Listen now | Megan and Ben argue against airing all the dirty laundry; we bemoan the rehabilitation of price controls; you can just do things (abolish pennies).
Yes but I really want to know his opinion on Musk going to Mars. It is so easy to see government waste (why TF are we doing Artemis), but private sector billionaires can be just as guilty of squandering surplus value.
2) I could've been more explicit: Rich people wasting their OWN money. It's abundantly clear to all clear thinking people that monarchies are evil and royals deserve a cool breath on the back of their neck.
Most extravagantly wealthy people owe a lot of their wealth to bad government, but I think the better answer to that problem isn't disrespecting property rights but dismantling the systems of government that helped them get and protect so much wealth.
1) If I have to choose, I consider myself an anarchist, even if only aspirationally. I'm comfortable with the necessity of practical compromise on the road to freedom, but I still dream of getting there one day.
Similar to toilet paper hoarding during COVID, gasoline station restrictions during the 1970s led to overconsumption of gasoline as consumers raced to top off their gasoline tanks fearing that stations would run out of gas when they needed it.
I think the discussion about Epstein missed the entire point of releasing the files. First is that Epstein killed himself which robs us of justice by preventing trial. I think it is important for us to know what would have come out at trial. Unfortunately, the US doesn't really have a process for dealing with this. Second is that just because nobody was brought up on charges DOES NOT mean that people could not be convicted of crimes. Congress is so dysfunctional that they are unable to provide the necessary oversight of DOJ to ensure that powerful people are prosecuted for crimes just like everyone else. I (and all other true moderates) am completely OK with the precedent that sensitive evidence for a case can be disclosed if a law is passed to require it for each specific case. This is a very high bar for releasing evidence and will not lead to the slippery slope that extremist Libertarians are constantly crying about.
Great episode. Am curious about the business model Epstein used to make his heinous operation work. That these details aren’t public as Josh said I am more interested learning about this-how people scheduled and paid
I’m kind of surprised by Josh’s credulity about left wing people who talk about housing. They do occasionally vote for up zoning, but it is almost always paired with multiple left wing poison pills (IZ, union or wage controls, environmental activist waste, etc, etc). The only way to get good housing laws in blue states is for them to be bipartisan, which requires telling the leftists to take a long walk off a short pier.
Something I'm thinking about as someone with an Economics degree and who read Ben's article about his relationship with his father... Ben will tweet and write about his father directly or indirectly (e.g. when I was a teen Demi Moore wrapped her thighs around me and pulled on his stick) - if your dad was in the highest grossing movie of all time it is bound to come up.
But Josh never mentions his dad, even though he writes about economics. Noahpinion said finding out Josh's dad was Robert was his Luke I am your father moment and it wasn't far off for me. Ben - can you get Josh to talk about just once the guy who invented Ricardian Equivalence, but humble enough to not name it after themselves.
Maybe that's because Ricardian Equivalence is the absolute pinnacle of bad economics. I'm pretty sure the Nobel going to Kahneman and Tversky was supposed to end the discussions of Homo Economicus!!
Josh said that most of the profit from apartment construction is earned during the first 20 years after the building is built. So why not impose rent control in year 21?
Probably the best reason is that rent control is a terrible, no good, very bad idea that doesn't work.
Like any price control, it'll still cause market distortions, either in the availability, quality, or price of the product and replacement products. Even if rent control after twenty years doesn't cut into the expected profits of building a building, it cuts into the margins of running one, so it's going to make residential buildings worse. By artificially decreasing the costs of some apartments, it'll artificially increase the cost of other apartments as property owners look to recoup what the government has taken from them.
Can a landlord trying to extract maximum rents ever be a bad thing? Like either by buying up all the properties in an area to set price or by colluding on price with other landlords? Maybe even buying up properties in popular areas and letting them sit empty most of the time to squeeze supply? Rent controls might not be the best tool, but there must be some counterweight to bad faith actors.
Morally? Yes, but I think history has shown us that government is almost never the right tool to address moral failings.
