Grifters are perfectly happy to lie on dozens of pointless forms because they know they’re going to grift a bunch of free money at the end. It’s the people who want to get down to doing the actual work that don’t have the patience for it.

An overly complicated process just encourages grifters because there’s more ways for them to create confusion and conceal what they’re doing.

It also encourages well-connected people.

And massive corporations who are extremely profit driven.

I was born in a very small town in California. They didn't want to become just another highway stop for shopping. They wanted to keep their small town flavor/community/charm.

So of course they made TONS of rules and roadblocks to stop "The wrong people" from building there.

It's now a highway stop with a bestbuy and the like....because it turns out that the massive corporate chains can pay people to sit there and jump through your hoops, but the smaller well meaning community developer will just say fuck it and move.

> will just say fuck it and move.

Nothing wrong with that

People are free to choose what suits them best

By the principle of charity I sympathize with this, but this doesn't hold up without evidence. For example, what are the penalties for lying/grifting in this area? Does this all vary with the degree of corruption in the particular state/city/town? Or is it all corrupted to varying degrees nationwide?

Historically the penalties for grifting these programs are nothing in the vast majority of cases, if it's even discovered. The problem is a bunch of frontloaded vetting that is never followed up on.

So these forms and processes can be essentially spammed and nobody gets any real fine or other legal penalty, even when flagrant criminality is found? It seems like there would be major incentive for press outlets to expose this as government waste or capitalist greed, so I would be curious to see any existing journalism about this.

Jumping through hurdles to build confidence is exactly what con artists are good at doing though. They are more likely to invest and thrive in bureaucratic processes because they have a much higher expected return than competitors.

The more arduous you make it, the more likely you price out people who actually do work.

I don't believe that's simply a linear relationship all the way down to zero. You're talking in most cases about tens of millions of dollars in NPV over the usable capital life of the projects in question, if not an order of magnitude or 2 higher. I'm not equipped to critique the OP on every point, but I don't learn what's wheat and what's chaff from his Kafkaesque description of it all.

The government contracting system in my experience and learning, all the way back to Boss Tweed, is a MAJOR source of corruption and theft. ALWAYS sold with the best of intentions.

Just like a home lock, this won't keep out the dedicated grifter. But it'll make things a lot harder for someone looking to make a quick buck in an unethical way.

I think this example might be more telling that what you intended. A lock is meant to keep out everyone without the key, while the intent of the bureaucratic process is to keep out bad actors while letting the well intended ones through, without them needing a key to bypass the system entirely.

Maybe you missed it, but that's exactly my point. With the exception being that a dedicated bad actor won't have a real problem getting through (e.g. breaking the door, lock, or another window, or by picking it; it's really not difficult).

You haven't said anything real here. Everyone agrees you should have to do at least some extra paperwork to get the tax breaks. The point of contention is how much paperwork. Is it 1 page? Is it 100 pages? Is it 10,000 pages? A day of extra paperwork or 5 years of extra paperwork? How many hurdles exactly are needed? That's what the discussion is. Many people think that what this Twitter thread is describing is too many hurdles. Are you saying you think this seems like a perfectly correct amount of hurdles?

Yes. You're talking about people asking for special dispensation in money and legal rights that get granted by agency policies and board votes, something far removed from the democratic process of the voters who don't get these privileges.

I would draw a hard line at disparate arbitrary and capricious allowances, i.e., making an affordable housing developer in a poor area jump through a ton of hoops, but letting a polluting power plant developer sail right through.

But seeing as this process is an exception to equality under the law granted at the whim of a board that may not even be elected in some cases, I have no qualms with making it by default really hard.

You want to change zoning laws? Fair. Do it for everybody via the elected town council or state legislature where the public has input.

"The point of contention is how much paperwork. Is it 1 page? Is it 100 pages? Is it 10,000 pages? A day of extra paperwork or 5 years of extra paperwork?"

What is this argument?

If you hire a lawyer to defend you in coirt, wikk you measure how goos he is by the amount of paperwork he submittes to the court?

No, you should have to jump through enough hurdles to prove you aren't a grifter.

Whether "enough" means "a lot" or "each and every hurdle that is already in place" is precisely what's at issue here. But I suppose it's convenient to take the side of maximum administrative burden if your goal is to minimize the amount of housing that is built.

