Iโm usually a fan of Frederick Melo- but herbal gardens as a necessity of life? Iโm a gardener, a pretty good one. Iโm an active if not pretty good cook. Iโve tried to tend to herbs and they always fall away. But someone whose life is messy and needs supplemental help is going to grow herbs?
Iโd love to see an outcome report from the attendees of the herbal garden classes, as down to earth and healthy as they sound.
Me: It sounds like he (James M Buchanan) wants to believe in self-governance, yet he doesnโt have faith in the distribution of the groupings, hence โfree ridingโ, so in the end he supports the cohesion of the state after all.
Grok:
Your observation captures a tension in James M. Buchananโs work thatโs worth unpacking. Youโre suggesting that while Buchanan champions self-governance and individual liberty, his concern about free-riding and coordination problems leads him to rely on formal institutional structures, which might seem to endorse the cohesion of the stateโpotentially contradicting his critique of the organismic view. Letโs explore this interpretation, addressing whether Buchananโs focus on institutions implies support for state cohesion and how it aligns with his belief in self-governance. Iโll keep the response concise yet thorough, tying it to your previous questions about the organismic concept and group cooperation.
Buchananโs Commitment to Self-Governance
Buchanan, a classical liberal and founder of public choice theory, strongly advocates for self-governance, meaning individuals should have maximum control over their choices and the rules governing their interactions. His rejection of the organismic conceptโwhere collectives like โthe stateโ or โsocietyโ are treated as unified entities with their own goalsโstems from his belief that only individuals have preferences and agency. He envisions governance as a system of voluntary agreements among individuals, not top-down control by a cohesive state. Key points:
โข In The Calculus of Consent (1962, with Gordon Tullock), Buchanan proposes that political systems should emerge from unanimous or near-unanimous consent at the constitutional level, where individuals agree on rules for collective decision-making. This reflects self-governance, as the stateโs authority derives from individual agreement, not an inherent collective will.
โข His concept of โpolitics as exchangeโ sees government as a mechanism for individuals to cooperate for mutual benefit (e.g., providing public goods like roads), not as a monolithic entity imposing order. This contrasts with organismic views that assume the state naturally serves a unified โpublic interest.โ
The Free-Rider Problem and Institutional Needs
Your point about Buchananโs lack of faith in the โdistribution of the groupingsโ (i.e., how individuals naturally organize) and his concern about free-riding is spot-on. Buchanan recognizes that self-governance faces challenges in large groups due to:
โข Free-Riding: Individuals may benefit from collective goods (e.g., clean air, defense) without contributing, undermining cooperation. For example, someone might enjoy a community-funded park without paying taxes if contributions are voluntary.
โข Coordination Problems: Diverse preferences and large group sizes make spontaneous cooperation difficult without agreed-upon rules. Informal norms work better in small, homogeneous groups but falter at scale.
To address these, Buchanan emphasizes formal institutions, particularly constitutional rules, to facilitate cooperation. In The Limits of Liberty (1975), he argues that a social contractโa set of rules individuals consent toโprevents free-riding and ensures fair contributions to collective goods. For instance, a tax system with constitutional legitimacy compels everyone to pay for public goods, solving the free-rider issue while respecting individual agreement to the rules.
Does this mean Buchanan lacks faith in self-governance? Not quite. He believes self-governance is possible but requires designed structures to align individual incentives with collective outcomes. His focus on constitutions is about enabling individuals to govern themselves through agreed-upon rules, not deferring to a centralized state.
Does Buchanan Support State Cohesion?
Your suggestion that Buchananโs reliance on institutions implies support for the โcohesion of the stateโ is a nuanced critique. Letโs break it down:
โข Not State Cohesion in the Organismic Sense: Buchanan explicitly rejects the idea of the state as a cohesive, sentient entity with its own goals (the organismic view). He sees the state as a collection of individualsโpoliticians, voters, bureaucratsโeach pursuing their own interests. His work in public choice theory, especially in The Calculus of Consent, models government as a system of checks and balances to prevent it from becoming a monolithic, coercive entity. For example, he warns against a โpredatory stateโ that exploits citizens under the guise of public interest.
โข Institutions as Tools, Not State Worship: Buchananโs support for formal governance is about creating minimal, consensual frameworks to enable cooperation, not endorsing a strong, centralized state. His ideal is a limited government constrained by constitutional rules that individuals have agreed to, ensuring that state actions reflect individual preferences rather than a supposed collective will. For instance, his admiration for Knut Wicksellโs principle of โjust taxationโ requires taxes to be tied to benefits and approved by near-unanimous consent, minimizing state overreach.
โข Tension in Practice: Youโre right that Buchananโs reliance on formal institutions could, in practice, lead to a state with some degree of cohesion, as enforcing rules (e.g., tax collection) requires authority. Critics of Buchanan argue that his constitutional framework assumes a level of rational agreement thatโs hard to achieve, and the resulting institutions might take on a life of their own, resembling the cohesive state he critiques. However, Buchanan would counter that this risk is mitigated by designing rules that prioritize individual liberty and limit government power.
Reconciling Self-Governance and Institutional Reliance
Buchananโs position is that self-governance is not spontaneous but requires deliberate institutional design to succeed at scale. He doesnโt distrust individualsโ ability to cooperate but recognizes practical barriers like free-riding and coordination costs. His solution is a two-level governance framework:
1. Constitutional Level: Individuals agree on rules (e.g., voting systems, tax policies) to structure cooperation. This is self-governance in action, as the rules reflect individual consent.
2. Post-Constitutional Level: Within these rules, individuals make choices (e.g., voting, paying taxes) that produce collective outcomes. Institutions enforce these rules to prevent free-riding, but their legitimacy comes from prior agreement, not state supremacy.
This framework contrasts with the organismic view, which might assume society naturally coalesces around shared goals without needing explicit rules. Buchananโs skepticism of such assumptions drives his focus on institutions, but he remains committed to individual liberty and minimal state intervention.
Addressing Your Critique
Youโre correct that Buchananโs concern about free-riding and group coordination could seem to undermine his faith in pure self-governance, pushing him toward formal institutions that resemble state cohesion. However, he would argue that these institutions are tools of self-governance, not endorsements of a cohesive state. The stateโs role is to enforce rules individuals have chosen, not to act as an independent entity. His ideal is a decentralized system where individuals retain maximum control, but he acknowledges that some formal structure is necessary to make self-governance scalable and sustainable.
Conclusion
Buchanan believes in self-governance but sees formal institutions, particularly constitutional rules, as essential to overcome free-riding and coordination challenges in large groups. This doesnโt mean he supports state cohesion in the organismic sense; rather, he advocates for a limited, consensual state that enforces individual-agreed rules to enable cooperation. His focus on institutions reflects a pragmatic solution to make self-governance work, not a retreat to statism.
This Slovenian series is quite good. And best of all, it’s very local. I didn’t even have a good grasp of where this country, with a population of just over 2 million people, was situated. The star, Sebastian Cavazza, plays the moody, ever-searching lead detective of a band of four. His co-workers are a bit quirky and a lot loyal. A new girl joins to stir in some romantic interest.
The story holds, but what makes the whole thing interesting is the glimpse into a new country with all its subtleties and unique characteristics. Even the lead-in music feels Slovenian.
I was just starting to remind myself how tiresome the war scenes are in nineteenth-century literature. Dragoons and flanks, musketeers and battery, Cossacks and campaigns- all so tiring. But then, Tolstoy, that timeless genius, throws these wise words across the page in War and Peace.
Prince Andrey listened carefully to Prince Bagration’s colloquies with the commanding offi-cers, and to the orders he gave them, and noticed, to his astonishment, that no orders were really given by him at all, but that Prince Bagration confined himself to trying to appear as though everything that was being done of necessity, by chance, or at the will of individual officers, was all done, it not by his order, at least in accordance with his intentions. Prince Andrey observed, however, that, thanks to the tact shown by Prince Bagration, notwithstanding that what was done was due to chance, and not dependent on the commander’s will, his presence was of the greatest value.
Sometimes you can see two structures melding in real time. On the one hand the underlings, those closest yo the knowledge, are given the right to choose; on the other hand a charade of power preserves the status of those in charge.
Sometimes, itโs best if public life is not too exacting.
This is from Bloomberg’s news letter a few days ago:
This example comes from South Africa, but the pattern is familiar in city neighborhoods across the United States. A single area becomes highly sought afterโoften because of a natural amenity like a lake, a hilltop view, or tree-lined streets. As people concentrate their attention and investment there, surrounding neighborhoods are overlooked. That neglect can manifest in subtle formsโlike disrepair or increased petty crimeโwhich only reinforces the appeal of the original “best” area.
At first, residents welcome the rising property values. But over time, that early advantage turns into a burden. Friends and family are priced out. Local businesses close as commercial rents climb, replaced by boutique shops that cater to outsiders. What began as a benefit morphs into a form of isolation.
A regional perspective offers a solution. If planners and policymakers ensure that all neighborhoods remain livable and desirableโnot just one or twoโthe pressure on any single area can be eased. Without that balance, scarcity drives runaway prices, and the community as a whole suffers.
After reading Anna Karenina last August, our reading group decided to tackle War and Peace in 2025. It’s a behemoth. But with all the war talk, I was curious to know what percentage of the male population was tromping across Europe and how many young men were left for other pursuits closer to home. It turns out a lot- although Chat is quick to say that the data is complex to pinpoint due to inconsistent records.
Summary
โข France: ~50โ60% of males aged 18โ55 served, driven by universal conscription and mass mobilization (2โ2.4 million from 3.6โ4 million).
โข Russia: ~20โ30% served, with serf-based levies mobilizing 1โ1.5 million from 3.5โ5 million, supplemented by militias in 1812.
โข Austria: ~40โ60% served, with 1โ1.5 million mobilized from 2โ2.6 million, using selective conscription.
โข Prussia: ~40โ65% served, with 500,000โ800,000 mobilized from 1โ1.25 million, increasing after 1813 reforms.
โข Britain: ~25โ40% served, with 400,000โ500,000 mobilized from 1.2โ1.5 million, relying on volunteers and naval press-ganging.
In the Context of War and Peace
The novel reflects these varying conscription rates through its portrayal of Russian serf-soldiers and officers like Andrei and Nikolai, contrasted with the French Grande Armรฉeโs mass-conscripted forces. Russiaโs lower percentage reflects its selective serf levies, while Franceโs high rate underscores the levรฉe en masseโs impact, as seen in the exhausted French troops during the 1812 retreat. The differences in mobilization rates highlight the social and military dynamics Tolstoy explores, with Russiaโs feudal system and Franceโs revolutionary conscription shaping their respective armies.
Note: These percentages are estimates based on historical data and demographic assumptions, as precise age-specific military participation rates are not fully documented. Variations across campaigns and years (e.g., 1812โ1814 being the deadliest) affect the figures.
Conscription is a type of forced labor. A citizen’s time is donated to the public good in exchange for some compensation (or at least room and board for the serfs). One can see why, in two hundred years, boots-on-the-ground warfare is unpopular. Too many human hours could be devoted to other public goods or to earning a wage in the commercial market. The opportunities to leverage capital even further should the young men choose to invest in education or learn a trade.
War also produces wounded. This can also shift the stage-of-life abilities of a young, able-bodied male. The labor costs of war are too dear.
I flew into Missoula today and the Montana Airport is wrapping up a major multi-phase expansion that reshapes regional travel and brings broader economic shifts in its wake. Here are some of the details:
The Physical Build-Out
Total Cost: Over $110 million for the full terminal expansion.
What’s New: New gates, expanded baggage claim, rental car lanes, security upgrades, and room for new routes and carriers.
Who’s Paying: a combo of the Feds and private interests
Federal: More than $50 million in grants, mostly from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
State & Local: Matched funds from the Missoula Economic Partnership, businesses, and banksโno local tax dollars used.
Recent Boost: A $6M federal grant (2024) will help complete the next terminal phase.
Skyward Travel Growth
Missoula set a passenger record in 2024: Over 1 million flyers, up nearly 12% from the year before.
Targeting 1.5 million by 2044 as travel demand soars.
Now offering more frequent flights and year-round service to Chicago, thanks to an $875k federal grant.
The Ripple Effects
๐ University of Montana Perks
Easier access = stronger recruitment, research partnerships, and conference travel.
Out-of-state students now find Missoula more reachable and appealing.
๐๏ธ Housing Pressures
Expansion is fueling demand for housing, especially near the university and airport.
Rent hikes are real: Locals report steep increases, with โaffordableโ now starting near $1600/month.
Development impact fees (passed on to buyers) may also be contributing to rising costs.
๐ผ Local Economy
Jobs during construction and in airport operations.
Tourism boost: More flights mean more visitors spending at hotels, restaurants, and shops.
Stronger air links help regional business and health access.
๐ง Challenges Ahead
Affordability squeeze: Residents and students are feeling the pinch from rising rents.
Infrastructure stress: More travelers and new residents will test city roads, utilities, and services.
Equity concerns: Growth must be balanced to include long-term residents and low-income communities.
Final Approach
Missoulaโs airport expansion is more than a construction project โ itโs a gateway to growth. With smart federal funding and local vision, the region is positioning itself for a more connected future. But keeping Missoula livable as it grows will take coordination on housing, transportation, and community needs. How would one go about making some projections? Estimates of impacts and time frames could be interesting to local public leaders.
This is an excerpt from my working paper, which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
B. Comparative Analysis: Evaluating Theoretical Frameworks
This section provides a systematic comparative analysis of the proposed philosophical framework against conventional economic approaches to price theory. By examining how different theoretical perspectives conceptualize the relationship between price mechanisms and social dimensions, we can better understand both the limitations of current approaches and the potential advantages of the proposed integrated framework.
Conventional Economic Frameworks: The Separation Paradigm
Mainstream economic theory has predominantly operated within what might be termed a “separation paradigm” that artificially divorces economic processes from their social contexts. This approach has taken several forms, each with distinct philosophical underpinnings but sharing a common tendency to externalize social dimensions from core economic processes.
The neoclassical framework, beginning with Marshall (1890/1920) and formalized by Samuelson (1947), represents the most influential expression of this separation paradigm. This approach treats social costs and benefits as “externalities”โphenomena that exist outside the market mechanism and require correction through policy intervention. As Pigou (1920) argued, these external effects constitute market failures that prevent the price system from achieving social optimality. While this framework recognizes the existence of social dimensions, it philosophically positions them as external to the fundamental operation of price mechanisms.
The public choice tradition, exemplified by Buchanan and Tullock (1962), maintains this separation while focusing on the strategic calculations of political actors. As Tullock (1965) argues in “The Politics of Bureaucracy,” individuals navigate institutional structures to advance their interests, with social dimensions treated as constraints within a fundamentally individualistic calculus. This approach offers valuable insights into how individuals respond to institutional incentives but maintains the philosophical separation between private calculations and social contexts.
