site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2578 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 30, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This isn't well developed enough for a main thread post, but it's something I've been mulling around lately.

Are we too hard on small scale corruption from politicians? Politicians motivated by implementing their grand vision seems like they'll screw things up. If they're motivated by accolades from their ideological group members it can also lead to bad things. A guy who wants to keep things running smoothly so he can skim a little doesn't sound too bad in comparison.

This is partly motivated by thinking about the housing situation in Ontario (Canada). Various interests have collided to create a continuing housing bubble. Many politicians have invested in rental units. Municipal governments have shifted to development fees to avoid property tax increases. The urban left has been fighting for no housing until there's enough subsidized affordable housing for the needy, ie them. No one puts pressure on the bureaucrats at various levels of government to approve things. Trudeau has been brining in vast numbers of immigrants despite the housing shortage to keep the bubble going.

Here's my idea. On top of the rent, each unit has to pay a monthly $30 fee. $10 for their municipal, provincial, and federal representative. This money goes straight into the politicians bank account.

Suddenly politicians will have an interest in getting new rental housing on the market.

I think this would just end up in a costs spiral. And in this case you would need renters to understand what keeps rent low (largely doesn’t exists). And you would also have the other side bribing the politicians. The landlord paying a bribe to get them not to approve new housing.

Instead of competing on the vote you get a system where everything becomes a bribe.

I don't think we are.

Perhaps we can deal with an occasional bit of corruption here or there. But allowing corruption as a norm, results in corruption everywhere, which is outrageously expensive.

Suddenly politicians will have an interest in getting new rental housing on the market.

Or simply run in high-population districts that have a high proportion of renters.

The average MP would get about $58k/yr (2 million units * $10 / 343 seats in the upcoming election) from that fee, but some districts are three times as large as others and renting is unequally distributed.

The budget has funding for an additional 131k units by 2031, which is nearly 1% per year. Wow, all that work for a few hundred bucks. It's nearly a third of what you'd need to keep up with inflation.

The budget has funding for an additional 131k units by 2031

Every time I see something like this my head spins. You don't need to budget for housing, it literally builds itself if you let it.

I often have the same reaction. But to add some nuance, you don't need to budget for market-rate housing. You do need to budget for below-market-rate housing. Of course, it's probably a lot more cost effective to fix the regulations so market rate is lower so there's a lot less need for below-market-rate housing.

To paraphrase a great man of our era: regulate it until it stops moving. Then subsidize it.

At first glance that might sound like a libertarian quip, but I think it more or less describes a good portion of government actions.

Building new units in any significant quantity is practically illegal. Also housing vouchers for poor people. Sorry, all we can do is restrict supply and subsidize demand.

I think the one of the hidden major issues behind small-scale corruption is one of knowledge. The simple fact of the matter is that, for example, a real estate businessman on the city council will know more about city and country rules about building and zoning than fellow members, unless they try very hard to educate themselves. Thus the businessman, despite some ethical issues, is going to present as more of an "expert".

My related idea would be to maybe make a few selected statistics printed in the voter's guide right alongside the candidates, so people can look for themselves at the median city rent or total housing capacity over time and factor that into their voting. Maybe there are other alignment solutions, like requiring conflict of interest disclosures by candidates?

Rewarding representatives for hitting certain number targets seems like not a horrible idea, but I think that would run some of the issues inherent in making local government run more like a corporation. Sure, there are more efficiencies, but it also runs the risk of other types of misalignment. Choosing the right benchmarks would be a significant undertaking.

We already have a system where people pay money to receive housing, it's called the housing market. The market will provide plenty of housing if it's simply allowed to do so. We need to get the bureaucratic middlemen out of the way, not incentivize them to get even more involved.

We need to get the bureaucratic middlemen out of the way, not incentivize them to get even more involved.

The bureaucratic middlemen are the public sector employees. Politicians are the only ones who can get them in line. Right now the pols have no reason to pick a fight, and that's the problem I'm trying to solve.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats