u/Serious-Cucumber-54

Whether it be fish in the open ocean, breathable air in the atmosphere, or pigs and trees in natural lands, markets already solve issues related to scarcity of these resources.

People generally overconsume or deplete the natural resource until it reaches a point of scarcity and value that it justifies containing and reproducing it.

For instance, when it comes to cattle, fish, and trees, people were generally free to just deplete what nature brought them, and then once their actions made those resources scarce, they found it more profitable to tame the cattle, fish, and trees and farm it at an efficient level of production.

Nature initially oversupplies the resource, but we rationally deplete it until it becomes more cost-effective to artificially supply it for ourselves.

If I recall correctly President Obama through the DEA was able to make them selectively not enforce federal marijuana law in certain cases, and it was not ruled as illegal or unconstitutional.

So what's to stop President Trump for instance from doing the same with the FEC and make them selectively not enforce/deprioritize enforcement of federal campaign finance rules in certain cases for their political party/candidates?

I have heard that in order to lower house prices, the supply of homes must be increased relative to demand, but I haven't seen this logic be applied the same when it comes to roads.

I have seen the "induced demand" argument commonly levelled against expanding car infrastructure that increasing road capacity would not ultimately improve the "price" of congestion as the increased supply would initially lower congestion (and thus its perceived cost) but that this relief is only temporary as the lower perceived cost would ultimately encourage more users and consumption, returning it back to previous levels of congestion, making "one more lane" a fruitless endeavor.

So if "induced demand" means increasing road capacity has no ultimate effect on improving the price of traffic, then how can it simultaneously be the case that increasing housing capacity has a downward effect on its price? If more housing supply lowers prices, then it should also logically induce more demand/consumption of housing, which if we continue with the logic usually made for roads, should return it back to previous prices.

So I'm confused, either increasing housing supply relative to demand has no ultimate effect on house prices, or increasing road supply relative to demand has a downward effect on the price of congestion. What is going on here?

I do not believe one can hold these two arguments simultaneously, there appears to be a logical contradiction.

If induced demand ultimately means increasing road capacity has no effect on improving the price of traffic, then how can increasing housing capacity have a downward effect on its price? If more housing supply lowers prices, then it would logically induce more demand/consumption of housing, which if we run with the argument usually made for roads, should return it back to previous prices.

Either increasing housing supply relative to demand has no ultimate effect on house prices, or increasing road supply relative to demand has a downward effect on the price of congestion.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take it anymore. The zoning regulations have got to go. The people have too much power, democracy was a mistake.

Unironically leaving it to the free market, despite some of the negative externalities, would literally be on net better than having it be decided by politicians or democracy. Cities would function better, people would be allowed to build and supply things as demanded, at the locations where they are demanded, at the density and quality demanded. Any inconveniences would be priced in and the price mechanism would allocate resources and people optimally. I'm tired of the cucked position of "up-zoning" or "reform" where we get relatively small increments here and there but are perpetually far from solving the actual issues. We need to abolish it at this point.

Please SCOTUS make zoning unconstitutional. Please God.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take it anymore. The zoning regulations have got to go. The people have too much power, democracy is a mistake.

Unironically leaving it to the free market, despite some of the negative externalities, would literally be on net better than having it be decided by politicians or democracy. Cities would function better, people would be allowed to build and supply things as demanded, at the locations where they are demanded, at the density and quality demanded. Any inconveniences would be priced in and the price mechanism would allocate resources and people optimally. I'm tired of the cucked position of "up-zoning" or "reform" where we get relatively small increments here and there but are perpetually far from solving the actual issues. We need to abolish it at this point.

Please SCOTUS make zoning unconstitutional. Please God.

Legal insurance is currently a private industry, but do you all believe the costs of civil litigation should be shared along the same lines as single-payer health insurance so everyone can afford to defend their rights and hold parties accountable for their wrongdoing no matter their wealth?

Instead of allowing voters to delegate their voting power to endless proxies, through electronic ballots, which is administratively complex and vulnerable to hacking, why not make it so voters are only allowed to delegate their voting power to one level of proxy, who cannot delegate any further that voting power, and it is done through paper ballots?

In other words, how much is people's propensity to commit crime caused by their parents teaching them or exposing them to certain behaviors/modes of thought that facilitate criminality?

Market forces typically determine the level of bundling for most other goods and services, but the notable exception is when it comes to goods and services provided by the government, as it is typically determined by democratic forces.

For instance, roads, sidewalks, parks, waste collection, courts, electricity, police, fire, schools, emergency health services, etc. are all typically offered in one package by local governments, instead of offering only one of those things and people having to shop for the other things separately, because the forces of democracy will it. But does this introduce any distortions or difference than if market forces were at the helm determining the optimal level of bundling for government goods and services? What would it be like if the forces of the market determined the optimal level of bundling?

Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for a third term, and his team have looked for constitutional loopholes around it (such as him running as vice president and making the president resign so he can be president again). However, these loopholes are very legally tenuous, do not look to be feasible, and involve complicated maneuvers.

