enough to vote in congressional primaries decide who goes to congress. No surprise that this group of people also on average tend to be a bit more ideologically driven than the others. And of course, the vast majority of districts are not competitive for a variety of reasons, so the primary challenges, if they happen at all, are all that matter. It's amazing how few votes literally run this whole country.

Basically, our voting system is awful.