The end result of that is that low income housing doesn't get built and market rate housing that doesn't have unnecessary and burdensome regulatory requirements gets built instead.

> usually in special variance of zoning that the rest of us have to abide by

The solution is to remove the zoning in the first place, not add more requirements to get an exception to it.

Today's low income housing was yesterday's market rate housing. Single family homes do not have affordability requirements and never have any issues with zoning. Multi family housing does but then it has all these fees and affordable requirements placed on it, making it more expensive than it should be and reducing the potential output in # of units.

Its more like today's 95th percentile housing was yesterdays low income housing

Regulations such as zoning are enormous social experiments.

Experiments should have control groups! Where are the control group cities?

Why do experimental social regulations have to be universal? Would life without them be great? Would it be terrible? I doubt that mankind evolved to require so much micromanagement in all aspects of life.

Houston Texas has no zoning laws. Cant really say they do any better or worse than comprable cities with zoning laws.

Please please read about this before repeating it. They have most of the nonsense in zoning, just written differently.

Do they really? You can just build a factory in your back yard and pursue the American Dream? Or do they still effectively have zoning laws?

While Houston technically doesn't have zoning they do have defacto zoning laws that look like other city zoning just more broken up.

Deed restrictions, density restrictions, lot size restrictions, buffering ordinances, tax incremental investment zones, history preservations, airport zoning, neighborhood petitioning, etc.

That's not true though. They have the same rules, they just call them ordinances.

i think you just have to phrase this differently: newly built housing is not cost effective to sell to low income people

There is zero technical reason why housing can't be cheap as hell in this day and age. It's all due to government restrictions. And I'm not talking about shanty towns either - that's what you get when legal housing is too expensive to build!

Indeed, housing can be very cheap. See military barracks or flop houses/SROs. Housing is expensive as a means to keep poor people away from the middle class.

Then why can't you build a perfectly fine cabin on your own rural property without government inspectors coming around and micromanaging.

US/Canadian automobiles are also needlessly expensive, there are many awesome vehicles sold in Mexico etc., like the Hilux, and I don't see it as a conspiracy to keep poor people down, but an overabundance of caution from bureaucrats covering their ass and regulatory capture.

It's really hard to argue the libertarian point of view because you're always trying to point out the "unseen costs".

The secondary market makes universal standards generally helpful. As much as everyone says buyer beware you have to beware a lot less when housing and vehicles were built to a certain standard.

Having to track down whoever built the house to figure out what standards they followed is painful enough when the house is a few years old let alone decades.

Similarly vehicles safety isn't just about the driver (although that is very important) some of the safety changes have been made to minimize impact on others. While everyone bitches about easy to scratch bumpers those bumpers help almost accidents not result in terrible things for pedestrians.

Not to say there isn't regulatory capture or that the rules are the correct strictness. It is just it is less "unseen costs" and more "things people don't think about" of course the only reason they don't think about it is the bureaucracy.

Dude, it's a cabin. It's made out of logs. You should at least be able to opt-out. If you're concerned about resale value then you can pursue a NACHI seal of approval.

You should be free to drive a car with friggin spikes on the front, and the insurance industry should be free to charge you accordingly for the liability risk. That's freedom.

"You should be free to drive a car with friggin spikes on the front"

Then I shouks be free to shoot your car on sight if it gets withing 100 meters of my children? You can't bring them back from the dead

Now we're talkin'!

On the topic of housing: As long as it is obviously not normal housing I agree. If people want weird bespoke things in the middle of nowhere then that is different. If you are building your cabin an hour from town I think the government getting ahead of a housing shortage by ensuring your house can be available when you inevitably sell it is fine for everyone.

After all the city gets a house for the supply and you get your money back when you sell. Statistically everyone sells on long time scales after all.

On the topic of cars: that is stupid. 16.5 people died per day in 2019 in the US from being hit by cars. It is in everyone's best interest to bring that number down. It was double that in 1979 and while no one thing necessarily explains a big change like that newer safety requirements have helped a lot.