Probably the largest factor exacerbating the moral problem you flag is government action: property owners are able to buy up large amounts of residential property and squeeze the market because our laws make it so hard to build or create new housing. Absent zoning laws, permitting and review requirements, and all the other laws that make it hard for the housing market to adapt and grow, the kind of market manipulation you're talking about is economically inefficient.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who don't believe in rent seeking, those who believe that rent seeking can only occur in the context of government regulation, and then there are the real centrists who understand that rent seeking occurs even without government intervention. Just ask Zuckerbucks... "it's better to buy than compete" - and that is in the unregulated world of tech!! We need to be less dogmatic about what tools we use to improve the world we live in.
Do you think Zuck really believes he's rent seeking free of government regulation? The enormous investments he makes in government suggest otherwise.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise that we need to be less dogmatic, at least in so far as "dogmatic" here means "based on simple but unpopular truths." We've had generations of increasing government regulation in the economy because it seems like it SHOULD work, even if it was obvious that it wouldn't, or became obvious later that it didn't. Rent control is a great example of that. Water subsidies, zoning, tariffs, and so on. They're all based on this idea that we should use governmental power to fix an apparent problem, without considering if will actually work. When the solution creates more problems, we go on to the next popular fix. Dogmatic insistence on fact-based skepticism of government's ability to fix problems seems to me like a real improvement!
It's super hard to have an in depth conversation about these issues in a comment thread without sounding curt or dismissive, and I really don't want to do that. You've managed to be thoughtful in your disagreements, so I hope I've been communicating my strong disagreement without sounding rude.
It blows my mind that you managed to discuss the absurd tendency to conflate holidays with real life without mentioning this classic piece by a respected, insightful journalist: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/australians-have-more-fun.html
But it warms my heart to know that Josh thinks the moon landing was a boondoggle. NASA is welfare for PhDs.
Yes but I really want to know his opinion on Musk going to Mars. It is so easy to see government waste (why TF are we doing Artemis), but private sector billionaires can be just as guilty of squandering surplus value.
Rich people wasting their money on dumb shit is one of the highest ideals of a just society.
Yeah, I guess so… When you think about it, the reign of Louis XIV was probably the peak of western civilization.
1) Zing.
2) I could've been more explicit: Rich people wasting their OWN money. It's abundantly clear to all clear thinking people that monarchies are evil and royals deserve a cool breath on the back of their neck.
Most extravagantly wealthy people owe a lot of their wealth to bad government, but I think the better answer to that problem isn't disrespecting property rights but dismantling the systems of government that helped them get and protect so much wealth.
1) you remind me of a friend that first got me into politics. Libertarians are the most interesting people to talk to.
2) Patents should be abolished, right?
1) If I have to choose, I consider myself an anarchist, even if only aspirationally. I'm comfortable with the necessity of practical compromise on the road to freedom, but I still dream of getting there one day.
2) Yes!
Winners: America, New Zealand
Losers: Europe, France, Syria, pennies, the Moon, radical transparency.
Similar to toilet paper hoarding during COVID, gasoline station restrictions during the 1970s led to overconsumption of gasoline as consumers raced to top off their gasoline tanks fearing that stations would run out of gas when they needed it.
I think the discussion about Epstein missed the entire point of releasing the files. First is that Epstein killed himself which robs us of justice by preventing trial. I think it is important for us to know what would have come out at trial. Unfortunately, the US doesn't really have a process for dealing with this. Second is that just because nobody was brought up on charges DOES NOT mean that people could not be convicted of crimes. Congress is so dysfunctional that they are unable to provide the necessary oversight of DOJ to ensure that powerful people are prosecuted for crimes just like everyone else. I (and all other true moderates) am completely OK with the precedent that sensitive evidence for a case can be disclosed if a law is passed to require it for each specific case. This is a very high bar for releasing evidence and will not lead to the slippery slope that extremist Libertarians are constantly crying about.
Great episode. Am curious about the business model Epstein used to make his heinous operation work. That these details aren’t public as Josh said I am more interested learning about this-how people scheduled and paid
It's really well documented. He was a schmoozer for the rich and did alot of gray area stuff he never got prosecuted for. Also, Deutsche Bank deserves to burn… so much money laundering. No wonder they loved Trump. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0ekN89fOcJ9IJUgvVToNOp?si=hdjLdt6hTv-FssXusFodkg
Thanks for sharing. I missed this.
