If the Abundance folk and left did not so thoroughly despise each other, I would think that there is some room for common cause, such as the takeover of urban development by the NIMBY brigade.
I keep using the same damned metaphor. The centrists and left are on a train bound for the West Coast. The centrists want to stop at Chicago; the left wants to go all the way. The train is barely in Jersey, and the right keeps ripping out the tracks. There is no reason for the passengers to start fighting with each other, at least this side of Cleveland.
Those amenities have a little known form of externality associated with them: an input-side externality. Whereas exput-side eternalities involve costs of production not paid for by the market transaction, input-side externalities invole a market transaction which is distorted because the actor isn't paying the full normal market cost of such transactions, thus distorting the market. That is the case for the large public and nonprofit tax exempt amenitiy-generating insitutions (the hospitals are the 800 pound gorillas but universities as well). The overall operating cost per square foot is much lower due to no property tax. Let's not get into the tax abatements and TIFs. But all of this robs inner city schools of funding.
So even if suburban and inner-city residential tax millage levels are the same in adjacent school distticts, the high proportion of real property that is exempt or abated in the inner city county seat puts cities at a disadvantage, per McEachern's property tax capitalization thesis, but the suburbs still get to benefit from the wonderful amenities in the county seat. Their property values rise faster and there is what is known as a "donut" hole in the inner city.
Meanwhile, do the liberal democratic suburbanities instruct their county executives and county council members to really do something about urban poverty? Things they could do even given certain limits on county options, given they are creatures of the state? No. Don't get me started. But I ordered the book and will take a look.
If the Abundance folk and left did not so thoroughly despise each other, I would think that there is some room for common cause, such as the takeover of urban development by the NIMBY brigade.
I keep using the same damned metaphor. The centrists and left are on a train bound for the West Coast. The centrists want to stop at Chicago; the left wants to go all the way. The train is barely in Jersey, and the right keeps ripping out the tracks. There is no reason for the passengers to start fighting with each other, at least this side of Cleveland.
Class struggle
The borg can't live without " them"
The wagery can't live with " him"
Problem with social democracy inside a g8 today
Too many classes
Exploiters in towers
Experts manque in their heads
Wage chumpions in week to week
Let's pick a knock off class
To pigou externalities add
Greenwald stiglitz externalities
Third party
Pecuniary impacts
Now market systems start to come alive
MaxSpeak, I listen!; Thank you for The Poverty of Abundace, Part I.https://sawicky.substack.com/p/the-poverty-of-abundance-i?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=c4op1&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email. I have not read it or a review of it but it seems everyone talks about it as if it were the first gospel of anti-Marx. Yes, you are right: suburbs exploit suburbs by enjoying urban amenties.
Those amenities have a little known form of externality associated with them: an input-side externality. Whereas exput-side eternalities involve costs of production not paid for by the market transaction, input-side externalities invole a market transaction which is distorted because the actor isn't paying the full normal market cost of such transactions, thus distorting the market. That is the case for the large public and nonprofit tax exempt amenitiy-generating insitutions (the hospitals are the 800 pound gorillas but universities as well). The overall operating cost per square foot is much lower due to no property tax. Let's not get into the tax abatements and TIFs. But all of this robs inner city schools of funding.
So even if suburban and inner-city residential tax millage levels are the same in adjacent school distticts, the high proportion of real property that is exempt or abated in the inner city county seat puts cities at a disadvantage, per McEachern's property tax capitalization thesis, but the suburbs still get to benefit from the wonderful amenities in the county seat. Their property values rise faster and there is what is known as a "donut" hole in the inner city.
Meanwhile, do the liberal democratic suburbanities instruct their county executives and county council members to really do something about urban poverty? Things they could do even given certain limits on county options, given they are creatures of the state? No. Don't get me started. But I ordered the book and will take a look.