To be clear while recently some vehicle safety tests that protect the passengers from weird impacts have come up nearly as many regulations are actually related to protecting pedestrians whenever possible. Obviously hitting someone at highway speeds can't be helped but you would be surprised how much technology can reduce injuries in more minor accidents (and by extension reduce deaths in the non-extreme cases).

So you're saying that people should not be allowed to build log cabins because they don't contribute to your definition of acceptable housing stock? What if someone would prefer to live in a log cabin than commie block apartment? Is there any human freedom safe from such communistic arguments?

Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.

Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it. Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?

> So you're saying that people should not be allowed to build log cabins because they don't contribute to your definition of acceptable housing stock? What if someone would prefer to live in a log cabin than commie block apartment? Is there any human freedom safe from such communistic arguments?

Huh? That isn't what I said. I said "there are benefits". You can totally build a log cabin in jurisdictions that require inspections you just need to do a little more than setup some logs... Additionally I bet the definition of "house" is more flexible than you imply from your offhand information.

> Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.

I mean I can point to regulation changes resulting in additional safety but you don't believe that at all. The reality is vehicle safety has trended very closely to regulations if you pay any attention. Some minimal amount of safety is provided but it isn't like consumers are asking what happens if you impact a another care at 55 MPH vs 35 MPH.

> Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it.

That is an incorrect statement. California has a minimum liability for injury of $15,000. We do not as a society agree that a human life is worth that little.

> Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?

You are just making shit up now. Feel free to quote any sources rather than making up stuff.

Apparently you can in Wyoming, as long as you’re far back enough from the road. Haven’t verified.

> and I don't see it as a conspiracy to keep poor people down, but an overabundance of caution from bureaucrats covering their ass and regulatory capture.

These are one in the same. Regulation is a euphemism for corruption, market manipulation, favoritism, cronie "capitalism", and so on. The intention might not be to keep the status quo (e.g., poor remain as such) but that - time and again - is the result.

Given these are the facts. This is the tradition. It's not all that difficult to argue the libertarian pov because if nothing else it's obvious what is not working.

One way or another, we all live and die by the market.

Not in housing. We’ve MADE housing expensive; the market would be making it cheaper if we simply didn’t prevent people from building more.

I agree, but that means we shouldn’t call it market-rate housing.

That’s a fascinating idea and I like it.

I can put my money to work anywhere on earth anytime I want with a few clicks of a mouse.

Make it less profitable to provide housing and my money goes somewhere else, could be anywhere, I don't care. Make providing affordable housing the most profitable thing I can do, and you will have affordable housing.

I'm not jumping through any hoops for you. Your choice.

Affordable housing is a band aid at best. Mostly it’s not even that because of pathologies.

What I want is an affordable housing market. If I have to pay you to put up units and then impose rules about who and how you sell or rent them, I’ve already lost.

I believe you just justified taxation.

You want my money, and in return, you will give me....what?

Nothing.

You have nothing to offer me, other than taxation.

Have a nice night.

Affordable housing, roads, utilities, criminal justice, social safety net, healthcare, or other social needs may not be profitable but are still needed for the functioning of society. Hence, taxes are justified as charitable giving is insufficient to cover the costs and a functioning society is almost universally desirable over autarky.

At least, that was my takeaway from your original comment describing the behavioral characteristics regarding the affordable housing market.

Proving you’re not a grifter should not require $100k of forms, working around grumpy neighbors and useless counsel members, and dealing with the degree of arbitrary decision making that’s apparently involved.

one fundamental problem is that this many hoops for these small projects just don't make much economical sense. (that's why there's only so few of "free money" projects.)

basically this is the curse of the low density again. in denser cities where building a ~500 unit apartment complex takes the same approval more affordable units are going to enter the market.

I know someone who works on the deal side of affordable housing construction, and has an urban planning masters. From everything she’s said about it, it seems like it would be a really crappy grift. There’s basically no money in it even if you tried to cut a bunch of corners. She works for a not for profit developer that’s well capitalized and they can barely make it work.

These overly burdensome rules are just like all the rules and paperwork imposed on welfare recipients.

The conservative strategy is "fine, if we can't kill this social program, we'll just drown the whole process in paperwork to make people go away...under the excuse of preventing fraud and slash the funding of the agency that processes it, and do our best to stuff the agency full of conservative bench-warmers who will gleefully, but as slowly as possible, reject paperwork for the slightest infraction."