This is a great show
I’m kind of surprised by Josh’s credulity about left wing people who talk about housing. They do occasionally vote for up zoning, but it is almost always paired with multiple left wing poison pills (IZ, union or wage controls, environmental activist waste, etc, etc). The only way to get good housing laws in blue states is for them to be bipartisan, which requires telling the leftists to take a long walk off a short pier.
Something I'm thinking about as someone with an Economics degree and who read Ben's article about his relationship with his father... Ben will tweet and write about his father directly or indirectly (e.g. when I was a teen Demi Moore wrapped her thighs around me and pulled on his stick) - if your dad was in the highest grossing movie of all time it is bound to come up.
But Josh never mentions his dad, even though he writes about economics. Noahpinion said finding out Josh's dad was Robert was his Luke I am your father moment and it wasn't far off for me. Ben - can you get Josh to talk about just once the guy who invented Ricardian Equivalence, but humble enough to not name it after themselves.
Maybe that's because Ricardian Equivalence is the absolute pinnacle of bad economics. I'm pretty sure the Nobel going to Kahneman and Tversky was supposed to end the discussions of Homo Economicus!!
https://creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/why-ricardian-equivalence-is-nonsense.html
Josh said that most of the profit from apartment construction is earned during the first 20 years after the building is built. So why not impose rent control in year 21?
Probably the best reason is that rent control is a terrible, no good, very bad idea that doesn't work.
Like any price control, it'll still cause market distortions, either in the availability, quality, or price of the product and replacement products. Even if rent control after twenty years doesn't cut into the expected profits of building a building, it cuts into the margins of running one, so it's going to make residential buildings worse. By artificially decreasing the costs of some apartments, it'll artificially increase the cost of other apartments as property owners look to recoup what the government has taken from them.
Can a landlord trying to extract maximum rents ever be a bad thing? Like either by buying up all the properties in an area to set price or by colluding on price with other landlords? Maybe even buying up properties in popular areas and letting them sit empty most of the time to squeeze supply? Rent controls might not be the best tool, but there must be some counterweight to bad faith actors.
Morally? Yes, but I think history has shown us that government is almost never the right tool to address moral failings.
Probably the largest factor exacerbating the moral problem you flag is government action: property owners are able to buy up large amounts of residential property and squeeze the market because our laws make it so hard to build or create new housing. Absent zoning laws, permitting and review requirements, and all the other laws that make it hard for the housing market to adapt and grow, the kind of market manipulation you're talking about is economically inefficient.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who don't believe in rent seeking, those who believe that rent seeking can only occur in the context of government regulation, and then there are the real centrists who understand that rent seeking occurs even without government intervention. Just ask Zuckerbucks... "it's better to buy than compete" - and that is in the unregulated world of tech!! We need to be less dogmatic about what tools we use to improve the world we live in.
Do you think Zuck really believes he's rent seeking free of government regulation? The enormous investments he makes in government suggest otherwise.
I fundamentally disagree with your premise that we need to be less dogmatic, at least in so far as "dogmatic" here means "based on simple but unpopular truths." We've had generations of increasing government regulation in the economy because it seems like it SHOULD work, even if it was obvious that it wouldn't, or became obvious later that it didn't. Rent control is a great example of that. Water subsidies, zoning, tariffs, and so on. They're all based on this idea that we should use governmental power to fix an apparent problem, without considering if will actually work. When the solution creates more problems, we go on to the next popular fix. Dogmatic insistence on fact-based skepticism of government's ability to fix problems seems to me like a real improvement!
It's super hard to have an in depth conversation about these issues in a comment thread without sounding curt or dismissive, and I really don't want to do that. You've managed to be thoughtful in your disagreements, so I hope I've been communicating my strong disagreement without sounding rude.
No worries, it's great to encounter people with well considered opinions!
FWIW, I think Zuck was paying to continue to avoid regulation.
As my favorite economist, Luigi Zingales says, “The weakest lobby seems to be the pro-competitive lobby—but that’s what I would like to represent.”