Cargo Cults

[billvon 2,400]

> I think the postings here specifically are by smart people (IMHO: BV, Don and Kallend
>are very smart) that actually get the point, but purposely were obtuse about it to just
>discuss the tangentials.

I don't think the fact that some development DOES improve commerce (and tax income, and employment etc) is tangential to the claim that it does not, and that the belief that it does is superstition.

To be honest I was a little surprised by direction the discussion took from both your end and Law's. I thought your position would be "it's not government's role to try to revitalize parts of cities" rather than "it doesn't work." The first position has merit (IMO) - the second one is a lot harder to argue. At best you could claim "it doesn't work in a lot of cases."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> I think the postings here specifically are by smart people (IMHO: BV, Don and Kallend
>are very smart) that actually get the point, but purposely were obtuse about it to just
>discuss the tangentials.

I don't think the fact that some development DOES improve commerce (and tax income, and employment etc) is tangential to the claim that it does not, and that the belief that it does is superstition. I think that claiming that any position is assumed to be applicable only the most absolutist way is a strawman by definition and that shades of grey discussions are tedious at best

To be honest I was a little surprised by direction the discussion took from both your end and Law's. I thought your position would be "it's not government's role to try to revitalize parts of cities" rather than "it doesn't work." The first position has merit (IMO) absolutely, at least it allows those with the most to lose and contribute to have true say in the impact - the second one is a lot harder to argue. again depends on how extreme one wants to interpret it in order to manufacture a little value added debate At best you could claim "it doesn't work in a lot of cases."

"flaring high is bad"
"what? what if the pilot has to flare high in order to not kick that lady and her baby? how can you say flaring high is always absolutely bad? It's much more reasonable to say the flaring high is usually bad"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I thought your position would be "it's not government's role to try to revitalize parts of cities" rather than "it doesn't work."

It’s not my position that it doesn’t work – just “usually doesn’t work.” As you saw, I’ve acknowledged that sometimes it DOES work. The problem that I see is that they are trying to force a desired effect rather than creating conditions that enable it. A healthy stream has clear water. This water is green. Dump chlorine in it. The stream has clear water. But it’s not healthy now. This is what I’m talking about.

Winsor brought up China. Take a look at the Olympic fora in China – dilapidated and run down now. It’s an example of what can happen, though those stadia and events centers were build for a specific purpose and utilized for that purpose, so they aren’t cargo cults. China also has cities built that are unoccupied. This is a bit different, as well, because China can simply order its citizens to move into those cities. China relocated over a million people for the Three Gorges Dam Project. They’ve got places built and people will go there when the government tells them to. That’s part of planning unlike that of a free society where people can choose not to go there.

I do think that revitalization is not a bad thing. I think that revitalization is something that picks winners and losers (Let’s say I’ve got a furniture store. I pay my city taxes, but the city wants to revitalize downtown by offering a sweet deal for Ikea to come in. Which of course sucks for me, so there is often legitimate resistance to revitalization). Yes, government has to make these choices, but that is government’s role.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

> The problem that I see is that they are trying to force a desired effect rather
> than creating conditions that enable it.

Well, they are trying to force a desired effect by creating the conditions that enable it at some level.

Store owner thinks "I need more customers." He sees another store like his near a stadium and notes they have plenty of customers due to stadium traffic. He tells his government rep "help the Chargers build a new stadium so I get more business!"

Is he right? From all the evidence I've seen, either 1) business will increase (good for him!) or 2) business will stay the same (at least he's not any worse off.) So for him that's probably a good gamble, and it makes business sense for him to request it.

Should the government rep listen to him? Is it the role of government to guarantee stores business, or even try to alter patterns of commerce to accommodate him? That, I think, is the more important question.

To me it's like the legal-marijuana supporters making all those claims that pot is good for you. To me, that's going about it completely the wrong way because 1) it's easy to prove wrong and 2) that's not what the issue is about anyway. It's about whether the government has a right to regulate something that's not disastrously bad for you.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

Well, cargo cultism would be making a cardboard mockup of a business hoping that money would magically come your way.

I really miss the late '90's.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Well, they are trying to force a desired effect by creating the conditions that enable it at some level.

I understand that. A person may want to increase body temperature and metabolism to burn fat. A bout of malaria does it, but it’s the other effects.

Quote

Store owner thinks "I need more customers." He sees another store like his near a stadium and notes they have plenty of customers due to stadium traffic. He tells his government rep "help the Chargers build a new stadium so I get more business!"

Yes. That’s not cargo cult. Of course, if he lives in Yuma, Arizona and asks to build the Chargers a new stadium to drum up his business, it is more of what I’m discussing. You can take the Murph (it’ll ALWAYS be the Murph to me) and drop it in Yuma, and business likely won’t get any worse, and there certainly is no rule or law that prevents the Chargers from playing there. But in discussing likelihoods…

Quote

Should the government rep listen to him?

Sure. And will if adequately greased.

Quote

Is it the role of government to guarantee stores business, or even try to alter patterns of commerce to accommodate him? That, I think, is the more important question.

To the first – no. Re: the second – it is an important question. But one that is generally accepted. People look to the governments for solutions, anyway. And government has its winners and losers – California is losing loads of businesses because of its choices to accommodate others.

Quote

It's about whether the government has a right to regulate something that's not disastrously bad for you.

I’ll agree, though I don’t think the government’s business is to regulate things bad for me. If I want to eat deep fried lard filled bacon puffs, then that’s my business. I disagree with the government also making me pay for the people that suffer health problems from it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>>Should the government rep listen to him?

>Sure. And will if adequately greased.

I think that's the problem. I think we should elect leaders that are smart enough to go _against_ the will of the people when they ask for things that don't make sense. In theory that's why we have a representative government instead of a pure democracy.

>To the first – no. Re: the second – it is an important question. But one that is
>generally accepted. People look to the governments for solutions, anyway. And
>government has its winners and losers – California is losing loads of businesses
>because of its choices to accommodate others.

Right. And while it's important to not choose losers, sometimes it's also important to say "we're not going to make the choice to begin with; we'll let businesses do that."

The role of government "choosing winners" should be relegated to:

-Infrastructure. Roads, fiber backbones, air traffic control, rail lines - things that are needed by almost all businesses and private entities.

-Research that overcomes barriers to entry for project with social value. Example here - support projects like solar PV, EV's, geothermal power etc at least to the point where those barriers to entry have been overcome.

-Defense spending.

-Research that cannot be accomplished via normal competitive channels but has social value. Medical research, space exploration, food safety etc.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

> I think the postings here specifically are by smart people (IMHO: BV, Don and Kallend
>are very smart) that actually get the point, but purposely were obtuse about it to just
>discuss the tangentials.

I don't think the fact that some development DOES improve commerce (and tax income, and employment etc) is tangential to the claim that it does not, and that the belief that it does is superstition.

To be honest I was a little surprised by direction the discussion took from both your end and Law's. I thought your position would be "it's not government's role to try to revitalize parts of cities" rather than "it doesn't work." The first position has merit (IMO) - the second one is a lot harder to argue. At best you could claim "it doesn't work in a lot of cases."

Look and learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouQJJ4mP4hI