Getting WIC benefits (food stamps for pregnant or new mothers) involves multiple in-person interviews per year (which means taking off time from any work, and usually traveling to a regional office that isn't accessible via public transit)...those interviews seem singularly focused on making sure that the pregnant lady is still pregnant, then actually produced a child, and then later, still has the child under their care. Because, you know, there's all these women who file for WIC, get abortions but then keep claiming WIC benefits.

The government is very, very concerned about getting scammed out of a maximum benefit per month of: one gallon of juice, 6 gallons of milk, 2 pounds of cereal, 1lb of cheese, 2 dozen eggs, $11 for fruit and veg, 2lb of bread, 1lb of beans or other legumes, and 1 lb of peanut butter.

How about we let the grifters build the housing and then take it from them afterward if they turn out to be grifters?

It's been my experience that the farther you let an undesirable process proceed, the higher the chance that it will reach its undesirable conclusion. The enforcers will make decisions based on sunk costs; there will be more loopholes for the grifters to exploit; the time demands of due process will let them manipulate to their benefit; and there will be higher consequences for disrupting the status quo (e.g. there will be people actual living in the buildings already).

Here's an even better suggestion: withdraw federal and state funding for roads, schools, water and sewage &c if housing targets are not met. The local NIMBYS will come around once the potholes become too bad and the school's roof starts leaking.

No, that's not what's going to happen.

What's going to happen is that they will start voting for the most blatant grifters running for public office, because they're the ones who are going to lie to them about solving this without raising taxes.

Federal contribution to the things you mentioned is rather low in NIMBY areas, so NIMBYs will be more than happy to pay it. Seriously, do the math. The federal funds do not magically appear out of nowhere, they are collected from the very same NIMBYs, and it’s only a small fraction of their total federal tax bill.

> NIMBYs will be more than happy to pay it. Seriously, do the math.

Citation please.

We know what the math is due to towns near the border of Los Angeles along the I-15 corridor. Thsoe suburbs that decided they wanted to not be a part of Los Angeles received a very rude awakening as to what stuff really costs.

Okay, so how much the stuff really costs?

As I said, the NIMBYs are already paying for all this stuff. The federal money is not a charity of some third parties, it’s what the very same people paid in taxes in the first place.

Sounds like a way to end up with shoddy, dangerous housing or incomplete or impossible to complete projects.

Most of the hoops are things like performing endless studies of traffic and infrastructure with a narrow set of grifting consulting firms even if the same study has already recently been done.

Didn't China try something like this and end up with crumbling skyscrapers that were totally uninhabitable and expensive to replace?

> you SHOULD have to jump through a lot of hurdles to prove you aren't a grifter.

Agreed, but I wonder if the hurdles that are currently in place are even remotely optimal.

Would it be funny if they were not, and no one really cared?

They aren’t. It’s largely an endless stream of studies that have to be performed by big name consultancies and months of public hearings and community board meetings. Any slip up or unexpected delay can sink to project. None of it ever has anything to do with the safety or suitability of the actual structure. Maybe the architectural review is at least relevant.

one big problem is that elected officials are involved.

these rules should be set and the application validated somewhere around state level. if the city wants to do their own thing, sure, they can set up their own separate system (to provide more funds for example in exchange for more/stricter rules), but that should be optional for the developer.

>one big problem is that elected officials are involved.

Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else.

It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s

Me? I prefer a dictatorship. But, of course, only if I'm the dictator.

Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]

[0] often attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Winston Churchill

> Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else.

This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.

> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s

Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.

> Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]

It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.

>This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic,

It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring?

>and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues.

Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.

Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?

>We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.

Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).

That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.

Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?

>> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s

>Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.

I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis:

   Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while 
   this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, 
   it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The 
   School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly 
   unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the 
   banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, 
   there is no need for us to discuss it any further 
   here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem 
   analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of 
   dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely 
   hypothetical. They were all, one might say, 
   nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely 
   different way.

> Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]

>It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.

Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more?

Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol...

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF]

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF]

https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ...

In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?

I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

> It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring?

Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.

> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.

I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.

> Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?

It's an idea worth considering imo.

> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).

110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.

> That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.