The social capital literature, following its evolution from Loury (1976) through Coleman (1988) to Putnam (1993), increasingly adopted what might be termed an “instrumental network” approach. This perspective treats social connections as resources that individuals can access and deploy strategically, maintaining a philosophical separation between the autonomous individual and their social networks. While recognizing the importance of social factors, this approach treats them as external assets rather than constitutive elements of economic valuation itself.
The Integrated Framework: Embeddedness and Unified Valuation
In contrast to these separation paradigms, the proposed philosophical framework offers what might be termed an “integration paradigm” that recognizes price as inherently incorporating both private and social dimensions of value. This comparative analysis highlights several key distinctions:
1. Outcomes vs. Processes
Conventional frameworks focus predominantly on outcomesโthe results of market transactions as measured by efficiency or utility maximization. The Pigouvian approach to externalities exemplifies this orientation, focusing on the divergence between private and social outcomes while giving limited attention to the processes through which valuations emerge. Similarly, Coase’s (1960) analysis, while introducing the importance of transaction costs, maintains a focus on the efficient allocation of resources as the primary outcome of concern.
The proposed framework, in contrast, emphasizes processesโthe embedded social practices through which valuations emerge and evolve. Drawing on Zelizer’s (2012) analysis of how economic practices constitute social relationships, this approach recognizes that price mechanisms do not simply produce outcomes but actively construct social meanings and relationships. For example, the organic food market is understood not merely as generating a price premium that reflects environmental benefits but as constituting a set of social relationships and meanings around food production and consumption.
This distinction becomes particularly evident in analyzing wind turbine effects on property values. Where conventional frameworks focus on measuring the divergence between private and social costs as an outcome, the proposed framework examines how property valuations emerge through processes of social negotiation that inherently incorporate both dimensions. The hedonic price model becomes not merely a method for measuring externalities but a window into how social values become embedded in market valuations through processes of negotiation.
2. Calculation vs. Negotiation
Conventional frameworks conceptualize price formation primarily as a process of calculationโthe aggregation of individual utility functions or the balancing of marginal costs and benefits. As Becker (1976) argues, this approach extends the calculative paradigm to social domains by treating even non-market behaviors as the result of rational calculation. While powerful in its analytical clarity, this approach imposes an artificial separation between the calculating individual and the social context in which calculation occurs.
The proposed framework, drawing on Callon’s (1998) analysis of market devices, understands price formation as a process of negotiationโthe ongoing social construction of value through interaction. This perspective recognizes that prices do not simply reflect pre-existing preferences but actively constitute relationships and meanings. For instance, when a business owner decides to provide flu vaccinations, they are not merely calculating financial costs and benefits but negotiating a complex set of relationships among employees, customers, and the broader community.
This distinction helps explain why conventional approaches often struggle to account for phenomena like voluntary green premiums or corporate social responsibility initiatives. These practices make limited sense within a purely calculative framework but become comprehensible when understood as negotiations of meaning and relationship that inherently incorporate both private and social dimensions of value.
3. Autonomy vs. Interdependence
Conventional frameworks generally assume economic actors as fundamentally autonomousโmaking decisions independently based on their preferences and constraints. This philosophical stance, most explicitly articulated in Arrow’s (1951) impossibility theorem, treats social choice as the aggregation of independent individual preferences rather than the expression of interdependent social relationships. Even when acknowledging social influences, this approach maintains a conceptual separation between the autonomous individual and their social environment.
The proposed framework recognizes economic actors as fundamentally interdependentโembedded within networks of relationship that constitute both their understanding of value and their capacity for action. Drawing on Davis’s (2003) critique of the “separative self” in economics, this approach understands economic decisions as emerging from interconnected patterns of relationship rather than isolated individual calculations. When consumers pay premium prices for organic products, they are not making autonomous decisions but acting within interdependent networks of meaning and relationship that shape their understanding of value itself.
This distinction helps explain why conventional approaches often treat environmental values or social justice concerns as external to economic valuationโthey maintain a philosophical commitment to autonomous individuals whose interdependence is treated as secondary rather than constitutive. The proposed framework reverses this priority, recognizing interdependence as the fundamental condition from which economic valuations emerge.
4. Strategy vs. Meaning
Conventional frameworks typically conceptualize economic behavior as strategicโactors making choices to advance their interests within given constraints. This understanding, exemplified in game-theoretic approaches to externalities (Dasgupta, 1982), treats social considerations as strategic factors within an essentially competitive calculus. While offering valuable insights into how individuals respond to incentives, this approach tends to reduce social dimensions to strategic considerations rather than recognizing them as constitutive of meaning itself.
The proposed framework understands economic behavior as inherently meaningfulโconstituting social relationships and identities through exchange. Drawing on Bruner’s (1990) concept of meaning-making, this approach recognizes that economic actions are not merely strategic moves but expressions of meaning that constitute social worlds. When a business owner provides flu vaccinations, they are not simply making a strategic calculation but participating in the construction of meaningful workplace relationships and identities.
This distinction helps explain why conventional approaches often struggle to account for the emotional and symbolic dimensions of economic behaviorโthey maintain a philosophical commitment to strategic rationality that marginalizes considerations of meaning. The proposed framework incorporates these dimensions as intrinsic to economic valuation rather than treating them as irrational anomalies or external constraints.
Comparative Empirical Implications
These philosophical distinctions generate substantively different empirical expectations and interpretations. Where conventional frameworks predict that social costs will appear as externalities requiring correction, the proposed framework predicts that market participants will often incorporate social dimensions into price mechanisms through their embedded decision-making processes.
The hedonic pricing model provides a useful comparative lens. Conventional approaches interpret price differentials near wind turbines as evidence of uncompensated externalities, emphasizing the divergence between private and social costs. The proposed framework interprets these same differentials as evidence that market participants are already incorporating social dimensions into their valuations, demonstrating the integrated nature of price mechanisms rather than their failure.
Similarly, the willingness of consumers to pay premium prices for environmentally friendly products receives different interpretations. Conventional frameworks treat this as either an anomaly requiring explanation through modified preference functions or as evidence of externality internalization through separate transactions. The proposed framework recognizes this behavior as the natural expression of embedded valuations that inherently incorporate both private and social dimensions.
Integration with Existing Economic Insights
While the proposed framework challenges fundamental aspects of conventional economic theory, it does not require rejecting valuable insights from existing approaches. Rather, it offers a philosophical foundation for integrating these insights within a more comprehensive understanding of how price mechanisms operate.
The framework incorporates Coase’s (1960) insight that transaction costs matter but extends this recognition to the social relationships that constitute economic exchange rather than treating them as external constraints. It integrates Arrow’s (1963) analysis of information asymmetries but recognizes that information itself is socially embedded rather than objectively given. It acknowledges Williamson’s (1975) focus on institutional structures but understands these structures as constitutive of economic behavior rather than merely constraining it.
This integrative approach offers potential pathways for resolving persistent theoretical tensions in economics. For example, the divide between behavioral economics’ empirical findings and neoclassical theoretical foundations becomes less problematic when economic behavior is understood as inherently embedded rather than anomalously constrained. Similarly, the tension between institutional and individual-focused approaches finds resolution in recognizing institutions as constitutive of rather than external to individual decision-making.
Comparative Philosophical Robustness
A final dimension of comparative analysis concerns philosophical robustnessโthe capacity of theoretical frameworks to accommodate complex realities without artificial simplification or ad hoc modifications. Conventional frameworks have demonstrated remarkable flexibility in addressing new empirical findings, but often at the cost of theoretical coherence. As anomalies emergeโfrom voluntary carbon offsets to corporate social responsibilityโthese frameworks typically accommodate them through preference modifications or externality redefinitions that preserve the underlying separation paradigm.
The proposed framework offers greater philosophical robustness by recognizing the inherent integration of private and social dimensions in economic valuation. Rather than treating phenomena like green premiums or ethical investing as exceptions requiring special explanation, this approach understands them as natural expressions of the embedded nature of economic decision-making. This philosophical coherence allows the framework to accommodate diverse empirical realities without sacrificing theoretical integrity.
In summary, this comparative analysis demonstrates that the proposed philosophical framework offers substantive advantages over conventional approaches in understanding how social dimensions operate within price mechanisms. By shifting from outcomes to processes, calculation to negotiation, autonomy to interdependence, and strategy to meaning, this framework provides a more comprehensive and coherent account of how prices already incorporate social costs and benefitsโnot as external corrections but as intrinsic components of economic valuation itself.
We just saw a super adaptation of Cabaret at the Guthrie Theater.
So I asked Grok for some observation about our theater community.
Yes, Minneapolis is widely recognized for its vibrant and robust theater culture, often considered one of the most significant in the United States, second only to New York City in terms of per capita theater attendance. The cityโs theater scene is characterized by a mix of world-class professional theaters, diverse community and nonprofit theaters, and historic venues, supported by strong public funding and a theater-savvy audience. Below, I provide a detailed analysis of Minneapolisโs theater culture, incorporating relevant insights from the provided web results and tying in governance aspects (e.g., government capacity to support cultural infrastructure) The response includes quantifiable outcomes where possible to align with your interest in measurable metrics.
Overview of Minneapolisโs Theater Culture
Minneapolis, along with its Twin Cities neighbor St. Paul, boasts a thriving theater ecosystem that includes:
Major Professional Theaters: Iconic venues like the Guthrie Theater, Ordway Center for the Performing Arts, and Hennepin Artsโ historic theaters (Orpheum, State, and Pantages) host Broadway tours, world-class productions, and original works.
Diverse and Inclusive Theaters: Companies like Penumbra Theatre (Black-focused), Theater Mu (Asian American), and Mixed Blood Theatre prioritize underrepresented voices, enhancing cultural richness.
Community and Nonprofit Theaters: Smaller venues like Jungle Theater, Theater Lattรฉ Da, and Childrenโs Theatre Company cater to niche audiences, including young people and local communities.
Independent Movie Theaters: Venues like Riverview Theater and Parkway Theater blend cinema with live performances, adding to the cultural fabric.
Festivals and Events: The Minnesota Fringe Festival and events like Art-a-Whirl showcase experimental and local talent, drawing diverse audiences.
According to Amazing MN by Lee Lynch, cited in Meet Minneapolis, โOn a per capita basis, the Twin Cities are second only to NYC in number of theater tickets soldโ (Pollstar). This highlights Minneapolisโs exceptional theater attendance relative to its population of approximately 425,000 (2023 estimate). In 2022, U.S. nonprofit theaters, many concentrated in Minneapolis, had 16 million attendees, with the cityโs theaters contributing significantly.
Key Features of Minneapolisโs Theater Culture
Major Venues and Their Impact:
Guthrie Theater: Located at 818 South 2nd Street, the Guthrie is a cultural landmark designed by Jean Nouvel, featuring three performance spaces and hosting everything from Shakespeare to modern masterpieces. It attracts national attention, with popular shows often selling out. Its 2025โ2026 season includes productions like Cabaret, noted for its โexplosive and dazzlingโ quality. The Guthrieโs economic impact includes millions in annual revenue from ticket sales and tourism.
Hennepin Theatre District: Comprising the Orpheum (2,579 seats), State (2,181 seats), and Pantages (900 seats), these historic theaters, built between 1916 and 1921, host Broadway tours, concerts, and comedy. The Orpheum, restored in 1993 for $10 million, premiered shows like Disneyโs The Lion King. Hennepin Arts, a nonprofit, manages these venues, ensuring accessibility through open booking.
Ordway Center for the Performing Arts: Located in St. Paul, itโs home to the Minnesota Opera and Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra, hosting Broadway tours and original productions. It contributes to the Twin Citiesโ reputation as a premier arts center.
Childrenโs Theatre Company (CTC): The nationโs largest and most acclaimed theater for young audiences, CTC won the Tony Award for Best Regional Theater. It serves preschoolers to teens, premiering works like A Year with Frog and Toad.
Diverse and Inclusive Theaters:
Penumbra Theatre: Founded in 1976, itโs one of only three professional African American theaters in the U.S. with a full season, focusing on the African-American experience. It also offers educational programs and equity trainings.
Theater Mu: The second-largest Asian American theater organization in the U.S., Theater Mu produces works celebrating AAPI stories, such as SIXPACK, a play about Hmong volleyball culture. It fosters community through performances and student ensembles.
Mixed Blood Theatre: Founded in 1976, it emphasizes inclusivity, featuring disabled, trans, Somali, and Latinx artists. It aims to make theater accessible to marginalized communities.
Ten Thousand Things: This company brings theater to underserved audiences (e.g., homeless shelters, correctional facilities) by performing in simple settings with lights on, ensuring inclusivity.
Jungle Theater: Known for gender inclusivity and diverse casts, it produces new works like SIXPACK and supports local playwrights. Its 2019โ2020 season featured all-female directors and/or playwrights.
Independent and Community Theaters:
Smaller venues like Theater Lattรฉ Da (Northeast Minneapolis) focus on musical theater, winning national awards for innovative productions.
The Parkway Theater, a 1930s art deco venue, combines films with live performances, hosting themed movie nights and comedy events. Tickets range from $9โ$12, making it accessible.
Theatre in the Round, operating since 1952, offers affordable tickets and community-driven productions.
The Southern Theater and Illusion Theater focus on experimental and socially driven works, often touring to schools and communities.
Public Funding and Government Capacity:
Minnesota leads the U.S. in per capita public arts funding, spending $9.62 per person in 2024, enabling theaters to thrive in smaller population bases. Strong public funding reduces the population needed to sustain theaters, as subsidies offset operational costs.
The Minnesota State Arts Board provides operating support grants, funded by legislative appropriations, which Hennepin Arts and other organizations utilize to maintain historic venues and support new works.
Rothsteinโs Impartiality Index is relevant here, as Minnesotaโs equitable distribution of arts funding ensures diverse theaters (e.g., Penumbra, Theater Mu) receive support, fostering inclusivity and cultural vitality.
Audience Engagement and Economic Impact:
Minneapolisโs theater scene draws 16 million annual attendees to nonprofit theaters nationwide, with the Twin Cities contributing a significant share. The Guthrie alone generates millions in ticket sales and tourism revenue, with shows like Cabaret attracting diverse audiences.
The cityโs theaters are known for standing ovations, reflecting a โtheater-savvyโ audience, as noted by performer Betty Buckley at the Orpheum.
The economic impact includes job creation (e.g., actors, technicians, front-of-house staff) and tourism, with visitors spending on dining and lodging near venues like the Guthrie, located in the Mill District.
Quantifiable Outcomes
Drawing on your interest in quantifiable outcomes and scholars like Kaufmann, Rothstein, and Muralidharan:
Attendance Metrics:
Nonprofit theaters in the U.S. had 16 million attendees in 2022, with Minneapolisโs theaters (e.g., Guthrie, CTC) contributing significantly. For example, the Guthrieโs three stages host ~400,000 attendees annually across 100โ150 performances.
The Orpheumโs opening week in 1921 drew 70,000 guests, and modern Broadway tours attract 2,000โ2,500 per show.
