Category: Economics

Some friends on the Book of Face shared a couple of articles that reinforces my belief that cities, particularly the largest metropolises, are about to enter a depression.

First is an article about the impending death of New York. He makes an interesting case about the damage done by COVID may be the mortal blow.

Second is an article on people fleeing San Francisco.

Between COVID and the riots, I believe many folks are asking themselves if all the costs of living in these cities are worth the cost. For a lot of them – particularly those who can do their work remotely – will answer no. They will move to lower cost and relatively safer cities. There will be many cascading effects from the diaspora, but two that I’m watching with interest.

1. Will this cause the wave of municipal and state bankruptcies some of us have been expecting for some time? If so, does the fed step in? I’m kinda thinking that if it plays out where the fed has to go in and sort out the states – and cities – messes, the states and cities will become even more the puppets of Washington. It may also accelerate the feds reckoning, but that’s kind of like a runaway train on a flat track. We know it’s a matter of time when it will derail, but we can’t see where.
2. What will happen when the refugees from these cities start voting in their new home areas? Will they adopt the values of their new homes? Will they try to bring the “perks” and “expectations” (along with the requisite taxes and regulations) to their new homes? Based on prior experience, I’m not too hopeful.

The headline is misleading. California wants all big rigs and medium duty vehicles to be electric by 2045. They do mandate the shift to start in 2024.

There are far too many people (a lot in legislatures) who have this almost dogmatic faith in laws creating reality. Never mind little things like physics or economics. As Thomas Sowell reminded us, those in power rarely suffer the consequences of their actions, but suffer the wrath of voters for their inactions.

In my various feeds, the argument to stopping shelter-in-place and take steps to le businesses open up has been met with caustic derision. The two refrains I hear the most is “You want to sacrifice lives for jobs” and “If it saves one life, then we must continue these measures.” Both of these are hyperbolic extremes that display an outstanding level of ignorance about the nature of trade-offs. The argument isn’t jobs vs lives. It’s lives vs lives.

Those of us in the gun community have heard the “If it saves one life” argument before. Usually, our opponents garnish this with “if it saves just one child’s life.” A good example of this argument in action is over waiting periods. Waiting periods may save a life, but we do know it has cost other people their lives who were attacked during that window.

When we look at shutting businesses down and putting millions of people out of work, there is a known uptick in deaths from suicide, overdoses, interpersonal violence, and other conditions. Not doing elective surgeries will cost lives due to not dealing with certain diseases early enough (e.g., cancer). The argument isn’t jobs vs lives, it’s lives vs lives.

The best argument I’ve heard recently came from the podcast Words and Numbers. When we’re deciding among these trade-offs, we often have to boil it down to dollars spent per life saved. It’s not that a life is only worth so many dollars, but more a matter of deciding how to use scarce resources.

How do we help the most people?