Indeed we do - whether this design "works" as intended/perceived is another matter though.

> Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?

I think "we the people" would benefit in many ways from a serious first principles based investigation into a complete rewrite of democracy. At the very least, it would be an extremely educational and maybe even ~enlightening undertaking, depending on how one went about it of course (putting The Experts in charge might not be an ideal approach, for obvious reasons).

> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.

Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.

> Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area.

Has the truth been revealed?

> Perhaps you should learn more?

Surely! And perhaps you should as well.

> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."

This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.

> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).

I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.

> In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government?

I consider such things to be unknown - if one would like knowledge, then there are no shortages of examples of how to go about acquiring it - this scenario is surely trickier than many, but human beings have demonstrated themselves to be quite clever, when they set their mind to something.

> Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?

I am open to all ideas, but have a bias towards competent coordination in complex systems.

> I look forward to having a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.

Thank you for the kind words, and I look forward to it as well.

>> It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring?

>Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.

What, specifically do you find illegitemate about American democracy?

Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interepreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"

I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.

However, I don't see it as illegitemate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitemate?"

>> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.

>I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

>And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.

It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation.

As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.

That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.

>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).

>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.

I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth," which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.

For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.

>>I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.

>Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.

In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.

I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?

>> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."

>This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.

That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.

What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.

That makes it really difficult to take you seriously.

>> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).

>I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.

I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here. As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.

I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.

And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?

Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not. Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.

That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.

You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.

I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.

Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.

I hope you have a good day.

[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

Preface: as per usual, I am continuing on with my combative/antagonistic/evasive/abstract/mumbo-jumbo-seeming speaking style - apolgies in advance, but I truly believe that someone should be trying something different, consider the state of affairs that we find ourselves in (~all the problems in the world).

Also: excuse spelling/grammar errors, I will try to do a cleanup pass a bit later.

> What, specifically do you find illegitimate about American democracy?

That it (at least implicitly) claims to be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", that the projected and perceived as accurate narrative is that it exercises "the will of the people". When in fact, the will of the people is not known, because very little attempt has been made to determine what the will of the people is (and other things: "the people" are, generally speaking, "not too bright", and the causality behind this unfortunate circumstances is not known or well investigated, but if you were to dig into it, what you will typically find at the end of the strong is: the government).

I could go on and on and on, and based on extensive experience discussing such topics with a very wide range of people, I confidently predict that if we were to get into the fine-grained details, before long you would balk, you would accuse me of "overthinking", being "pedantic", start making various "ya well" style excuses, and so on and so forth.

Or another way of putting it might be something like:

  select distinct behavior_type from human_activity where topic like '%government%' and reality_level='perception'

I propose to you here today that human beings have a way about them, and that by virtue of you being a human being (and being raised and shaped by the cultures you exist within), you (to some degree) exhibit these behavior, I suspect with not 100% conscious awareness that this is the way it is.

At this point, a typical cards that are typically played (by my counterpoint in the conversation, or dang if he was to encounter this thread) is something along the lines of "we can't know anything, nihilism", "you're talking metaphysical jibber jabber" "your words have no meaning", "HN is not the place for this sort of X", etc. This sort of thing, I propose to you, is your nature.

You want detail? I am at your disposal, and I suspect my willingness to discuss what is true (or may be, or not) can easily outlast your ability to remain curious about what is true.

> Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"

"the lack of detail is pretty telling" is an interesting (but not uncommon) phrase. When you say this, what are you referring to? I will take a guess: might it be ~reality?

> I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.

To my style of thinking, this is one item (with an unknown epistemic status, and an unknown comprehensive-causality-weighted importance), in a set of utterly unknown (but perhaps imagined as known) size.

> However, I don't see it as illegitimate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitimate?"

I propose that a highly optimal way to think about such things is as a tautological statement + question: "What makes American democracy illegitimate, is that which makes American democracy illegitimate. So then: what is it that makes American democracy illegitimate, accurately and comprehensively?"

Do you possess the answer to this question? Does it seem like you possess the answer to this question? Do you care what the answer to this questions is? And when considering such questions, be mindful if your mind is conceptualizing them as binaries (True/False) or a spectrum (the degree to which each "is" (or may be) True/False).