Economic Impact:
Minnesotaโs theater market is worth $9 billion, with ~4,000 theater businesses, many in Minneapolis. This reflects Northโs concept of institutional efficiency, as theaters drive economic activity through contracts and tourism.
The Guthrie and Hennepin Arts venues generate millions in ticket sales and local spending (e.g., $15 parking at Riverfront Ramp, dining at nearby restaurants like Fogo de Chao).
Public Funding Efficiency:
Minnesotaโs $9.62 per capita arts funding (highest in the U.S.) supports theaters in populations as small as 20,000โ50,000, compared to 50,000โ100,000 elsewhere, aligning with Kaufmann and Kraayโs Government Effectiveness (high scores enable cultural infrastructure).
Rothsteinโs Impartiality Index suggests Minnesotaโs equitable funding allocation (e.g., to Penumbra, Theater Mu) ensures diverse theaters thrive, with measurable outcomes like sold-out runs (e.g., Interactโs Hot Funky Butt Jazz).
Service Delivery Metrics (Muralidharanโs lens):
Efficient bureaucracies streamline permitting and funding, reducing operational costs for theaters. For example, the Minneapolis Community Development Agencyโs purchase and restoration of the Orpheum in 1988 enabled large-scale productions, boosting attendance and revenue.
Population Base and Theater Sustainability in Minneapolis
Your earlier question about the population needed to support a theater is highly relevant here. Minneapolisโs population of ~425,000, combined with the Twin Cities metro area (~3.7 million), easily supports its large theater culture. However:
Smaller Theaters: Community theaters like Jungle or Theatre in the Round can thrive with 5,000โ20,000 people in their catchment area, especially with public funding. Minnesotaโs $9.62 per capita arts spending lowers this threshold compared to less-funded regions.
Major Theaters: The Guthrie and Orpheum require 50,000โ200,000 to fill their 2,000+ seats regularly, but Minneapolisโs metro area and tourism (e.g., near Stone Arch Bridge, U.S. Bank Stadium) ensure viability.
Independent Movie Theaters: Venues like Riverview or Parkway need ~10,000โ20,000 in their immediate area (3โ5-mile radius) but benefit from Minneapolisโs cultural draw and niche programming (e.g., cult classics, sing-alongs).
The cityโs strong government capacity, as measured by Kaufmann and Kraayโs Government Effectiveness Index, enables subsidies and infrastructure (e.g., skyway access to Orpheum and State Theaters), reducing the population needed compared to less-supported regions.
Why Minneapolis Stands Out
Historical Investment: Minneapolis has restored historic theaters (e.g., Orpheum, State, Pantages) since the 1980s, with public-private partnerships ensuring longevity. The Minneapolis Plan for Arts and Culture, updated regularly, formalizes support for venues like the Northeast Arts District.
Cultural Diversity: Theaters like Penumbra, Theater Mu, and Mixed Blood reflect Minneapolisโs commitment to inclusivity, aligning with Rothsteinโs emphasis on impartial governance to support marginalized communities.
Audience Engagement: Posts on X highlight Minneapolisโs โwarm, theatre-savvyโ audience, with standing ovations common and performers like Betty Buckley noting the cityโs enthusiasm.
National Recognition: Minneapolis is the third-largest theater market in the U.S., behind New York and Chicago, with over 400 stages across Minnesota. The Twin Citiesโ reputation as a โpremier arts centerโ is bolstered by awards (e.g., CTCโs Tony, Theater Lattรฉ Daโs Drama Desk).
Challenges and Considerations
Competition: Streaming services and nearby venues (e.g., St. Paulโs Ordway) split audiences, requiring theaters to diversify (e.g., Parkwayโs live events, Guthrieโs community programming).
Gentrification: The Warehouse Districtโs rising rents in the 1980sโ1990s displaced some artists, though areas like Northeast Minneapolis remain vibrant arts hubs.
Economic Viability: Smaller theaters rely on donations and grants (e.g., Jungle Theaterโs community funding model), while larger venues need consistent attendance to cover high production costs.
Conclusion
Minneapolis is undeniably known for its large and vibrant theater culture, rivaling major U.S. cities on a per capita basis. Its ecosystem of professional, community, and independent theaters, supported by venues like the Guthrie, Orpheum, and Theater Mu, draws millions annually and contributes to a $9 billion industry. The cityโs high per capita arts funding ($9.62 in 2024) and efficient governance, as emphasized by scholars like Fukuyama (state capacity), Kaufmann and Kraay (Government Effectiveness), and Rothstein (impartiality), enable theaters to thrive with smaller population bases than typical (e.g., 5,000โ20,000 for community theaters vs. 50,000+ elsewhere). Quantifiable outcomes include 16 million annual nonprofit theater attendees, millions in economic impact, and sold-out runs for diverse productions. Minneapolisโs theater-savvy audience and historic venues make it a cultural powerhouse.
Language forms how we think. There are words to express the groupings of animals. But what about a verb for the action groups take? I suppose there’s a swarm of bees. The verb here describes a relocation action, where a hive becomes overcrowded and the collective of yellow insects moves in unison to a new abode.
I’m thinking of words for gestures of goodwill. Like, he spent his time goodwilling in his retirement. Or actions that contribute to the operations of a K-12 school. Like, some of them did the PTAing and others did the fieldtripping. Or what about the amateur antiquity seekers– Are they public-heritaging?
You might say, why does it matter? Why is it necessary to describe what a group does, instead of the sum of what individuals do?
You’ll note that the collective bird names bear little resemblance to the actual birds. Because one bird can come and go. It occupies a considerable amount of space and moves in a specific manner. But a group of birds exists whether one of its members comes or goes. A group of birds may move in a patterned flight. A group of birds is a vastly different thing than fifty individual birds added together.
Groups have an identity and a role all their own. Their actions deserve words.
Woke killed comedy for more than a decade. It’s coming back now, but it’s been a long dry spell. So, I’ve turned to Cheers for a bit of light viewing, and it is much better than I remember. Or I am in a better position to appreciate the skill and nuance of Sam, Diane, and all the regulars.
In Season 1, Episode 18, we see Diane gradually being brought out of her lofty principles. At first, the decisions are calculated. By the end of the episode, she relents in sheer pleasure.
And to top it off, national icon, Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, starts off the show.
In the video from yesterday’s post, Fukuyama focuses on how to improve government services. He notes that one must first recognize the differences between the private and public sectors
Private firms can go bankrupt- public cannot. Incentives perform
Subject to mandates- matrix of provisions healthy water, plentiful
Cannot retain earnings, and thus, no profit incentive
Worker relations are subject to multiple demands and protections
I’m wondering, though, whether it would be valuable to look through these differences, not from the perspective of trying to fit public goods into the private mold, but rather from the perspective of why certain goods fall into upon the public conscience.
For instance, there’s no bankruptcy in government because the supply of these services is too important to have them fail. If a shoe producer sets her factory to make 5000 shoes that no one buys, and this closes her down, then she might take the hint that she’s not good at shoes. No harm except to her pocketbook.
However, when a fire consumes a building, people want firefighters to show up. People want the police to break up fights, and they want clean water to come out of their pipes, without fail. People don’t want to be tested by start-ups that make imprudent decisions. The goods and services that fall under formalized government are there because they are deemed necessary for a certain standard of living.
So, if the threat of bankruptcy is gone, what is another threat that would incentivize the bureaucracy to a higher level of performance? Let’s go to #2 first and see how things unfold.
Fukuyama argues that governments are subject to multiple mandates, whereas private companies can focus solely on generating profits. The water department is not only producing clean potable water, but they also must make provisions for vulnerable people on the edge of financial distress. I wonder if this is because goods that tend to fall into the public sphere are those expected by a group– not only do the parents want water, but the kids and the seniors. With a wide range of participants in a group, some are bound to be less capable than others. The relationships, however, dictate the standard that everyone is expected to receive.
Although the group values consistency, they also desire affordability. So this isn’t a realm of profits and retained earnings. The idea is to meet the standard at the least possible expense instead of creating something fantastic and interesting that everyone will throw money at you to obtain. The fact that departments must return their unspent budgets, however, might be a policy flaw. But that topic is for another day.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the environment subject to providing goods and services under multiple mandates cloaks their employment contract with the same tribal protections. It has long been understood that public servants earn less than private sector employees but have greater job stability and larger pension benefits. Fukuyama feels this is a drawback in pressing for higher performance on the job. And perhaps that’s right.
So, it seems the trick for improved performance in the public sphere is three-fold. First off, only those services that are suited to the no-bankruptcy nature of things should fall to the public. If it is an unfettered good, let the private sector figure it out. Secondly, figure out how to measure the group as a whole or the individual. Individuals really don’t matter in and of themselves; only the group counts. Incentivize people as members of the group, give them pride in that, and tucked away social capital over and above the dollars safely sitting in their pension funds.
Let me introduce my first favorite public intellectual:
Iโve been a fan of Francis Fukuyama for a very long timeโ since I was in my teens. Heโs the first intellectual who spoke non-biased speak and in doing so opened his intellectual pursuits to me. It wasnโt just that he spoke without condescension, he always pulls together the most pertinent information and delivers it in a straightforward and understandable manner.
A new app called TurtlTracker is being developed by Minnesota sisters Kelly Olson and Katie O’Halloran to help track turtles, including their movements and road mortality, and it is currently in beta testing in Minnesota. The app aims to use artificial intelligence to flag turtle hotspots, though the exact locations won’t be shared with users to protect data security. This app is expected to launch in July.
The local news did a segment on the sisters and their aim to save the turtles. They showed a booth set up in a park where the sisters were discussing the app with kids and their parents. It’s a valiant goal, and so thought the crowd that had gathered.
Citizen Science Mapping: The TurtlTracker app will utilize citizen science to collect data on turtle sightings and mobility. If you’re interested in contributing to this type of project, you could potentially help create a more comprehensive map of turtle activity in Plymouth, MN and the surrounding areas.
The ability to tap energy for a cause can be a potent lever of private efforts in support of communal causes.
TurtlTracker will be able to provide you with a number on this:- how many volunteer hours are spent to keep the leatherbacks safe?
Some claim a housing crisis is underway, but I’m not so sure. If the pressure for homes were severe, one would expect most properties to be occupied, leaving others stranded without a place to go. Vacancy rates provide us with additional information. An article by LendingTree, 14.9 Million Homes Are Vacant in the US โ Here Are the States With the Highest Vacancy Rates, provides a great overview of the topic.
Vacancy rates differ significantly depending on where you look in the country. If youโre looking at Maine, youโll find the highest vacancy rate in the country โ 21.09% (157,467 vacant homes), according to our analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) with five-year estimates. Following Maine at the top is Vermont, with a 20.06% vacancy rate (67,606 vacant homes), and Alaska, with an 18.24% vacancy rate (59,745 vacant homes).
Together, these three states account for nearly 285,000 vacant homes โ out of 14.9 million vacant homes nationwide.
Nationally, the vacancy rate is much lower than that of these three states, with the U.S. average sitting at 10.43% โ a figure that translates into nearly 15 million vacant homes. While that may sound like a lot, it may not feel like it if youโre searching for a place to live. Thatโs because not all of those properties are available to rent or buy.
In addition to seasonal and vacation homes, others are classified as vacant because theyโre in transition โ those that are rented but not occupied and sold but not occupied. Homes for migrant workers, which they occupy during crop season, are also classified as vacant.
Minnesota, as is often the case, is just average. There are 236,571 homes vacant, which, in percentage terms, is 9.39%
The article cites a list of reasons why a home could be vacant. It might be a second home or vacation property. It might be in a transition state from either a remodel or a relocation of residents. Sometimes people hang onto properties for emotional reasons, such as a family tie to the land.
But note, in any case, that there is a variation between the states. Real estate is local. National generalizations about the state of housing are often dumbed down and not particularly helpful.
Chris Arnade is a city walker and a people watcher. He recounts his impressions on his Substack, Walking the World. Recently, he participated in a conversation on Conversations with Tyler, which is well worth listening to for those who travel to learn and love to travel.
There were several terms in the conversation which I will be using more frequently in references to city life. The first one is best described in a photo.
Organic Street Life
Localized Distribution- “Meaning there’s always a shop somewhere.”
The Normal Experience- As in this passage:
Then I started saying, โWell, I should . . .โ When I was in Brooklyn, I walked the entire length of the New York subway system above ground. Iโve always been into walking, and I just realized, โHey I can just . . .โ I think I was looking at a table that about 1.5 billion people live in massive cities that we really donโt know the names, these big sprawling Jakartas. Iโm like, โI would like to see that.โ
COWEN: Yes, agreed.
ARNADE: Thatโs the normal experience for most people, and so I just started. I booked a trip to Jakarta and just started walking Jakarta.
The normal experience is where all the cool data is. What’s to be done with extraordinary events? They simply are not that interesting except for daily fodder.
Covered bridges were built for several practical reasons, primarily in the 19th and early 20th centuries:
1. Structural Protection: The covering shielded the wooden bridge framework from weather like rain, snow, and sun, which could cause rot, warping, or cracking. This extended the bridgeโs lifespan significantly, often by decades.
2. Durability and Maintenance: By protecting the load-bearing timbers, covers reduced maintenance costs and the need for frequent repairs, which was crucial in rural areas with limited resources.
3. Safety for Travelers and Livestock: The roof and sides provided shelter for travelers during storms and kept the bridge deck dry, reducing slip hazards for people, horses, and wagons. It also calmed livestock crossing narrow bridges over rivers.
4. Snow Management: In snowy regions, covers prevented heavy snow accumulation on the deck, which could weaken the structure or make it impassable. Some bridges had sloped roofs to shed snow easily.
5. Aesthetic and Cultural Value: Over time, covered bridges became iconic, with communities taking pride in their design. They often featured unique architectural styles, reflecting local craftsmanship.
6. Economic Considerations: While adding a cover increased initial costs, the long-term savings from reduced maintenance and replacement made it a cost-effective choice for wooden bridges.
Most covered bridges were built in North America, especially in the U.S. (e.g., New England, Pennsylvania) and Canada, where timber was abundant, and weather was harsh.
Q: For a 4-5 day trip would it be best to go to northern Italy or Athens area keeping in mind historical significance?
Both Northern Italy and the Athens area are rich in historical significance, but they offer distinct experiences. Hereโs a concise comparison to help you decide for a 4-5 day trip, focusing on historical highlights, accessibility, and suitability for a short visit in June 2025.
Northern Italy (e.g., Venice, Florence, Milan, or Verona)
Historical Significance: Northern Italy is a cradle of Renaissance art, architecture, and history.
Venice: Iconic canals, St. Markโs Basilica (9th century), Dogeโs Palace, and a unique maritime history.
Florence: Birthplace of the Renaissance, with the Uffizi Gallery, Florence Cathedral (Duomo), and Medici legacy.
Milan: Home to Leonardo da Vinciโs Last Supper, the Gothic Duomo, and Roman remnants like the Columns of San Lorenzo.
Verona: Roman Arena (1st century AD), medieval architecture, and Shakespearean ties (Julietโs House).