Something that seems more legal, feasible, and simple is to just act as the "shadow president." For instance, instead of Donald Trump running for office, he could put his son Donald Trump Jr. as the legal placeholder. Donald Trump can prominently speak at rallies and appear on advertising, but legally it is treated as an endorsement for his son, he himself is not running for president, it is his son who is.

And then once Donald Trump Jr. gets into office, Donald Trump can guide him on what actions he should do, effectively and indirectly wielding Donald Trump the powers of the presidency. A "shadow president" I believe the term is called.

Is this legal? Is indirectly and effectively acting as president this way legal? What's to stop Trump from effectively getting a third term this way?

*Of course, this is probably not likely considering his old age, but the legal question is interesting.

"Economies of scale"

I see this argument used all the time to advocate for humanoid robots, but it makes a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.

Economies of scale is very basically when a product becomes cheaper to produce because the costs of production does not increase in % as much as the % increase in unit output, returning a decreasing average cost per unit.

Say I have a machine that produces 1,000 humanoid robots a year. The input costs and machine cost me a total of $50,000,000 a year, meaning the cost per unit is $50,000. Say I replace that machine and buy a more productive machine that produces 2,000 humanoid robots a year, but the total cost of the machine and input costs don't change. Sweet, now the cost per unit is $25,000, and now I can charge consumers lower prices and gain market share if I have a competitive advantage.

That's economies of scale in a nutshell, at least one example of it.

Now, the argument for why this would favor humanoid robots over specialist machines ultimately makes no sense to me, because specialist machines also experience economies of scale, and their typically simpler design means they benefit more from economies of scale.

A washing machine can undergo a change in its production that lowers their costs per unit. Furthermore, a washing machine is intrinsically less resource intensive and simpler to build than a complex humanoid robot. This means, not only is it likely cheaper to manufacture to begin with, but it's also easier for economies of scale to lower the cost even more, since it's a simpler object. It's easier to mass produce forks in greater quantities than it is for cars, same thing goes with simpler-designed specialist machines vs. complex generalist machine.

-

Furthermore, the argument that "the world is designed for a human shaped machine" is also faulty. Sure, many things in the world are designed to accommodate human shaped bodies, that's without question. But these same accommodating spaces are not exclusively accommodating to human shaped bodies, a robot vacuum or delivery robot can also work in spaces designed for humans for instance. This notion of the world being designed for human shaped bodies hasn't stopped specialist machines from being everywhere in our lives. In fact, there are very few things designed in the world that only a human-shaped body can work in.

Not to mention, we have greatly modified and designed the world to accommodate non-human shaped machines, whether that be for the non-human shaped vehicles that transport everything across the world, or the various non-human shaped machinery and robots that exist in factories and warehouses which help produce all the goods and services we consume (and also help with economies of scale).

None of these arguments have any merit or sound reasoning when you actually analyze them seriously.

Two points to consider:

1. U.S. Senator Bob Dole authored a Senate Joint Resolution creating a week (not month) in June known as "National Men's Health Week"
2. There also exists a "Mental Health Awareness Month" that was started in 1949 by a Mental Health organization and has been widely observed since and has a long track record. However this observation is done in May, not June.

So it is possible people confused National Men's Health Week and Mental Health Awareness Month as meaning a holiday called "Men's Mental Health Awareness Month" (or some variant of it) that represents all of June, however that holiday has no official recognition, no considerable celebration or observance, and has no considerable track record.

It is possible this repurposing was done out of confusion, but it is also possible it is intentional, that this temporal expansion and gendering was made to intentionally expand the perceived importance of particularly men's mental health issues. It is also possible it may be used as a convenient tool to take the spotlight away from Pride Month.

I have heard the argument from non-economists that outsourcing those services would lead to perverse incentives that do not serve the greater good.

But municipal governments already routinely outsource some services to private contractors for cost savings and efficiency (for instance with road maintenance or refuse collection), and any perverse incentives or adverse behavior can be prevented with optimally written contracts and governments terminating the contract when things go wrong. So what technically would be the difference (if any) with outsourcing firefighting, law enforcement, and prisons to private contractors?

Would there necessarily be perverse incentives? Would costs go down and services improve in quality? Would competition between prospective contractors encourage them to innovate and improve their service (according to the criteria the government is interested in) so they can persuade and win the contract from them? What do economists think?

*And note, I am referring to private contractors that are funded by and service the public, not ones that conditionally provide their service to individual paying subscribers.

Dynamic pricing typically refers to when businesses adjust the price of their goods and services in real-time due to real-time market conditions, supply/demand, and customer behavior.

For example, Uber or airplane tickets are a common example where rates change based on real-time supply/demand conditions.

But businesses may theoretically adjust their prices in a more personalized manner, based on what they predict a particular consumer is willing and able to pay, based on an algorithm that correlates certain information they observe from the consumer with a maximum price they're expected to be willing to pay.

Given a business typically has an interest in maximizing profits/sales, couldn't they surcharge for what they think are richer consumers who can afford and are more willing to tolerate higher prices, while providing lower prices more affordable to lower-income consumers? And should they?

Should legislation allow or force this, effectively making sales tax more progressive instead of regressive?