Do you like this sort of thinking? In my experience, most people not only do not like it, but they reject it outright, often with strong emotions and supreme confidence. I believe that this is our nature, at least for now. (Here it may be useful to consider the history of the aggregate conceptualization of (aka: ~reality) African Americans by the population of the USA, and elsewhere.) Sometimes humanity can modify the fabric of reality, but usually they seem unable (and unwilling).

(continued...)

> It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation.

This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week.

> As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.

Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way).

> That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.

Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite?

>>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).

>>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.

> I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"...

Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.)

> which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes.

I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance).

> As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.

By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end?

> For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.

Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works.

>>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.

>> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.

> In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.

Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said?

> I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad...

The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.)

> ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?

Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using.

>> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.

> That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.

I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above.

> What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.

Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps!

(continued...)

> That makes it really difficult to take you seriously.

Agreed - this does indeed seem to be the nature of the default mind, as it has been trained (mainly in the AI sense of the word, but also in the ~propaganda/culture sense). But to your credit, you are exerting substantially higher than average effort to discuss and understand - credit where credit is due and all that (gosh....have I committed a cultural faux pas here? If so, sincere apologies, but limited).

> I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here.

Not at all? If you had, would you necessarily know?

> As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.

Roughly: https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-...

> I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.

A basis to (subconsciously) classify someone is not necessary, much of that is performed for us automatically (thanks evolution!).

> And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?

In return I ask: what is it you are talking about here? Reality?

> Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not.

Very approximately, I would say what you are doing here is "humaning".

> Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.

See "theory of relativity" above.

> That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.

Which portion of the infinitely large, logically inconsistent/paradoxical/illusory/ virtual idea space would you like to discuss? And in what way? With English text on a forum? Houston, we have a problem.

> You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.

You're not wrong!

You know what? I am starting to get the feeling that you may not have a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem space you are working in, it's composition and behavior, and so forth and so on. Nor do I, of course, but then understanding is not a binary.

> I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.

Perhaps the complexity is beyond the capability of our tools. It seems to me that science has similar problems in a wide variety of ways...I wonder what they did to deal with this problem such that they could advance their field.

> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.

As am I, although I am "on the spectrum" (to put it nicely and imprecisely), so I think a common language is only a small slice of the problems we are experiencing.

> Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.

99% of the general population is focused on object level details, or some bastardized illusion of that, my interest is in where that comes from.

> I hope you have a good day.

Thanks, you as well. I realize that the way I write is hard to understand (and not only because of the subject matter), but be that as it may, I propose to you that despite this, "something" does indeed exist here, and that it is worth understanding (or at least trying to understand), assuming that you ~truly care about the things you seem to care about (generally: the well being of the people within overall humanity - now, and in the future).

PS: for some extra fun: what do you think I am "up to" "here" (and elsewhere)? I will give you a hint: I propose to you that there is a "level" of sorts that ~exists, that this level can be ~seen, and that you currently do not have the means to see it.

How's that for provocative (and hyper-confident, plausibly bordering on sheer delusion) rhetoric!!?? But then at the same time: what if it's ~true? Or maybe even more interesting: what if it scales?

https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-a...

(It's an interesting site, this genius.com - I wonder if there may be some unrealized and unharvested value there. I sometimes wonder if the same is true of the one we are on.)

I guess I should have taken my own advice[0]. Some days I'm a a little sharper than others, I guess.

And now I can't get that time back. Oh well.

Peace out.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30265781

Self-confidence and curiosity in humans can be so fleeting, but the draw to rhetoric seems to be insatiable.

Peace to you as well, fellow traveler!

I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :)

I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.

basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"

>I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :)

>I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.

Fair enough. My apologies if it seems I pushed a little hard on that. It's just that far too many people seem to take every opportunity to metaphorically roll up their newspaper and take swipes while yelling "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!"

I'm emphatically not claiming that's what you were doing, but knee-jerk condemnation of "gub'mint" is far too common in the US these days, which makes me a little over sensitive on that topic.

That idea is, at least in the US (and other democracies), ridiculous in the extreme given that we are the government, or at least we elect the folks who run it.

I agree. There are many opportunities for conflicts of interest, arbitrariness and outright graft, especially in state and local government.