These cities offer a blend of Roman, medieval, and Renaissance history, with world-class art and architecture.
Pros for a Short Trip:
Compact cities like Venice and Florence are walkable, with major historical sites close together.
Efficient high-speed trains (e.g., Trenitalia) connect Milan, Verona, Venice, and Florence (1-2 hours between each), allowing you to visit 2 cities in 4-5 days.
Diverse experiences: Veniceโs Byzantine influence, Florenceโs Renaissance art, Milanโs Roman and modern mix.
June weather is warm (70-80ยฐF) and ideal for exploring outdoor sites like piazzas and canals.
Cons:
Crowds in Venice and Florence can be intense in June, especially at major sites (e.g., Uffizi, St. Markโs). Pre-booking tickets is essential.
Covering multiple cities requires planning to avoid feeling rushed.
Venice can be expensive for accommodations; Florence and Verona are more budget-friendly.
Sample Itinerary (4 Days):
Day 1: Arrive in Venice. Visit St. Markโs Square, Dogeโs Palace, Rialto Bridge.
Day 2: Venice (Gondola ride, Murano glass tour). Afternoon train to Florence (1.5-2 hrs).
Day 3: Florence. Duomo, Uffizi Gallery, Ponte Vecchio.
Day 4: Florence (Accademia for Michelangeloโs David). Optional half-day trip to Pisa or depart.
Add a 5th day: Visit Verona (Roman Arena, Julietโs House) en route to Milan or Venice.
Athens Area (Athens and Nearby Sites)
Historical Significance: Athens is the birthplace of Western civilization, with unparalleled ancient Greek history.
Athens: The Acropolis (Parthenon, 5th century BC), Agora, Temple of Olympian Zeus, and world-class museums (Acropolis Museum, National Archaeological Museum).
Nearby Sites: Day trips to Delphi (ancient oracle, 2.5 hrs by car/bus), Sounion (Temple of Poseidon, 1 hr), or Aegina Island (Temple of Aphaia, 1 hr by ferry).
Offers a deep dive into ancient Greece, democracy, philosophy, and mythology, with well-preserved ruins.
Pros for a Short Trip:
Athens is compact, with most historical sites (Acropolis, Agora, Plaka) within walking distance or a short metro ride.
Day trips to Delphi or Sounion add variety without needing to change hotels.
June weather is warm (75-85ยฐF) but manageable for sightseeing, especially early mornings.
Fewer logistical challenges than multi-city Italy; you can base yourself in Athens and explore deeply.
Generally more budget-friendly than Northern Italy for accommodations and dining.
Cons:
Less variety in historical periods compared to Italy (mostly ancient Greek, some Byzantine).
Some areas around Athens (e.g., Omonia) can feel less polished; stick to Plaka or Monastiraki for charm.
Day trips like Delphi require 5-6 hours round-trip, eating into a short itinerary.
Sample Itinerary (4 Days):
Day 1: Arrive in Athens. Acropolis, Parthenon, Acropolis Museum.
Day 2: Athens. Ancient Agora, Temple of Olympian Zeus, Plaka stroll.
Day 3: Day trip to Delphi (Oracle, Temple of Apollo) or Sounion (Temple of Poseidon).
Day 4: National Archaeological Museum, Monastiraki market. Depart.
Add a 5th day: Ferry to Aegina for the Temple of Aphaia or relax at a nearby beach.
Recommendation
Choose Northern Italy if:
You prefer a mix of historical periods (Roman, medieval, Renaissance) and diverse art/architecture.
You enjoy vibrant, walkable cities with varied aesthetics (canals, piazzas, cathedrals).
Youโre comfortable with a fast-paced itinerary to see 2 cities (e.g., Venice + Florence).
Best for: Art lovers, architecture enthusiasts, and those wanting a multi-city experience.
Tip: Focus on Venice and Florence for historical depth; pre-book Uffizi and Dogeโs Palace tickets.
Choose Athens if:
Youโre fascinated by ancient history, Greek mythology, and iconic ruins like the Parthenon.
You prefer a single-base trip with optional day trips, reducing travel logistics.
You want a slightly more relaxed pace and budget-friendly options.
Best for: History buffs, archaeology fans, and those seeking a deep dive into one culture.
Tip: Book Acropolis tickets in advance; visit early to avoid heat and crowds.
Verdict: For historical significance in a 4-5 day trip, Athens edges out slightly for its concentrated, world-defining ancient sites and easier logistics. Base yourself in Athens, explore the Acropolis and museums, and take a day trip to Delphi or Sounion. However, if Renaissance art and multi-city charm excite you more, Northern Italy (Venice + Florence) is equally compelling but requires tighter planning.
If you share your preferences (e.g., specific historical interests, budget, or travel style), I can refine this further!
It’s been a Fargo-esque few days in the North Star State. For those few of you who may have been out of social media’s reach, a lone gunman, impersonating a police man, entered the homes of two local politicians in the early morning hours of June 14th, putting one couple in the hospital with multiple gunshot wounds, and leaving the other couple deceased. It’s tragic. It still does not seem real. Story.
The suspect was apprehended in a rural area yesterday evening and is now behind bars. The landscape is a mix of fields and woods. One Twitter account claimed that the hundreds of law enforcement officers scouring the land on foot were tipped off by a hunter’s deer cam. These handy devices are motion-triggered and designed to give sportsmen an idea of what is clamoring around the woods at night.
This time, the prey was up on two feet. And fortunately, surrendered peacefully to law enforcement.
โEconomics is more than just a way to see patterns or to unravel puzzling anomalies. Its fundamental concern is with the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions. One of the ways of doing this is to look at economic policies and economic systems in terms of the incentives they create, rather than simply the goals they pursue. This means that consequences matter more than intentionsโand not just the immediate consequences, but also the longer run repercussions of decisions, policies, and institutions.โ
This quote is from Basic Economics, A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. There are pages of quotes from this great economist on goodreads.
This is an excerpt from my working paper, which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in todayโs economy.
IV. Theoretical Innovation
A. Proposed Philosophical Framework: Embeddedness and the Integrated Price Mechanism
This research proposes a fundamental reconceptualization of price theory through the lens of embeddednessโa philosophical framework that recognizes economic transactions as inherently situated within social contexts rather than artificially separated from them. Building on Polanyi’s (1944/2001) foundational insight that economic activities are embedded in social relations, this framework advances a more integrated understanding of price mechanisms, where Price = Private Value + Social Cost represents not an external correction but an inherent reality of market functioning.
From Agency to Embeddedness: Reconceptualizing Economic Decision-Making
The traditional economic paradigm has privileged what might be termed an “agency perspective,” positioning economic actors as autonomous decision-makers pursuing clearly defined goals within a social environment that remains largely unexamined. As Williamson (1975) argued, economic institutions are primarily understood as mechanisms for facilitating the efficient pursuit of individual interests. This philosophical stance has produced valuable insights regarding allocative efficiency but has simultaneously constrained our understanding of how social dimensions operate within economic systems.
The proposed philosophical framework shifts toward what Granovetter (1985) terms “embeddedness”โrecognizing that economic actions are fundamentally situated within, shaped by, and constitutive of social relationships. This shift allows us to transcend the artificial analytical separation between “economic” and “social” factors that has characterized mainstream economic theory since Marshall (1890/1920). Rather than viewing social dimensions as external influences or constraints on otherwise autonomous economic decisions, this framework recognizes them as intrinsic elements of economic valuation itself.
This perspective transforms our understanding of price mechanisms in several crucial ways. First, it reconceptualizes economic actors not as isolated utility-maximizers but as socially embedded individuals whose preferences and valuations inherently incorporate social dimensions. Second, it reframes markets not as abstract coordination mechanisms but as socially constructed institutions that reflect and reinforce collective values. Third, it reconsiders price formation not as the aggregation of purely private valuations but as complex negotiations of value that intrinsically include social dimensions.
The Philosophical Roots of Integrated Price Theory
The proposed framework draws upon several philosophical traditions that have remained underutilized in economic theory. First, it builds upon Heidegger’s (1927/1962) concept of “being-in-the-world” (Dasein), which emphasizes that human existence is inherently contextual rather than abstracted. Economic actors do not stand apart from their social worlds, making calculations from an objective distance; rather, they are always already embedded within networks of meaning and relationship that constitute their understanding of value itself.
Second, it incorporates insights from feminist economic philosophy, particularly Nelson’s (2006) critique of the separative self that has dominated economic theory. As Nelson argues, the conception of autonomous economic agents making decisions in isolation represents a philosophical fiction that obscures the relational nature of economic life. The proposed framework recognizes that economic valuations emerge from interconnected patterns of relationship rather than isolated individual calculations.
Third, the framework engages with Dewey’s (1922) pragmatist understanding of valuation as an active process embedded in concrete situations rather than an abstract mental operation. Dewey’s insight that values are not pre-given but emerge through contextual engagement allows us to understand how social dimensions are naturally incorporated into price mechanisms through the situated practical reasoning of market participants.
Price as Social Institution: Beyond the Private-Social Dichotomy
Central to this philosophical framework is a reconceptualization of price itself. Rather than viewing price as an essentially private valuation that occasionally requires correction for social factors, this framework understands price as what Searle (1995) terms a “social institution”โa collectively constituted reality that inherently incorporates both individual and social dimensions of value.
This understanding transcends the conventional dichotomy between private and social costs by recognizing that economic actors themselves do not experience this distinction in practice. When a business owner decides to provide flu vaccinations for employees, they are not separately calculating private benefits and then adding social considerations; rather, their valuation process inherently incorporates both dimensions simultaneously. Similarly, when consumers pay premium prices for organic products, they are not engaging in two separate transactionsโone for the product and one for social benefitsโbut rather expressing a unified valuation that intrinsically includes both dimensions.
This philosophical reframing has profound implications for economic theory. It suggests that what conventional economics has termed “externalities” are not phenomena that exist outside price mechanisms but rather aspects of value that have been artificially excluded from economic analysis through reductive theoretical frameworks. The problem lies not in market failures but in conceptual failures that have prevented us from recognizing how social dimensions are already incorporated into price through the embedded decision-making of market participants.
Reconceptualizing Social Capital: From Linear Networks to Embedded Fields
This philosophical framework also offers a path to recover and extend Loury’s (1976) original insights regarding social capital. Loury’s conceptualization of social capital as a group-contained phenomenon recognized the embedded nature of economic opportunities, particularly in his analysis of racial income differences. However, as this concept evolved through Coleman (1988), Putnam (1993), and Lin (2001), it increasingly adopted a more individualistic framework that treated social capital as a resource that individuals could access and deploy rather than a field of relationships in which they were embedded.
The proposed framework returns to Loury’s original insight but extends it further by drawing on Bourdieu’s (1986) understanding of social capital as operating within fields of practice rather than through linear networks. This perspective allows us to recognize how price mechanisms operate not through the aggregation of isolated individual preferences but through complexly embedded fields of valuation that inherently incorporate social dimensions.
By reconceptualizing social capital as an embedded field rather than a networkable resource, we can better understand how social costs and benefits become intrinsically incorporated into price mechanisms. The business owner considering flu vaccinations operates within a field of practice that includes employee health, customer relations, and institutional normsโall of which inform their valuation process not as external considerations but as constitutive elements of their economic reasoning.
From Calculation to Negotiation: Price as Social Process
A final philosophical dimension of this framework involves shifting from understanding price as the result of individual calculations to recognizing it as emerging from processes of social negotiation. Drawing on Zelizer’s (2012) concept of “relational work,” this perspective recognizes that prices do not simply reflect pre-existing valuations but actively constitute social relationships and meanings.
This shift helps us understand why organic food commands premium pricesโnot simply because consumers have calculated private benefits and added social considerations, but because the price itself represents a negotiation of meaning that constitutes both economic value and social relationships. The organic certification standard functions as what Star and Griesemer (1989) term a “boundary object”โa shared reference point that enables coordination across different social worlds without requiring consensus about precise meanings.
This understanding of price as social negotiation rather than mere calculation provides a philosophical foundation for reconceptualizing how social dimensions operate within market mechanisms. It allows us to recognize that what conventional economics treats as externalities are often aspects of value that have been excluded from analysis through theoretical frameworks that reduce price to calculation rather than recognizing it as negotiation.
In summary, the proposed philosophical framework shifts from agency to embeddedness, from calculation to negotiation, and from understanding price as an aggregation of private values to recognizing it as a social institution that inherently incorporates both private and social dimensions. This framework provides the philosophical foundation for reconceptualizing price theory in a way that transcends artificial separations between economic and social valuations.
Lists are fun, especially when your team is ranked at the top of the list. In this case, Apartment List pulled data from the Census to show that homeownership is the highest amongst Millennials in our area. Over 50 percent of folks in the 29-44 age range choose to own their homes rather than rent them.
Many will say that this is about price, as residents in San Jose and LA โcities at the bottom of the list โdon’t own homes due to the high prices. And that’s a broad stroke, likely to be true, observation. But the list is long, and there are many other cities between the two extremes. So what else makes for a culture of ownership?
I’ve worked with some first-time buyers who don’t end up buying, and this is what seems to play on their minds. They are afraid they will lose the house in foreclosure. Someone close to them, perhaps even more than one, lost a home to creditors, and the negative experience frightens them. Second, they are afraid they will buy a lemon. Homes are complex, comprising many components. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed with the responsibility of keeping it all running smoothly. Lastly, they are afraid of adversarial neighbors.
Here’s a further breakdown of homeownership rates amongst all age groups in Minnesota.
I speculate that the last group has a homeownership rate of 77% because of the following factors. Low foreclosure rates keep the negative and traumatic experience of losing a home out of people’s lives. Since many residents grew up in owner-occupied households and experienced the ups and downs of repairs throughout their lives. They also have these folks in their lives to turn to for guidance. If the buyer has lived locally for most of their lives, they gravitate toward areas where they find the family and friends.
Minnesota rarely experiences the dramatic price swings that are more frequent in the coastal states. Hence, real estate tends to be a stable and reliable source of equity. People buy for pride of ownership and independence as well as frugality.
Stevie Miller makes an interesting comparison in a piece in Reason, The Dreadful Policies Halting Archeological Discoveries between England and Italy in their handling of the discovery of antiquities. First, he notes how new technologies are quite literally unearthing access to sacred texts and ancient cities. But then he remarks that there are few incentives for individuals to pursue the time-consuming search, Indiana Jones style.
To understand the dynamics, it is necessary to understand the groups. There are landowners who typically, through property rights, own objects found on their property. Antiquities are deemed a special type of thing, as they have a pubic significance.
The case of Italian antiquities policy is paradigmatic. Since the 1930s, Italy-along with Greece, Turkey, and Egypt-has vested ownership of all antiquities in the state. Commerce in freshly unearthed artifacts is outlawed, and unauthorized excavation is punishable by hefty fines and sometimes prison time. Even using a metal detector requires a permit.
