patrick.net

They are mostly harmless and they contribute to the economy by spending anyway.

Hmmm... that's not much of a social "contribution" in the grand scheme of things. However, I'm sure the yacht builders, jewelers, limo drivers, maids and Italian clothing designers, would all agree with you.

Q: do vandals "contribute" to the economy by destroying property (which then has to be rebuilt/replaced)?

A: In pure, heartless economic terms, they are so long as the capital they are destroying is infrastructure capital. If they are destroying discretionary capital, then that is a deadweight loss.

However, I’m sure the yacht builders, jewelers, limo drivers, maids and Italian clothing designers, would all agree with you.

No one stops you from starting or buying stocks in these businesses. :)

Q: do vandals “contribute” to the economy by destroying property (which then has to be rebuilt/replaced)?

This is what the popular media always reports. More death and destruction means more jobs and economic growth!

CRAZY!

Peter P Says:
We definitely need a welfare reform. Welfare is meant to help people getting back on their own feet. It is not designed to sustain social parasites.

Aren't landlords social parasites? Using their control over land to exploit others for a passive income?

In pure, heartless economic terms, they are so long as the capital they are destroying is infrastructure capital.

Interesting take on the "broken windows" hypothesis. I wonder if it would be possible to spur a new infrastructure construction boom by encouraging people to destroy old, decaying public works.

Demolish an obsolete school/bridge = become a real financial hero? Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of "public service". Sign me up! ;-)

Peter P Says:
How about the born-rich ’socialite parasites’?

Fair? No. But fairness is over-rated.

So let us conclude there is no logic to anything Peter P says, he is just a 'conservative' in the true sense of the word, a laissez-faireist who says that everything is good the way it is regardless, but his quiet subtextual message is that he is actually for anything that makes the upper class social parasites even richer... Pretty standard Republican message... and if you are *not* one of the upper class social parasites and leeches and vote Republican, that makes you pretty much the biggest fool on the planet...

Aren’t landlords social parasites? Using their control over land to exploit others for a passive income?

In a word, no.

Social parasites are those who lives off government programs (tax money).

Q: do vandals “contribute” to the economy by destroying property (which then has to be rebuilt/replaced)?

Well, GDP certainly goes up the more rebuilding there is to be done. You could even strike a comparison with trashing Iraq's infrastructure to rebuild it using American contractors and crony capitalist buddies' firms -- is that vandalism on a grand, international scale also? Not to mention the high economic cost of making weapons of war then using them up on 'the enemy'...

Reminds me of the glaziers who were in court recently for going around smashing shop windows at night then putting their business sticker on the damage and awaiting the repair call... bit embarassing to be caught tho...

, but his quiet subtextual message is that he is actually for anything that makes the upper class social parasites even richer

That is a consequence that I do not like to see. I dream of a society in which everyone is happy, content, and productive.

But I try to refrain from value judgment in economic matters. My aforementioned dream is unattainable. We can only settle for what human nature can bring us.

Peter P Says:
Aren’t landlords social parasites? Using their control over land to exploit others for a passive income?

Social parasites are those who lives off government programs (tax money).

In a word, yes. A social parasite is someone who lives off others (society) and does very little by way of recognisable work in the exchange. Isn't a landlord living off others for doing essentially no work? And getting a property paid off into the bargain? Surely it doesn't matter if it's private or public money.

My message: the world will be better if we do not all try to insist on doing the "right" thing. Here, the exercise of "moral judgment" will only lead to contentions of incompatible value systems.

Peter P Says:
That is a consequence that I do not like to see. I dream of a society in which everyone is happy, content, and productive.

a-ha -- that sounds like a Marxian Utopia... you can start with a progressive income tax and socia1ised medicine to increase happiness and contentedness -- like the Swedish social democratic model of 'socia1ism by degrees', improving one area at a time... cf. HMOs as a business model for healthcare provision...

Utopia sounds too utopic to be practical.

The renewal of "capital stock" in econospeak is one of those counterintuitive things about economics that simply strikes people as "just plain wrong" on an emotional and moral level, but anyone thinking about it abstractly is able to say "but of course".

The problem is one of balance. If lawlessness abounds then no one will bother to invest in new capital stock or replacement of old/damaged/depreciated capital stock because they'll view it as a sure-loss scenario. So we have to protect capital well enough to encourage investment. But if we overprotect it, then it ends up as nothing more than obsolete ornaments impeding the only true source of economic growth over the long run: technological productivity improvements.

Broken windows: if windows were never broken then old, less efficient windows would seldom if ever be replaced, and over time a drag builds up because the old windows are less effective at insulating and result in unnecessary spending on energy consumption. But, if you go around breaking all the windows any time you wish, then no one will replace them, and even more energy will be lost.

But I try to refrain from value judgment in economic matters. My aforementioned dream is unattainable. We can only settle for what human nature can bring us.

Just on this human nature thing, my baby niece is just 2 years old -- we went to the park to feed the ducks recently and took a loaf of bread -- when another family came over to look at the ducks, without bread, she immediately went over to the kids and gave them her piece. She is always doing things like this, without prompting, and since she was much younger and unable to even talk or understand much. Where would she get this altruism from?

Broken windows: if windows were never broken then old, less efficient windows would seldom if ever be replaced, and over time a drag builds up because the old windows are less effective at insulating

lol randy. I assume this is irony. double glazing or thicker glass provides better insulation, not replacing like with like, of course, which is all the glaziers would have done. as it turns out, perspex is a much better insulator and sound-proofer than glass, as it traps radiant infrared heat better, but it's more expensive by unit area. the judge didn't consider they were doing a social good for some reason, but were acting in 'unenlightened self interest' (my words, not his)...

People behave very differently as a group.

We should leave them alone. They are mostly harmless and they contribute to the economy by spending anyway.

hmm, that's the welfare people we're talking about, isn't it?

Welfare is an excellent way to spread and popularize poverty.

Because of course, there was so much less poverty in the 1800's before welfare.

Right?

Because of course, there was so much less poverty in the 1800’s before welfare.

Capitalism was much less developed in the 1800's. Poverty back then was reinforced by an implicit cast system. It was a social-cultural issue.

19th century saw the greatest advancement in civilization. Not until the 1990's did we even proportionately match the level of international trade seen in the 1890's. We have yet to match the rate of economic growth seen in the 19th century. We have conditioned to accept 2% economic growth by our govt masters.

In my opinion home prices are only just now beginning to go down. Loan appraisal procedures are being tightened, to what they should have been in the first place. This will eliminate many potential buyers without proper income.

Notice that prime lending rates were dropped by 0.5%, and will probably be dropped another 0.25% or 0.5% at the next fed meeting. I thing this is a way for the fed to provide the banks a window of opportunity to recoup some money that they lost in hedge funds. The sudden spurt in the stock market is likely to cool off after the holiday season. Several banks would've gone under had it not been for the interest rate cuts.

The era of the free-money for home buyers is over for now. The housing market, especially in the bay area will likely have all the time in the world to cool off in the next few years.

One of the elements of surprise is - a likely war in the middle east. That will provide a breather at least for the falling US dollar, and also bring down the Euro, and restore back the Greenback as the most favorable currency.