That said, I'll repeat my statement from the comment to which you replied:

   You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing 
   it right, then elect someone else.

If your representatives are inept or inefficient, find some folks who aren't. If your representatives are corrupt (here's a particularly lurid case[0]), then boot them out and prosecute them where appropriate.

>basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"

Not sure how it is where you are, but we have separate "branches" where I live in NYC[1]. The Mayor (and myriad city agencies) makes up the "executive" and the city council (as well as local community boards -- at least in an advisory capacity) makes up the "legislative" branch.

They are separate entities and, just as it is in the Federal government, no legislator can simultaneously serve in the executive branch or vice versa.

I know that many (most?) parliamentary democracies don't operate that way, with sitting legislators from the ruling party/coalition serving in executive roles.

That's just not the case where I am, or in most other state and local governments in the US AFAIK.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suic...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City

Ok I feel you, what if I own a sports team and promise promise promise that that stadium you are going to pay for is going to improve the community? Is that enough proof?

How about an Amazon warehouse?

But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof.

> But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof.

Having lived in downtown San Francisco for 7 years now, I can’t help but notice how all the new highrises and fancy apartments have pushed down the prices of the normal stuff.

My current landlord tried to sell his house before we moved in and couldn’t get “enough” money for it because why pay $1,000,000 for a house from 1906 when you could pay the same for new construction across the street? Instead he had to settle for renting (to us). 3 years later and similar apartments in the area are now selling for $800,000 because there’s even more new construction around.

Rents are down too. Why pay $4000/mo to live in an old house when you can pay $4200/mo to live in a luxury highrise across the street?

This is the correct answer. The problem is the landlords and owners vote, which cause the restrictive policies on new housing.

What makes you feel that it's easier to build a stadium than subsidized housing? How many people, man-hours and money do you believe is spent on the efforts to get a ballpark or Amazon campus approved? Really believe it's less than a multifamily development?

adjusted for cost-benefit to taxpayers and profitability for developers the stadium suddenly doesn't look so good, or, um, looks amazing for those special interests.

Would be interested in an actual analysis of that, not just hand waving. A devil's advocate might say that a stadium comes with built-in jobs and attracts 10,000s of intercity spectators every week who have a lot of money burning a hole in their pocket, whereas subsidized housing brings a few families, most of whom have very little money or income.

Of course there are other metrics to consider than economic impact.

> The consensus among economists on the question of sports facility subsidies likely stems from the basic economic intuition that government subsidies ought to address some “market failure,” and economists sense that there is no compelling case to be made for sports subsidies.

see also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_subsidy

Not sure if you're either sarcastic or not. The issue is that the housing to be built is below market, and needs some special dispensation of permits, tax breaks, or direct grants.

Those commercial and leisure entities you're talking about often push for these elements too, but they usually have to promise something in return, even so far as accepting clawback provisions and fines for failing to do so. Affordable Housing builders AFAIK never have these strings attached. If you'd counter to me with examples where this wasn't part of the agreement for commercial/leisure or where it was for affordable housing, I'd completely agree those are exceptions worth a closer look.

My favorite are the developers that promise a certain percentage of affordable housing in their high dollar developments, but never ever come close to that and never get penalized later.

You can't "affordable housing" your way to cheaper housing or rent. It can help with reducing displacement, but it increases the cost of the market rate units. The overall problem is a lack of supply. Portland recently passed an IZ ordinance and it had devastating effects on new housing construction.

The municipality that I'm in lets developers ignore the state-wide law that mandates certain amounts of affordable housing to be built in new developments. The developers and real estate investors that are government officials also don't like to recuse themselves from such matters, either.

nobody even sued them or the city for damages?

Who would do the suing? The people that can barely afford the housing? Surely it's not going to be the city, as the developer is more than likely in cahoots with the people that would be doing the investigating. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I've been in/around this world too long to see it as anything but cynical.

It seems like either a typical class action suit. The city's negligence/unenforcement led to higher rents in that neighborhood.

Or could be even easier to show that the lack of said units led to displacement for actual families.

I'm not saying it's easy peasy but if affordable unit advocates believe they are important then logically enforcing the regulations they fought for shouldn't be just shrugged off, at least as a signal to cities and developers.