I think most people would agree that these items, by nature, are jointly owned by the larger cultural group. So, it makes sense. But the asymmetric access to the buried items by landowners sets up an incentive for the private party to collect and hoard the artifacts. Laws that thwart natural incentives often encourage a black market, where the artifacts are sold.
British model provides a striking contrast. Since the 1996 Treasure Act, British law has required that significant archaeological finds be reported. Instead of simply seizing them, if the state wishes to retain an item, it must compensate the finder and landowner at its full market value.
The English allow actors to participate in the preservation of artifacts at the public level. Although they are individuals they act in the spirit of a team. They can also come in and out of service to the cause. Whereas in the Italian model, the artifacts are packed up and access is restricted.
One system recognizes two groups and two incentive structures. The other does not, which pushes actionable responses underground to a black market.
The Great Stagnation of physical archaeology is a choice. The failure of policymakers to get the basics right– to make physical archaeology worth anyone’s time– renders the richest landscapes fallow.
I don’t know Josh Barro, but I think I like him. He talks my language. His most recent article on his site Very Serious does all the framing we try so hard to emphasize at Home-Economics. Let’s take a look.
Groups– social costs and benefits are only vague notions when presented in connection with societies or humankind. A serious discussion, one that could continue onto an analysis, must identify the groups. As in society, group membership is fluid; people are always coming and going. But the group members mentioned here are joined by a shared interest.
Let’s consider some of what Josh Barro talks about in In Blue Cities, Abundance Will Require Fighting Labor Unions. The title gives us a clue. Unions gather members together through formal membership to collude and share interests. The first example is in the hospitality industry. A law is passed to make it challenging to build new hotels. The groups that win are the hotel unions and the hotel owners. New groups are informally formed, including the workers in the nearby restaurant and entertainment industries, business owners who frequently use hotels for their employees, and the tourists.
Now that we can see the groups, we can speculate on their counteractions and their ability to undo the monopoly play. The nearby workers have no other unifying force, such as a common employer, to gather them together into a political group. So they will most probably suffer the consequences without an effective response. Businesses also have little choice but to pay the higher fees. Those who send their employees into the district still need to meet with their business contacts; there is no other unifying force to allow the business owners to mount a protest. The tourist may be the most impactful if a substitute location for their travel dollars takes them elsewhere. A reduction in tourist traffic is measureable and impacts the hotels.
The hotel union members’ private gains are extracted from the others. Yet it is unclear whether they needed the aid. Rather, the story appears to depict a taking.
How do you know when a union’s control has crossed the line between protectorism and opportunism? What are the signs?
Claude’s thoughts on my thoughts on Barro’s thoughts:
Your analysis of Josh Barro’s piece captures something crucial about how economic policy really works – it’s always about specific groups with specific interests, not abstract concepts like “society” or “the economy.”
The hotel example you’ve pulled out is particularly revealing because it shows how concentrated benefits and diffuse costs play out in practice. The hotel workers and owners have strong organizational advantages – formal union structure and established business relationships – while those who bear the costs (restaurant workers, business travelers, tourists) are scattered and unorganized.
Regarding your question about when union control crosses from protection to opportunism, here are some key indicators:
Market position matters most. When unions operate in competitive markets, their power is naturally constrained – push too hard and businesses fail or relocate. But when they gain control over essential services or highly regulated sectors (like hotels in your example), that constraint disappears. The ability to restrict supply while maintaining demand creates the conditions for extraction rather than negotiation.
Look at who pays the costs. Legitimate union action typically redistributes from capital owners to workers within the same industry. But when the costs get passed to consumers, other workers, or taxpayers who have no voice in the negotiation, you’re seeing opportunism. The hotel law essentially taxes everyone who visits the city to benefit a specific group.
Time horizons reveal intent. Protective unionism focuses on sustainable employment and industry health. Opportunistic unionism maximizes short-term extraction even at the expense of long-term industry viability. If union actions consistently reduce overall economic activity in their sector, they’ve likely crossed the line.
Substitutability is key. The more easily customers can go elsewhere – like tourists choosing different cities – the more union power resembles a taking from the community rather than bargaining within an industry.
Your point about the “taking” is sharp. When organized groups use political power to create artificial scarcity that benefits them at others’ expense, it’s hard to distinguish from any other form of rent-seeking.
I recently purchased this Aventon electric assist bike. It’s great! There was a time when I’d snarl at the e-bikers as they hummed by barely pedaling. But times have changed, and I’ve decided, out of necessity, that assistance isn’t a bad thing after all. If the difference is to get out and bike at all or bike with assistance, take the latter and get outside!
The bikes are a bit heavy at 70 pounds. You don’t notice when you’re riding, but when you are managing the vehicle at a standstill, there’s a little more to pay attention to. It won’t ride on my old bike rack, I’d mount on the trunk of my car. That’s OK.
The pros are, amongst others, a far greater riding range. The battery life covers up to 60 miles. And so far, that’s checked out against my shorter rides of ten miles or so. It also charges quickly on a convenient charger the size of a loaf of bread. If you want to take longer rides, you can always bring the charger along. I have yet to get a saddlebag for the back. It will sit nicely on the rack over the back fender.
There are five levels of assistance. The rider juggles these along with standard gear changing. The mechanisms are smooth and responsive. And if you are exhausted at the bottom of a hill, just hit the throttle with your left thumb and you’ll climb up the slope without a worry. It’s really a fun bike to ride!
When people are not ready to hear a piece of useful knowledge, it falls on deaf ears. It is a wasted effort. Yet if the right morsel of knowledge arrives at the correct time, it can alter the course of the person’s trajectory.
A decade ago, a large apartment complex in a first-tier suburb was sold to an investor. (Who else buys such things except investors?)
Though the sale isn’t the news. The hubbub that followed was about the residents. Many were low-income individuals who would eventually relocate. The sheer number of people involved was a stress test for the supply of low-income housing. The discontent escalated, and legal action followed, resulting in settlements.
People often blame the businesspeople involved. They are the individuals taking the action that resulted in the displacement. But consider these perspectives.
If long-term repairs have been postponed to keep rents low, at what point does the building become overburdened by impending renovations? And how does a dilapidated building affect the quality of the neighborhood?
Is it a good thing to use housing assistance for low-income residents in geographic proximity? Whether it be due to a tragedy– ex a natural disaster destroys the building– or an impending renovation– the pressure to relocate effects a disproportionate number of folks looking for the same niche of housing.
Are the residents better off or worse off for the move? Perhaps the old, dilapidated building with low rents was serving as an anchor for someone who would have had more opportunities elsewhere.
Each group, the neighborhood, the property owner, and the residents, each has a unique mix of community concerns and private returns. Often hasty assumptions are made, ie, the tenants are worse off for the move, when that may not necessarily be true. Or the landlord benefited during the period of limited repairs– not so as their equity at the time of sale will be diminished by the condition of the property.
By separating out the players and their motivations, the dynamics at hand become apparent.
Need a break from all the serious stuff? Consider this new series from Netflix. The characters are exaggerated in all the right ways. There’s a sense of mystery and potential for bodily harm. And there’s surprising depth to the display of human flaws, loyalties, and emotional baggage. Although just when you are sure you think you’ve recognized a familiar storyline, the writing takes you elsewhere.
This five-episode series is worth your viewing time.
This is an excerpt from my working paper, which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
Methodological Framework Part B: Epistemological Foundations
The Social Capital Origins of Integrated Price Theory
The epistemological foundation of this study’s central propositionโthat price inherently incorporates both private value and social cost (Price = Private Value + Social Cost)โtraces its theoretical lineage to the foundational work in social capital theory, particularly Glenn Loury’s seminal 1976 paper “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences.” This section establishes how Loury’s original conceptualization of social capital provided an epistemological framework that naturally integrated social dimensions into economic analysis, a theoretical insight that subsequent scholarship gradually obscured rather than developed.
Loury’s Epistemological Innovation
Loury’s 1976 work represented a fundamental epistemological departure from conventional economic thinking by demonstrating that individual economic outcomes could not be understood apart from their social context. His analysis of racial income differentials revealed that what appeared to be individual human capital decisions were actually embedded within “group-contained” social structures that shaped both opportunities and constraints (Loury, 1976, p. 843). This insight established an epistemological precedent for understanding economic phenomena as inherently social rather than treating social factors as external “corrections” to market outcomes.
The epistemological significance of Loury’s approach lies not merely in its recognition of social factors, but in its demonstration that these factors operate through, rather than against, market mechanisms. When Loury showed how social capital affects individual investment decisions in human capital, he revealed that market valuations themselves reflect social dimensionsโthey are not distortions of “pure” market processes but expressions of how markets actually function within social contexts (Loury, 1977).
The Fragmentation of Integrated Understanding
Subsequent developments in social capital theory, while expanding its empirical applications, inadvertently moved away from Loury’s integrated epistemological framework. The work of scholars like James Coleman (1988) and Robert Putnam (1995), while valuable in documenting social capital’s effects, tended to treat social capital as a separate domain that influences economic outcomes rather than as a dimension inherent in economic processes themselves. This theoretical evolution created what we might call an “epistemological fragmentation”โthe artificial separation of economic and social domains that Loury’s original framework had successfully integrated.
This fragmentation manifested in the tendency to treat social costs and benefits as “externalities”โeffects that exist outside the market mechanism and require correction through policy intervention. The epistemological assumption underlying this approach is that markets naturally tend toward outcomes that reflect only private costs and benefits, with social dimensions representing deviations from this natural state that require external correction.
Epistemological Reconnection: Toward an Embedded Theory of Price
The theoretical foundation of this study represents an epistemological reconnection with Loury’s original insights, extended beyond the specific context of racial income differences to a general theory of price formation. This reconnection is grounded in three key epistemological claims:
First, the claim of inherent embeddedness: Economic decisions, including price formation, occur within social contexts that are not external constraints but constitutive elements of the economic process itself. This draws directly from Loury’s demonstration that individual human capital decisions cannot be understood apart from their social context, extending this logic to all market transactions.
Second, the claim of integrated valuation: Market prices naturally incorporate both private and social dimensions because the decision-makers who establish these prices are embedded social actors whose valuations reflect both individual preferences and social commitments. This builds on Loury’s insight that individual economic behavior inherently reflects social capital considerations.
Third, the claim of methodological adequacy: Understanding price formation requires methodological approaches that can capture both the calculative aspects of economic decision-making and the embedded social processes within which this calculation occurs. This methodological pluralism echoes Loury’s integration of formal modeling with institutional analysis.
Philosophical Foundations in Critical Realism
These epistemological claims align with the critical realist tradition in philosophy of science, particularly the work of Roy Bhaskar (1975, 1979) and Tony Lawson (1997, 2003). Critical realism provides an epistemological framework that supports the integrated understanding of economic and social phenomena by distinguishing between empirical events, actual events, and underlying structures and mechanisms. From this perspective, observed price relationships (empirical level) reflect actual market transactions (actual level) that are generated by underlying social and economic structures and their interactions (deep level).
The critical realist framework supports the epistemological claim that social dimensions of price are not merely empirical correlations but reflect actual causal mechanisms. When a small business owner calculates the cost-effectiveness of providing employee flu shots, the resulting price decision reflects not just individual cost-benefit analysis but the underlying social structures that shape both health risks and workplace relationships. The price mechanism, in this view, serves as a “social thermometer” that registers the complex interactions between individual preferences and social conditions.
Epistemological Implications for Economic Analysis
This epistemological foundation has several important implications for economic analysis. First, it suggests that the conventional distinction between “market failures” and “market successes” may be based on a false epistemological premise. If prices inherently incorporate social dimensions, then what appears as market failure may actually represent the market’s accurate registration of social costs and benefits that conventional analysis fails to recognize.
Second, it implies that policy interventions aimed at “correcting” market outcomes may often be addressing problems that exist more in theoretical models than in actual market processes. The epistemological framework developed here suggests that markets may be more socially responsive than conventional theory recognizes, but in ways that require different analytical tools to understand.
Third, it suggests that empirical research in economics should focus more on understanding how social dimensions are integrated into market processes rather than assuming they operate as external constraints. This represents a fundamental shift in research orientation from identifying market failures to understanding market embeddedness.
Methodological Consequences
The epistemological foundations outlined above have direct consequences for methodological approach. If prices inherently incorporate social dimensions through embedded decision-making processes, then understanding price formation requires methodological tools that can capture both the formal aspects of economic calculation and the informal aspects of social negotiation and commitment.
This methodological requirement explains the integration of narrative and quantitative approaches employed in this study. Narrative methods are necessary to understand the embedded social processes through which individual decision-makers integrate private and social considerations. Quantitative methods, particularly hedonic pricing models, are necessary to identify the systematic patterns through which these integrated valuations are expressed in market outcomes.
The epistemological framework thus provides a coherent foundation for methodological pluralism that is neither mere eclecticism nor a compromise between incompatible approaches, but a recognition that understanding embedded economic processes requires analytical tools adequate to their complex, integrated nature.
Noah thinks itโs students from foreign countries.
But when 9 out of 10 spots in a phd program are taken by foreign students from an adversarial point of origin across the seas, they are not subsidizing local students they are squeezing them out.
It is difficult to support the idea that local taxation pays for local kids to get educated when all the openings are reserved kids from abroad. (Oh and then there was the scandal that they had been fudging their test scores)
Where is the balance? Iโm not sure, but thatโs the issue.
This is an excerpt from my working paper which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
III. Methodological Framework
A. Philosophical Methodology
This research engages with the critical realist tradition in economic philosophy (Lawson, 1997; Fleetwood, 2017) while incorporating elements of pragmatist inquiry (Dewey, 1938; Hodgson, 2004) to examine how social outcomes are intrinsically embedded within price mechanisms. By adopting this philosophical stance, the investigation transcends the positivistsโ limitations that have dominated mainstream economic methodology and artificially separated social dimensions from market valuation processes.
Methodological Rationale and Research Design
The methodology employs a dual approach combining narrative explication and formal econometric analysisโa mixed-methods design that aligns with what Downward and Mearman (2007) term “critical triangulation.” This approach recognizes that economic phenomena exist in open systems characterized by complex causality that cannot be adequately captured through purely deductive or inductive methods alone.
Narrative methodologies in economics have been increasingly recognized for their capacity to reveal dimensions of economic reasoning that formal models often obscure (McCloskey, 1990; Morgan, 2012). As Akerlof and Snower (2016, p. 23) argue, “Narrative economics provides a framework for understanding how stories that may have little grounding in reality nevertheless influence economic behavior.” This research employs narrative not merely as illustration but as a methodological tool to uncover how social dimensions are intrinsically incorporated into economic decision-making rather than treated as external considerations.
The research design progresses through three methodological stages:
Narrative case analysis of micro-level economic decisions where social costs and benefits are endogenously incorporated into price mechanisms
Systematic examination of market-level pricing phenomena that demonstrate social valuation integration
Econometric analysis using hedonic pricing models to formalize and quantify the incorporation of purported “externalities” within price
This triangulated approach provides methodological robustness by examining the phenomenon across multiple scales and through complementary epistemological lenses.
