Warren is academic expert bankruptcy and commercial law. She is third most cited academic in her specialty. She is pretty good at economics especially when it comes to consumer behavior and one of the best politicians overall.

"The Vanishing Middle Class" (2007) is a good book.

She is also a consummate politician, who has been known to say misleading and inflammatory things for political gain. She has also been busy steaming leftwards, a move that may endear her to young hyper-liberal voters, but does very little to help my country move past the political chasm that has opened up, and is crippling our government.

I don't think that she is a bad person, but I do believe that she is bad for American politics right now.

Not to get too off topic, but I have a hard time blaming the left for the current political divide in the United States. Saying that someone who pushes leftwards is bad for American politics because they're not closer to the "center" seems like promoting a false equivalence.

I agree, and I don't blame the left as much as I blame the right. I do however think that exacerbating the divide is a bad thing.

But anything but going closer to the Right is "exacerbating the divide."

If you don't think both sides play a part in the precipitous spike in polarizing political discourse, then frankly you are ignorant.

Uhh. One side saying "kids shouldn't take six figures of debt to go to the college we've collectively insisted they need to go to" and the other saying "blood and soil, Jews will not replace us" are not the same thing, yo.

This. I liked her when she primarily concerned herself with consumer advocacy.

The political chasm is because the democrats keep moving right to try and win over moderate republicans the republicans keep moving into crazy territory.

Moving leftwards is absolutely the best thing the democrats could possibly do. further left policies are popular. Further left policies address the massive amount of voters who don't give a shit because neither party represents anything but corporations.

America could use 50 more senators that were willing to start moving much further left.

Because we aren't trying to win an argument here. It isn't about being in the right or winning, it is about successfully running a country.

The Right, particularly the "Freedom" Caucus goons, are specifically opposed to successfully running a country. They resent the very existence of government intervening on behalf of people at the expense of their donors. It is impossible to successfully run a country if you give those people veto power over the legislative process. They are here to engage in sabotage, not progress.

That still doesn't answer the question of why the Right isn't blamed for not reaching out to the Left. And given that they're the ones in power, it's their responsibility to do the reaching out.

The democrats just need to move even further right than their current neoliberal catering exclusively to donors platform.

That would close the gap.

The fact that she is an expert in bankruptcy and commercial law should make you extremely skeptical of her economics credentials. She spends her time in that domain, not the domain of macroeconomics.

Warren is a lawyer, not an economist.

Her academic career in that field is very impressive, but that has nothing to with an understanding of the science of Economics, which is notoriously full of counterintuitive and misunderstood truths.

This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Credentialed economists are not the only people who can make claims about economics. If you can substantively debate her assertion then please do. Otherwise you are not contributing.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean, but isn't this the exact opposite of an appeal to authority? The claim is that she's not qualified because she's not a credentialed economist.

(I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Warren's background to have a substantiated opinion either way, though I certainly don't doubt her intelligence.)

It’s an appeal to the authority of the economics establishment. Because Sen. Warren doesn’t teach at one of few named Economics institutions she is not allowed to speak on matters of economics.

Nokinside made an appeal to authority when he described Senator Warren's qualifications.

BurningFrog is arguing that that is not correct because Senator Warren is not an authority in the first place.

You could still argue that she is correct; but (assuming BurningFrog's judgements on her qualifications), that arguement must be on the merits of her arguements, not her qualifications.

She is qualified to speak on the matter. not as a credentialed economist, but as a legal scholar and a legislator.

It seems you didn't read the comment I was responding to?

In it, Nokinside claimed that Warren is an expert in Economics due to her academic career. That's what I'm arguing against.

I of course agree that people from any background, including Warren's, can make claims about Economics that should be discussed on their merits, not dismissed (or accepted...) because of the speaker's academic background.

You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem. Warren worked in the field where she needed good economic knowledge.

>You understand economics very narrowly if you use that as the only basis of your ad hominem.

The poster doesn't understand economics at all if they think changes in relative housing prices don't affect housing supply.

I occasionally hear of Warren making statements, about economic matters, that are completely detached from reality. The problem isn't knowledge, it's judgement.

My other reply was only reply to your Ad hominem.

The actual point you make:

> anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one.

This is correct only if you consider hosing availability. When the housing contains additional value (value of education) the value of housing can increase in absolute. Include the added value from education and you see the point.

Example:

(value of housing) + (value of public education in the district) = combined value of the property

   Year 1997:
   District A: 100 + 20 = 120 
   District B: 100 + 20 = 120

   Year 2007:
   District A:  90 + 20 = 110 
   District B: 110 + 40 = 150

> In other words, anyone moving to a house in a good school district leaves an empty house in a worse one.

Exactly. More demand for a fixed supply in the "good" school district, reduced demand for a fixed supply in the "bad" one. Property taxes are in some part based on the demand for houses as reflected in the assessment price. So even assuming that the market keeps those houses occupied by owners, long term the trend will be towards larger tax revenues for the good district, which drives a larger budget for education, which in turn attracts more demand for the homes.

(sorry this post got long, I mostly wanted to stress how valuable it is for a community to equalize funding per student)

In Alberta the conservative government in the 1990s controversially consolidated county school districts into much larger ones and pooled property taxes. This basically resulted in the same dollars being spent per student regardless of where they lived. I recall a lot of limousine liberals complaining about how their schools canceled their dance programs due to the mean old conservatives, but it was a profoundly liberal move, and it resulted in an influx of resources into poorer districts. At the same time it emphasized the conservative positions of local accountability and choice.

It’s worth noting that Alberta compares favorably with Finland for math and science scores[1], and has the lowest private school enrollment in Canada. There are other factors that contribute to this, but the tax reforms in the 1990s stand out as a big factor, contributing to the provincial economy and its increasing profile in academic research.

The districts had a lot of room to experiment, and Edmonton went the furthest by basically eliminating catchment areas and making schools first-come, first-served (most parent still choose schools close to them for convenience especially in elementary, high school kids could also get free city transit passes iirc). If a school’s enrollment dropped too low it could be closed and the building would be made available for a new standard or charter school to use. They also allowed for a plethora of public charter schools based on parents and principals making proposals for empty or underutilized buildings and proving they could get enrollment. This included a school that focused on hockey, one that had a focus on cadets and Canadian history, and a high school that dispensed of organized sports in favor of excellent arts facilities. None of these schools could discriminate on enrollment (except two cases I’m aware of that got an exemption, an all-girls jr high developed to test the idea that girls would do better in STEM classes without boys present, and a school for First Nations kids that focused on their culture).

I’m always puzzled that I do rarely see governors and mayors pushing through similar proposals.

[1] https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2006/09/21/clever-red...

Right, but if you have a county-wide increase in property value of 10%. Good school districts might see a 20% increase while bad school districts see no appreciation.

Also, there's first time homebuyers and deaths or people leaving the country/country to consider. People enter and exit the market all the time, it's not a perfect 1:1 swap all the time.

I think it's a valid point that county/state/national economic growth is rarely uniform.

You'd think that the good school districts are areas with new construction, because whoever can afford it will want to move away from the plebs. So you have big, new, expensive housing. On the other hand you'll predict unoccupied residences on the undesirable areas.

This is true in my neck of the woods.

I don't think it's an uneducated answer, but even reasonable ideas in economics are generally somewhat speculative.

It is a scarcity, after all. Scarcities can have net different economic consequences.