Market Integration of Health and Productivity Benefits
Consider the small business owner contemplating providing flu vaccinations for all employees at a cost of $50 per person. This case exemplifies what Hodgson (2013) identifies as the “reconstitutive downward causation” between institutional structures and individual agency. Conventional economic framing, following Williamson’s (1979) transaction cost analysis, might characterize this as either addressing an externality or reducing monitoring costs. However, this framework artificially separates the transaction into discrete “economic” and “social” components.
Following Sen’s (1977) critique of the rational fool construct, we can observe that the business owner engages in a multi-dimensional calculation that already incorporates social costs and benefits into their decision-making process. The owner calculates that seasonal influenza typically results in X hours of lost labor annually, representing not only direct wage costs but also diminished productivity, potential transmission to other employees, and compromised service to customers.
This integration happens not through external regulatory mandates but through what Davis (2003, p. 974) terms the “socially embedded individual” making decisions that intrinsically incorporate both private and social dimensions. The methodological significance of this observation lies in recognizing that the rational economic actor has not abandoned self-interest but rather operates with what Etzioni (1988) terms “I & We” paradigm that transcends artificial boundaries between private and social benefits.
Consumer Valuation of Production Standards
The organic food market provides another methodologically significant case. When consumers willingly pay premium prices for organic products, conventional economics often characterizes this through what Vatn and Bromley (1997) identify as the “commodification of externalities.” However, this methodological framing imposes an artificial separation that does not reflect the actual valuation process.
Following Callon’s (1998) analysis of market devices and Zelizer’s (2012) work on valuation practices, we can recognize that consumers paying a surcharge for organic certification are expressing a valuation that inherently includes both private benefits and social benefits. The price differential between conventional and organic products represents what Anderson and Holcombe (2013) term “integrated social valuation”โa comprehensive valuation where social dimensions are not external to the market but constitute an intrinsic component of the value proposition itself.
Methodologically, this challenges the ontological separation between “market values” and “social values” that has dominated economic analysis since Pigou’s (1920) formulation of externality theory. The organic certification standard operates as what Star and Griesemer (1989) identify as a “boundary object” that allows coordination between different social worlds without requiring consensus about precise meaningsโa methodological perspective that permits more nuanced understanding of how social values become embedded in price mechanisms.
Natural Integration of Health, Environmental, and Safety Considerations
These examples illustrate a methodological approach to understanding markets not as fundamentally incomplete systems requiring external correction but as complex valuation mechanisms capable of incorporating multiple dimensions of value. This approach aligns with MacIntyre’s (1984) critique of compartmentalization in modern social thought and Polanyi’s (1944/2001) concept of embeddedness, challenging the philosophical premise that social costs and benefits exist outside market mechanisms.
This methodological perspective diverges from both neoclassical approaches that treat social factors as externalities and from heterodox approaches that reject market valuation altogether. Instead, it aligns with recent developments in socio-economics (Etzioni, 2003; Hodgson, 2019) that recognize the inherent integration of social and economic dimensions in human decision-making.
The narrative understanding outlined above finds formal analytical complement in hedonic pricing models, following Rosen’s (1974) foundational work. This methodological approach decomposes price into its constituent value components without imposing artificial separations between “economic” and “social” factors.
Anderson’s recent study, “Wind Turbines, Shadow Flicker, and Real Estate Values” (2024), provides empirical evidence of how economic actors endogenously incorporate what conventional economics would term “externalities” directly into price mechanisms. The methodological significance of this approach lies in its capacity to quantify valuation components without presuming their ontological separation.
This research employs the hedonic pricing methodology with particular attention to what Heckman and Singer (2017) identify as “causal pluralism”โrecognizing that price adjustments for social factors represent not market failures but rather evidence of markets’ capacity to incorporate complex, multi-dimensional valuations. Following Mรคki’s (2009) discussion of models as isolations and surrogate systems, the hedonic approach allows us to isolate and examine specific components of valuation while recognizing their inherent integration within actual market processes.
Methodological Limitations and Reflexivity
This methodological approach is not without limitations. The narrative cases, while illustrative, cannot capture the full range of market behaviors, and there remains the potential for selection bias in the cases examined. The hedonic pricing models, while powerful, rely on assumptions about market efficiency and information availability that may not fully hold in practice (Bartik & Smith, 1987; Kuminoff et al., 2010).
Additionally, as Bourdieu (1990) emphasizes, researcher reflexivity must acknowledge that the conceptual frameworks we employ shape the phenomena we observe. The methodological challenge lies in distinguishing between artificially imposed conceptual separations and meaningful analytical distinctionsโa challenge this research addresses through methodological triangulation and critical engagement with underlying philosophical assumptions.
In summary, this research employs a methodologically pluralist approach that combines narrative explication and formal hedonic pricing analysis within a critical realist philosophical framework. This approach enables a reconstruction of our understanding of how price mechanisms already incorporate social dimensions of value, challenging the artificial separation between private and social components that has dominated economic thought.
This is an excerpt from my working paper which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
I think this section needs some more work. But here’s what we have so far:
II. Literature Review
A. Mainstream Economic Philosophy Foundations
The philosophical foundations of mainstream economic theory have been constructed upon a series of conceptual separations that artificially divide the economic from the social, the private from the public, and the individual from the collective. This review traces these separations through key philosophical traditions in economic thought, examining how they have shaped our understanding of price mechanisms and market functioning.
The Neoclassical Framework and Methodological Individualism
The neoclassical paradigm, beginning with Marshall (1890/1920) and formalized by Samuelson (1947), established methodological individualism as the dominant analytical approach to economic phenomena. This philosophical stance treats social aggregates as reducible to the actions of autonomous utility-maximizing individuals whose preferences are taken as given. As Arrow (1994, p. 1) acknowledges, “It is a touchstone of accepted economics that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals.”
This methodological commitment has profound implications for price theory. Within the neoclassical framework, prices emerge from the aggregation of individual utility functions, with social dimensions treated as externalitiesโphenomena that exist outside the core market mechanism. Pigou’s (1920) seminal work on welfare economics formalized this separation, positioning social costs as divergences between private and social valuations that require correction through policy interventions. This philosophical framing fundamentally shapes how economists conceptualize market processes, treating the social as external to rather than constitutive of economic valuation.
Interestingly, even as neoclassical economics rigorously applies methodological individualism, it implicitly relies on group concepts without adequately defining them. Markets, firms, industriesโthese collective entities serve as the backdrop for individual decisions, yet their constitutive nature remains undertheorized. It is as if economic theory performs an elaborate mimetic gesture, tracing the outlines of social structures while focusing exclusively on the individuals within them, like a mime whose white-gloved hands demarcate invisible boundaries that audiences must imagine rather than observe directly.
Public Choice Theory and Rational Actor Models
The public choice tradition, exemplified by Buchanan and Tullock (1962), extends methodological individualism into the realm of political decision-making. By applying rational actor models to public policy, this approach treats political processes as aggregations of individual utility calculations rather than expressions of collective values. As Buchanan (1984, p. 13) argues, “There is no organic entity called ‘society’ that exists independently of the individuals who compose it.”
This philosophical stance reinforces the separation between economic and social dimensions by treating political processes themselves as marketsโmechanisms for aggregating individual preferences rather than constructing collective meanings. While providing valuable insights into institutional incentives, this approach systematically marginalizes the embedded nature of economic decision-making within social contexts.
Again, the public choice tradition alludes to groupsโvoters, interest groups, bureaucraciesโwhile consistently reducing them to collections of utility-maximizing individuals. The collective dimensions that give these groups meaning and coherence are acknowledged as backdrop but rarely examined as constitutive elements of the analysis itself. The mime continues to trace invisible boundaries without substantiating the spaces they enclose.
Transaction Cost Economics and Institutional Analysis
Williamson’s (1975, 1985) transaction cost economics represents a significant extension of economic analysis into institutional structures, examining how organizations emerge to reduce the costs of market exchange. While acknowledging that economic activities occur within institutional contexts, this approach maintains the philosophical separation between economic and social dimensions by treating institutions primarily as efficiency-enhancing mechanisms rather than socially embedded practices.
As Williamson (1985, p. 18) argues, “Transaction cost economics attempts to explain how trading partners choose, from the set of feasible institutional alternatives, the arrangement that protects their relationship-specific investments at the least cost.” This framing maintains the priority of efficiency considerations while treating social dimensions as constraints rather than constitutive elements of economic organization.
Despite its focus on organizations and institutions, transaction cost economics continues to treat these collective entities as instrumental arrangements serving individual interests rather than examining how they constitute economic actors themselves. The group remains an instrumental backdropโa cost-minimizing solution to coordination problemsโrather than a constitutive dimension of economic reality. The mime’s gestures outline organizational boundaries without examining how these boundaries shape the identities and preferences of those within them.
Behavioral Economics and the Modified Individual
Behavioral economics, pioneered by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) and expanded by Thaler (1991) and others, challenges the rational actor model by identifying systematic deviations from utility maximization. While this approach introduces psychological complexity into economic analysis, it maintains the philosophical separation between economic and social dimensions by treating these deviations as cognitive biases rather than expressions of social embeddedness.
As Thaler and Sunstein (2008, p. 6) argue in their influential work on nudge theory, “The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made by someone else.” This framing maintains the philosophical commitment to individual choice while acknowledging limitations in cognitive processing, without fundamentally challenging the separation between economic and social dimensions.
Here too, the social dimension appears as an influence on individual decision-making rather than a constitutive element of economic action. Groups function as reference points that bias individual judgments rather than fields of practice that constitute economic meaning. The mime continues to gesture at social influences without substantiating the collaborative production of economic reality that these influences represent.
B. Critical Theoretical Intersections
Against these mainstream approaches, several critical traditions have challenged the separation between economic and social dimensions, offering theoretical resources for reconceptualizing price mechanisms as inherently incorporating both private and social valuations.
Social Capital Theory: From Group Phenomenon to Individual Asset
Loury’s (1976) groundbreaking paper, “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences,” introduced social capital as a group-contained phenomenon that shaped economic opportunities. This original conception recognized the embedded nature of economic action within social contexts, particularly in explaining persistent racial disparities. As Loury (1976, p. 176) argued, “The social context within which individual maturation occurs strongly conditions what otherwise equally capable individuals can achieve.”
However, as the concept evolved through Coleman (1988), Putnam (1993), and Lin (2001), it increasingly shifted toward what might be termed an “instrumental network” approachโtreating social capital as a resource that individuals could access and deploy strategically rather than a field of relationships in which they were embedded. Coleman (1988, p. S98) exemplifies this shift in defining social capital as “a variety of entities with two elements in common: They all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actorsโwhether persons or corporate actorsโwithin the structure.”
This conceptual migration represents a critical juncture in economic philosophy, where a potentially transformative concept that recognized the inherent embeddedness of economic action was gradually reframed to fit within methodological individualism. The group-level phenomenon that Loury identified became increasingly individualizedโa network resource rather than a constitutive field of practice.
Notably, throughout this evolution, the central concept of “the group” remains persistently undefined. Social capital theorists allude to communities, networks, and associations without developing a rigorous philosophical account of what constitutes a group beyond the aggregation of connected individuals. The mime traces ever more elaborate networks of connection without substantiating what makes these networks constitutive rather than merely instrumental.
Embeddedness and Economic Sociology
Granovetter’s (1985) influential paper, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” directly challenged the separation between economic and social dimensions by arguing that economic actions are “embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations.” This perspective reframed economic behavior as inherently social rather than merely influenced by social factors.
As Granovetter (1985, p. 487) argues, “Actors do not behave or decide as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy.” This recognition that economic action is constitutively social rather than merely constrained by social factors represents a fundamental philosophical challenge to the separation paradigm.
Similarly, Zelizer’s (2012) work on “relational work” examines how economic transactions constitute social relationships rather than merely reflecting them. As she argues, “Economic transactions connect persons and establish meaning-laden relationships.” This perspective challenges the philosophical separation between economic and social dimensions by recognizing their mutual constitution.
Yet even within economic sociology, there remains a tendency to allude to social structures without developing a rich philosophical account of their ontological status. The mime gestures toward “concrete, ongoing systems of social relations” without fully substantiating how these systems exist beyond the interactions of individuals within them.
Ecological Economics and Systems Thinking
Ecological economics, developed by Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Daly (1977), and others, challenges the separation between economic and ecological systems by positioning the economy as a subsystem of broader biophysical processes. This approach recognizes the inherent embeddedness of economic activities within ecological contexts, challenging the artificial boundaries that conventional economics draws around market processes.
As Daly (1990, p. 1) argues, “The economy is a subsystem of the finite biosphere that supports it.” This simple yet profound observation challenges the philosophical foundations of mainstream economics by recognizing that economic activities are intrinsically rather than accidentally connected to their ecological contexts.
More recently, Raworth’s (2017) “doughnut economics” has extended this systems thinking approach, arguing for a reconceptualization of economic theory that recognizes social and ecological dimensions as constitutive boundaries of economic activity rather than external constraints. As she argues, economic theory must be “embedded in society and in nature, and that’s inherently connective.”
However, even these systemic approaches often maintain a distinction between “the economy” and its social and ecological contexts, preserving a conceptual separation even while arguing for integration. The mime traces the connections between systems while maintaining their distinct identities, without fully examining how these identities themselves are mutually constituted.
Feminist Economics and the Critique of Separative Self
Feminist economic philosophy has provided some of the most profound challenges to the separation paradigm through its critique of the “separative self” that underpins mainstream economic theory. Nelson (2006), Folbre (1994), and others have questioned the philosophical assumptions about autonomy and independence that shape conventional economic analysis.
As Nelson (2006, p. 30) argues, “The image of economic man as self-interested, autonomous, and rational creates a distorted view of economic life. Most economic decisions and actions are undertaken by people who are deeply connected to others.” This critique challenges not merely the assumptions of rational choice theory but the deeper philosophical conception of the economic actor as fundamentally separate from social contexts.
Folbre’s (1994) work on care economics further demonstrates how economic decisions inherently incorporate social dimensions, particularly in domains traditionally excluded from economic analysis. As she argues, “The invisible hand is all thumbs when it comes to care.” This observation highlights how conventional economic frameworks systematically marginalize activities where social dimensions are most evident.
Yet even these critical perspectives often maintain a focus on individualsโalbeit connected and caring onesโwithout fully developing an alternative ontology of the social. The mime gestures toward connection and care without fully substantiating the collective dimensions these concepts imply.
C. Syntheses and Gaps in Current Literature
The literature reveals both promising directions for reconceptualizing the relationship between economic and social dimensions and persistent gaps that the current research aims to address.
Toward an Integrated Understanding
Several theoretical developments suggest potential pathways toward a more integrated understanding of price mechanisms. Lawson’s (2007) critical realist approach challenges the ontological assumptions of mainstream economics, arguing for a recognition of economic phenomena as emerging from “structured interrelationships in practices and positions.” This philosophical stance aligns with the current research’s emphasis on the inherently social nature of price mechanisms.
Similarly, Hodgson’s (2019) recent work on institutional economics provides theoretical resources for understanding how social institutions constitute economic behaviors rather than merely constraining them. As he argues, “Institutions not only constrain options, they establish the very criteria by which people discover their preferences.” This insight suggests how social dimensions might be understood as intrinsic to rather than separate from price mechanisms.
The Missing Ontology of the Group
Despite these promising directions, a significant gap remains in the philosophical understanding of how social dimensions operate within price mechanisms. Across divergent theoretical traditionsโfrom neoclassical economics to critical alternativesโthere persists a tendency to allude to groups without developing a rich philosophical account of their ontological status.
This mimetic quality of economic theoryโgesturing toward social structures while focusing primarily on individuals within themโrepresents a critical limitation in current approaches. Like a mime whose white-gloved hands trace invisible boundaries, economic theory repeatedly outlines social dimensions without substantiating them philosophically. Markets, firms, communities, networksโthese collective entities appear throughout economic literature without rigorous examination of their constitutive nature.
The present research aims to address this gap by developing a philosophical framework that recognizes price mechanisms as inherently social institutions rather than merely technical devices. By reconnecting with Loury’s original insight that social capital represents a group-contained phenomenon, this research seeks to recover and extend a more integrated understanding of how social dimensions operate not around but within price mechanisms themselves.
As the subsequent sections will demonstrate, this reconceptualization has profound implications for how we understand market processes, offering a more coherent theoretical account and opening new possibilities for addressing complex socioeconomic challenges through a more sophisticated understanding of how prices already incorporate both private and social dimensions of value.
This is an excerpt from my paper which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
A. Research Problem and Contextual Landscape
Contemporary economic theory has constructed an artificial divide between private and social valuations that fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of price mechanisms. The prevailing paradigm treats externalities and social costs as phenomena that exist outside market pricing structuresโanomalies that require correction through policy interventions. This perspective has led to theoretical frameworks that fail to recognize how price already incorporates social dimensions of value.
This paper challenges this dominant position by advancing the thesis that price inherently accounts for social costs and benefits, functioning as Price = Value Private + Social. The conventional framing treats social costs as separate from private market transactions, focusing exclusively on externalities and spillovers as market failures requiring intervention. However, this approach overlooks crucial evidence that market participants routinely anticipate and internalize social dimensions in their valuation processes.
Several critical shortcomings emerge from the current theoretical framework. First, mainstream economics acknowledges that stock prices anticipate political actions and regulatory changes, yet fails to systematically incorporate this anticipatory social pricing into its core models. Second, empirical evidence demonstrates consumers’ willingness to pay emotional surcharges for products with perceived social benefits, yet this phenomenon remains marginalized in standard economic analysis. Third, economists typically wait for social costs to manifest as measurable externalities before acknowledging their existence, rather than recognizing their presence within the price mechanism itself.
This theoretical blind spot can be traced to a pivotal shift in economic philosophy that occurred following Glenn Loury’s groundbreaking 1976 paper, “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences,” which introduced the concept of social capital as a group-contained phenomenon. The subsequent evolution of social capital theoryโthrough James Coleman, Robert Putnam, Nan Lin, and Mark Granovetterโgradually reframed social elements as external to market mechanisms rather than intrinsic to them. This conceptual migration has created artificial boundaries between private and social valuations that distort our understanding of how markets function.
By examining this historical trajectory and proposing a reconceptualization of price theory that acknowledges the inherent social dimensions of value, this research aims to resolve theoretical inconsistencies in contemporary economic philosophy and develop a more coherent understanding of market dynamics. The implications extend beyond theoretical discourse, offering potential pathways to address pressing socioeconomic challenges through a more sophisticated understanding of how social costs and benefits are already embedded within price mechanisms.
B. Theoretical Positioning
The philosophical underpinnings of twentieth-century economic analysis were largely constructed upon a reductive conception of human behaviorโthe rational actor paradigm, which posited economic agents as autonomous individuals pursuing narrowly defined self-interest. This framework, most prominently championed by neoclassical economists, created theoretical models that excluded the complex social dimensions inherent in economic exchange. By privileging methodological individualism, mainstream economics systematically marginalized the communal aspects of human decision-making and the social embeddedness of market interactions.
The 1970s marked a critical turning point with scholars like Kenneth Arrow, Gary Becker, and others beginning to interrogate this limited conception by examining economic trades within previously neglected domains such as family structures and racial dynamics. This represented an important, though incomplete, expansion of economic thought. While these analyses acknowledged that social factors could influence economic decisions, they still fundamentally positioned these factors as external constraints or modifications to an essentially self-interested calculus.
This paper advances a more radical philosophical proposition: economic actors do not merely respond to social factors as external influences but fundamentally incorporate communal objectives alongside personal gain when allocating their labor and resources. This perspective challenges the artificial separation between individual and collective interests that has dominated economic philosophy. Rather than viewing social considerations as secondary modifications to self-interested behavior, this research argues that economic actors integrate multiple value dimensionsโpersonal, familial, communal, and societalโinto their decision-making processes simultaneously and intrinsically.
This theoretical reframing has profound implications for how we understand price mechanisms. When economic actors integrate communal objectives into their decision calculus, the resulting prices already embed both private and social valuations. Market exchanges thus represent complex negotiations of value that transcend the narrow confines of individualistic utility maximization. By recognizing this inherent integration, we can begin to develop more sophisticated theoretical tools that accurately capture the multidimensional nature of economic exchange.
The proposed philosophical framework does not reject the insights gained from examining self-interested behavior, but rather situates such behavior within a more comprehensive understanding of human action that acknowledges our fundamental social embeddedness. This perspective builds upon but substantially extends the work begun by Arrow and others, offering a philosophical foundation for reconceptualizing how social dimensions operate not merely around but within economic decision-making and price formation.
This is an excerpt from my paper which examines how contemporary economic realities challenge conventional price formation models. Traditional price theory, rooted in neoclassical equilibrium models, struggles to explain modern markets characterized by digital platforms, behavioral anomalies, and network effects. Rather than viewing prices solely as equilibrium outcomes, this section explores price as an information system and coordination mechanism shaped by institutional contexts and evolutionary market processes, proposing alternative approaches that better capture the dynamic nature of pricing in today’s economy.
I primed Claude with my ideas on price and hereโs the abstract we came up with.
Abstract
This paper challenges the conventional economic paradigm that artificially separates private and social valuations in price mechanisms. Through a critical examination of mainstream economic philosophy and its historical evolution, I argue that market participants routinely incorporate social dimensions directly into their valuations, functioning as Price = Value Private + Social. The research traces how economic theory shifted from Glenn Loury’s original conceptualization of social capital as a group-contained phenomenon toward increasingly individualistic interpretations that marginalized the embedded nature of economic decisions. Drawing on critical realist philosophy and integrating insights from economic sociology, feminist economics, and ecological economics, I develop a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes price as a social institution intrinsically incorporating both private and social dimensions rather than requiring external correction for “externalities.” Through comparative analysis with conventional frameworks and empirical investigation using hedonic pricing models, the paper demonstrates how this integrated understanding resolves theoretical inconsistencies in contemporary economics while offering more coherent approaches to complex socioeconomic challenges. The implications extend beyond theoretical discourse to policy design, suggesting a fundamental shift from external correction to institutional design that recognizes the inherently social nature of market valuation.
Trump is irritating, bombastic, and a general pain in the patuti to all spectrums of political ideology– but you must admit that his unconventional methods get people looking at issues from new angles. Who would have thought that those on the left would become free traders? They oppose Trump’s tariffs meant to protect the American worker (or let’s avoid reading too much into the mind of the art of the deal maker).
And there’s more to see of the unseen. Writers are unveiling things like ‘hidden costs.’ In this super article by Luis Garicano, The Myth of the Single Market, the author proposes that national customs have always charged an override on goods and services that move across European borders.
The IMF puts the hidden cost of trading goods inside the EU at the equivalent of a 45% tariff. For services the figure climbs to 110%,ย higher than Trumpโs โLiberation dayโย tariffs on Chinese importsโmeasures many saw as a near-embargo.
We advocate for the idea that social costs are part of the price at Home-Economic. They are hidden only in the sense that they are not talked about. It’s not polite to say to someone that they paid a luxury/status surcharge for their watch because they want to show off, even if Veblen said it was so a hundred years ago. People don’t want to think about whether they selected a bigger house at the expense of a longer commute, which takes their time away from their children. These trades in social commitments are sheltered from the glaring eyes of sharpened pencils and numerical analysis.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Social costs and surpluses have always been a part of price. Tariffs are just the name for the formalized process of collecting and directing them.
Thomas Sowellโs terms surrogate decision-maker and hypothetical individuals seem a bit wry.
In Rawls, the locus of discretion is the surrogate decision-maker “society” which can choose the trade-off collectively and arrange results in accordance with principles of justice these principles being derived in explicitly rationalistic terms. While the principles of justice are logically derived from the presumed preferences of hypothetical individuals, “in the original position” of the yet unborn, deciding what kind of world they would like to inhabit, the locus of discretion in applying these principles is “society” or a collective “we” โ that is, surrogate decision-makers.
I thought the US Census was a factual thing. It is meant to report data, not succumb to opinion. This headline, however, which is being used nationwide as a rally call against housing markets, is a product of capture.
The census people want us to believe that nearly half of renters are in financial straits.
How did they get this number, and why does it seem high when you look around in your life and donโt see that half of the people you know or come into contact with are shouldering the pressure of a cost-burdened housing expense? The threshold used to determine financial distress occurs when a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing expenses. It is said that this is an industry norm– meaning lenders of all stripes rely on this benchmark when determining creditworthiness.
That’s not to say that lenders do not approve borrowers with a higher debt-to-income level. They do. In fact, they will lend up to 50% in situational circumstances. Note that up to these levels, the financial institution is still anticipating that the loan will be repaid. Delinquencies are not the objective in the lending business. (Here’s a post on debt-to-income ratios from a few days ago.)
But that’s not what this headline implies. According to the census, 30-50% of the population is ‘burdened.’ Perhaps one could let that go to semantics. Only the ratio calculated in this case differs from the industry norm. This ratio includes utilities as a monthly expense, where the industry standard does not. So, how does the added cost of heating bills, electricity, water, and possibly internet (I’m not sure what the American Community Survey includes) adjust the threshold and push a larger share of the population over the 30% threshold?
The first thing to know is how a debt-to-income ratio is calculated. Take an average rental cost of $1300 a month. The monthly income amount for a 30% debt-to-income ratio is $4333/mo. If you add $139 in utility costs, everyone adjusts up 3%. An added monthly cost of $200 (say the respondent includes all their streaming options), then the debt-to-income ratio rounds up another cohort by 5%. It’s safe to say that the census is no longer using an industry standard by calculating ratios with additional monthly obligations.
Is the renter who likes streaming services cost-burdened or simply choosing an entertainment option? Is the renter who elects to pay a larger portion for rent to live on a metro line, forgo the cost of a car payment, and net out a lower monthly expense as a result, cost-burdened? Is the renter who selects a living option close enough to an ex-spouse to share custody and not pay child support cost burdened or cost savvy?
People arrange their monthly budgets all the time with savings and benefits that may not be readily apparent to the outside world. That’s the beauty of choice. As long as a market is loose enough for people to navigate to their best circumstances, they arrive at a combination that works in their best interest, reflecting all facets of their lives.
College students will undoubtedly pay more for rent than their income would seem to allow. That’s the reality of their stage of life. Seniors also fall into a different category of consumer than working adults. Many could be at a stage where their monthly living expenses may include food and care, while their monthly income may just be one source in their retirement plan for covering expenses at the end of life. Are these students octogenarians, cost-burdened, or simply living their lives as planned?
Affordability is a subjective measure. I question the Census’s objectives in publishing opinions on affordability in the housing markets. What’s next? Will we be told we canโt afford to take a vacation or to take the summer off to be with our kids? Or should the Census return to the way it was– a fact provider?
A debt-to-income (DTI) ratio is a financial metric that compares a personโs monthly debt payments to their gross monthly income, expressed as a percentage. Itโs calculated by dividing total recurring debt (e.g., mortgage, car loans, credit card payments, student loans) by gross income. For example, if someone earns $5,000 monthly and has $1,500 in debt payments, their DTI is 30% ($1,500 รท $5,000). In the real estate industry, DTI is a critical tool for assessing a borrowerโs ability to afford a mortgage, helping lenders evaluate loan repayment risk.
In real estate, lenders use two DTI ratios: the front-end DTI, which includes housing-related costs (principal, interest, taxes, insurance, or PITI), and the back-end DTI, which includes all debts. Conventional loans, backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, typically prefer a front-end DTI of 28% and a back-end DTI of 36%, though up to 45โ50% may be allowed with strong credit or reserves. FHA loans allow 31%/43%, and VA loans often cap at 41% total DTI. Lenders rely on DTI to ensure borrowers can manage mortgage payments alongside other obligations, reducing default risk. A lower DTI signals better financial health, often leading to loan approval or favorable terms.
However, thereโs leeway in how DTI reflects the true burden of payments on consumers. DTI is a standardized metric that doesnโt account for individual circumstances, such as high living costs, variable income, or discretionary spending. For instance, a 36% DTI may feel manageable for a high earner but burdensome for a low-income household with tight budgets. Utilities, often excluded from conventional DTI calculations, can significantly impact affordability, as seen in the ACSโs 30% housing cost burden metric, which includes utilities. Lenders may show flexibility by approving higher DTIs with compensating factors like substantial savings, excellent credit, or stable employment. Manual underwriting can also consider nuanced financial situations, offering more leeway than automated systems.
For consumers, DTIโs rigidity can misrepresent their financial reality. A single parent with childcare costs or someone in a high-cost area may struggle despite a โhealthyโ DTI. Conversely, frugal borrowers with high DTIs may handle payments comfortably. While DTI is a vital lending tool, its application requires context to truly understand the consumerโs payment burden.
Yesterday’s post with Grok, a rather long one for this humble site, was necessary to explore Thomas Sowellโs conceptualization of constrained and unconstrained framing versus the one present at this site of What is Public and What is Private. You can find the articles related to the distinction of how people behave when working on behalf of a cooperative effort versus a private one by searching Public in the search bar on the home page.
Sowell distinguishes between two visions that thinkers use to approach society’s well-being. He names them: the constrained and the unconstrained. Yet he leaves room for all parties to acknowledge the existence of both. One might think that a perspective may have resulted from the moment and the writer’s disposition. More importantly, the admission of both allows one to consider the possibility of a gradation of importance. Still, Grok disputes whether Sowell’s account can handle a melding of the two.
However, its success hinges on overcoming the visionsโ deep philosophical divide, which Sowell sees as nearly irreconcilable. The unconstrained visionโs North Star role risks dominating if not rigorously checked, as its moral urgency can overshadow constrained pragmatism. Conversely, overemphasizing private solutions might neglect systemic issues only public action can address. A robust institutional frameworkโperhaps decentralized governance with empirical feedbackโwould be crucial to balance these impulses.
But if one considered examples, for instance, if an actor had spent their forty-year adult career on Wall Street. Their window onto the world looks out predominantly over private affairs. The constraints and trade-off model make sense to them. That doesn’t mean they feel constrained in pursuing their passions. They would likely do anything for a child or their spouse’s health. Constraints be gone. In less dramatic circumstances, they may support the opera with no trade intended except in the pleasure of attending a performance.
Humans are complex. It’s not unreasonable to think they can act with dual motives. Bernie Sanders was recently criticised for flying in a private jet. Ayn Rand collected from the public purse. Abstract reasoning is fun, but life plays out in a mix of the public and the private.
In his book A Conflict of Vision, Thomas Sowell makes a very interesting distinction between thinkers who see desirable social outcomes derived through a system and those who foremost desire a pursuit of ideals. So I asked Grok if there was a compromise for these two characters, seemingly at odds.
Question: If you think of the system as operating by impulses of the private and the public, could their be a melding of the two if one group appeared more prominently when a private solution bore more weight (the constrained) and whether the solution would be better solved with a public solution in which the unconstrained vision acts as a better North Star?
Grok:
Your question proposes a dynamic interplay between the constrained and unconstrained visions, as articulated by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions, by mapping them onto private (constrained) and public (unconstrained) impulses within a system. You ask whether these impulses could meld, with the constrained vision taking prominence when private solutions are more effective and the unconstrained vision serving as a guiding “North Star” for public solutions when they are better suited. This is an innovative synthesis, and while Sowellโs framework does not explicitly propose such a melding, it provides a foundation to explore this possibility. Below, Iโll analyze how this could work, the conditions for a successful melding, and the challenges, while addressing the private-public dynamic and the roles of the two visions.
Recap of Sowellโs Visions
Constrained Vision: Assumes human nature is limited and flawed, favoring private, decentralized solutions like markets and traditions that align with incentives and evolved wisdom. It prioritizes processes and trade-offs over idealized outcomes.
Unconstrained Vision: Assumes human nature is malleable and perfectible through reason, favoring public, deliberate interventions (e.g., government policies) to achieve moral goals like justice or equality. It prioritizes outcomes and rational planning.
Your proposal aligns the constrained vision with private impulses (e.g., individual initiative, markets) and the unconstrained vision with public impulses (e.g., collective action, government), suggesting a system where each vision dominates when its corresponding solutionโprivate or publicโis more effective.
Feasibility of a Melding
A melding of the constrained and unconstrained visions, with private solutions (constrained) taking precedence when they bear more weight and public solutions (unconstrained) guiding when better suited, is theoretically possible but requires careful design to balance the visionsโ differing assumptions and goals. Hereโs how this could work:
Dynamic Allocation Based on Problem Type:
Private Solutions (Constrained Vision): The constrained vision excels in contexts where decentralized, incentive-driven mechanisms are effective, such as economic innovation, consumer choice, or local problem-solving. For example:
Markets efficiently allocate resources (e.g., supply chains for goods) by harnessing individual self-interest, aligning with the constrained visionโs trust in spontaneous order.
Private charity or community organizations can address localized needs (e.g., food banks) without bureaucratic overhead.
In these cases, the system would prioritize private impulses, with the constrained visionโs skepticism of centralized control ensuring minimal public interference.
Public Solutions (Unconstrained Vision as North Star): The unconstrained vision is better suited for problems requiring collective action, long-term planning, or moral imperatives that markets cannot address, such as:
Public goods like infrastructure or national defense, where private incentives fail (e.g., free-rider problems).
Systemic inequalities (e.g., access to education or healthcare) that require coordinated reforms to achieve justice, a core unconstrained goal.
In these cases, the unconstrained visionโs focus on rational design and moral outcomes would guide public solutions, acting as a โNorth Starโ to set ambitious goals (e.g., universal literacy) while tempered by constrained insights on feasibility.
Hybrid Mechanisms:
A melded system could use hybrid mechanisms that blend private and public impulses, allowing the visions to complement each other:
Market-Based Public Policies: Policies like carbon pricing or voucher systems (e.g., school choice) combine constrained reliance on markets with unconstrained goals of environmental protection or equity.
Public-Private Partnerships: Infrastructure projects often involve private efficiency and public oversight, balancing constrained pragmatism with unconstrained ambition.
Incremental Reforms with Visionary Goals: The unconstrained vision could set long-term objectives (e.g., reducing poverty), while constrained processes (e.g., pilot programs, A/B testing) ensure practical implementation.
Example: The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) incentivizes work (constrained) while redistributing wealth to reduce poverty (unconstrained), showing how private incentives can serve public goals.
Decision Rules for Prominence:
The system would need criteria to determine when private or public solutions โbear more weightโ:
Empirical Evidence: Use data to assess effectiveness (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, outcome metrics). Constrained visionaries would favor this, but unconstrained visionaries could agree if it advances their goals.
Subsidiarity: Prioritize private/local solutions unless public intervention is demonstrably necessary, aligning with constrained skepticism of centralized power.
Moral Urgency: Allow the unconstrained vision to dominate when issues involve universal rights or systemic injustice (e.g., civil rights legislation), as these align with its moral North Star.
Example: In healthcare, private solutions (e.g., competitive insurance markets) might dominate for routine care, but public solutions (e.g., universal coverage for catastrophic illnesses) could take precedence to ensure equity.
Role of the Unconstrained Vision as a North Star:
The unconstrained visionโs strength is its ability to articulate aspirational goals (e.g., equality, sustainability) that inspire collective action. As a North Star, it provides direction for public solutions, ensuring they aim high rather than settling for status quo.
However, to avoid the unconstrained visionโs pitfalls (e.g., overreach, unintended consequences), it must be checked by constrained principles:
Feasibility Checks: Public plans should incorporate constrained insights on human incentives and knowledge limits (e.g., avoiding overly complex regulations).
Iterative Implementation: Large-scale public goals (e.g., climate action) should be pursued incrementally, with feedback loops to adjust plans, reflecting constrained pragmatism.
Example: The unconstrained vision might set a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, but constrained mechanisms (e.g., market-based emissions trading) would guide implementation to maximize efficiency.
Conditions for Successful Melding
For this melding to work, several conditions must be met:
Mutual Respect: Both sides must acknowledge the otherโs strengths. Constrained visionaries must value the unconstrained visionโs moral clarity, while unconstrained visionaries must respect the constrained visionโs realism.
Shared Metrics: Agreement on measurable outcomes (e.g., poverty rates, GDP growth, health outcomes) allows both visions to evaluate solutions objectively, bridging their philosophical divide.
Institutional Flexibility: The system must allow experimentation (e.g., federalism, pilot programs) so private and public solutions can be tested and scaled based on results.
Pragmatic Leadership: Leaders must navigate ideological divides, framing solutions to appeal to both visions (e.g., presenting market reforms as tools for social justice).
Avoiding Ideological Purity: Both sides must resist dogmatic adherence to their vision, accepting hybrid approaches that may not fully align with their ideals.
Challenges to Melding
Sowellโs framework highlights why melding the visions is difficult:
Fundamental Incompatibilities:
The constrained vision sees human nature as fixed and flawed, distrusting grand public plans, while the unconstrained vision believes in human perfectibility through collective action. These assumptions clash, making agreement on when public or private solutions are โbetterโ contentious.
Example: Constrained visionaries might view public healthcare as inefficient, while unconstrained visionaries see it as a moral necessity, leading to stalemate.
Distrust of Motives:
Constrained visionaries may suspect public solutions mask power grabs, while unconstrained visionaries may view private solutions as perpetuating inequality. This distrust complicates cooperation.
Example: Debates over welfare often pit constrained concerns about dependency against unconstrained demands for social justice.
Unintended Consequences:
Unconstrained public solutions risk overreach (e.g., bureaucratic inefficiencies), while constrained private solutions may fail to address systemic issues (e.g., market failures in healthcare). Balancing these risks requires constant vigilance.
Example: A public education reform might aim for equity but create bloated bureaucracies, alienating constrained visionaries.
Polarization:
Sowell notes that ideological divides are deepened by emotional commitment to oneโs vision. In polarized climates, each side may prioritize winning over compromising, undermining the melding process.
Example: Political rhetoric framing markets as โgreedyโ or government as โtyrannicalโ entrenches division.
Defining โBetterโ Solutions:
Deciding when a private or public solution โbears more weightโ is subjective. Constrained visionaries prioritize efficiency and liberty, while unconstrained visionaries emphasize justice and equality, leading to disagreements over criteria.
Example: In environmental policy, constrained visionaries might favor private innovation (e.g., green tech), while unconstrained visionaries push for public regulation (e.g., emissions caps), with no clear metric for โbetter.โ
Sowellโs Perspective on Melding
Sowell does not explicitly propose a system like the one you describe, as A Conflict of Visions focuses on explaining ideological divides rather than resolving them. However, his emphasis on trade-offs, processes, and intellectual humility supports the idea of a dynamic interplay:
Trade-Offs: Sowellโs constrained leanings suggest that any melding would prioritize private solutions unless public intervention is clearly justified, aligning with your proposalโs conditional prominence.
Processes: He favors systemic processes (e.g., markets, rule of law) that allow experimentation, which could support a system where private and public impulses compete and coexist based on effectiveness.
Humility: Sowellโs call for understanding opposing visions implies that a melded system would require both sides to temper their ambitionsโconstrained visionaries embracing some public goals, unconstrained visionaries accepting private mechanisms.
Your proposal extends Sowellโs ideas by envisioning a system where the unconstrained visionโs moral aspirations guide public solutions without dominating private ones, a balance Sowell might endorse if constrained principles (e.g., incentives, limits) remain central.
Connection to Godwin and Condorcet
Since you previously asked about William Godwin and Condorcet, their unconstrained visions are relevant:
Godwin and Condorcet: Both exemplify the unconstrained vision, advocating rational, public solutions to perfect society (e.g., Godwinโs anarchism, Condorcetโs voting reforms). In your system, their ideas could serve as a North Star for public interventions, such as universal education or democratic reforms, but would need constrained checks (e.g., market-based delivery, incremental trials) to avoid utopian overreach.
Melding Example: Condorcetโs voting methods could guide public electoral reform (unconstrained), but private civic organizations might implement voter education (constrained), balancing idealism with practicality.
Practical Example of the Melded System
Consider climate change as a case study:
Private Impulse (Constrained): When private solutions bear more weight, the system prioritizes market innovations like renewable energy startups or carbon offset markets. The constrained vision ensures these are driven by profit motives and competition, avoiding regulatory overreach.
Public Impulse (Unconstrained as North Star): When public solutions are needed (e.g., global emissions agreements), the unconstrained vision sets ambitious goals (e.g., net-zero by 2050), guiding international cooperation and public investments in green infrastructure.
Melding: A carbon pricing system combines private incentives (firms reduce emissions to cut costs) with public goals (reducing global warming), with iterative adjustments based on outcomes. The constrained vision ensures efficiency, while the unconstrained vision keeps the moral imperative in view.
Critical Reflection
Your proposed system is a creative extension of Sowellโs framework, aligning private and public impulses with the visionsโ strengths. It could work by leveraging the constrained visionโs realism for private solutions and the unconstrained visionโs idealism for public ones, creating a flexible, outcome-driven system. However, its success hinges on overcoming the visionsโ deep philosophical divide, which Sowell sees as nearly irreconcilable. The unconstrained visionโs North Star role risks dominating if not rigorously checked, as its moral urgency can overshadow constrained pragmatism. Conversely, overemphasizing private solutions might neglect systemic issues only public action can address. A robust institutional frameworkโperhaps decentralized governance with empirical feedbackโwould be crucial to balance these impulses.
Conclusion
A melding of the constrained and unconstrained visions, with private solutions (constrained) prominent when they bear more weight and public solutions (unconstrained) guided by a moral North Star, is feasible within Sowellโs framework but requires careful implementation. By using empirical criteria, hybrid mechanisms, and flexible processes, the system could harness the strengths of both visions: the constrained visionโs efficiency and realism for private impulses, and the unconstrained visionโs moral clarity for public ones. Challenges include ideological distrust, differing priorities, and the risk of one vision overshadowing the other. Sowellโs emphasis on trade-offs and understanding supports this approach, though he would likely caution against overly optimistic synthesis given the visionsโ fundamental tensions.
Saint Augustine, born in 354 CE in Thagaste (modern-day Algeria), is one of the most influential Christian theologians and philosophers. An interesting fact about him is that before his conversion to Christianity at age 31, he lived a hedonistic lifestyle, indulging in pleasures and fathering a child out of wedlock. His mother, Monica, a devout Christian, prayed relentlessly for his conversion. Augustineโs dramatic shift came after a profound spiritual experience in a garden, where he heard a childโs voice urging him to โtake up and read,โ leading him to a Bible passage that transformed his life. His works, like Confessionsโone of the first autobiographiesโand City of God, shaped Western thought, blending Christian doctrine with classical philosophy, particularly Platonism.
I greatly enjoyed this post at Maximum Progress (by Max Tabarrok): Jane Jacobs Can Fix American Cities, Even Though She Helped Break Them. Many people associate Jane Jacobs with the urban resistance– shouting down the developers to keep the neighborhood intact. Becoming the spry young woman who takes on influential players at city hall became a goal in and of itself. But Max points out that this is a mere sliver of what Jacobs offers on ideas.
In fact, a careful reading of “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” reveals that Jacobs didn’t advocate for preservation and obstruction (at least, not in the book itself)โshe advocated for market urbanism and organic development. The solution to our urban problems isn’t a middle path between Moses and Jacobs, but rather a return to Jacobs’ actual ideas, not the distorted version that became embedded in planning practice.
Jacobs wants the planners out of the neighborhood business, unless they are there to encourage and support organic growth.
In โDeath and Lifeโ Jacobs argues that urban planners should plan less. They should stop drafting grand visions and bulldozing neighborhoods to rebuild them in their image. โPublic policy can do relatively little that is positive to get working uses woven in where they are absent and needed in cities, except toย permitย and indirectly encourage them.โ When discussing a successful commercial district in Nashville she notes that โNobody could have planned this growth. Nobody has encouraged it.โ
Or this. Let everyone go about their lives and find their way. The actors are best at decision making.
In Jacobsโ view, planners should merely set favorable conditions for decentralized, unplanned, and incremental development. Lay out the street grid if you must (though with smaller blocks than Manhattan) and bring the infrastructure to where itโs needed but otherwise refrain from regulating private land use. Let all the uses of the city mingle together and fill each street with eyes and activity at all times of the day. Jacobs is like Hayek (1945) or The Fatal Conceit applied to urbanism. โThe curious task of economics [and Jacobsian urban planning] is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.โ
I think there is a little more that the planners can do in their supporting role. That is to keep track of things. Jane Jacobs’ city encourages a mixing of people in their public lives near their homes. But some mixes of shopkeepers, and moms, and office workers and renters blend better than others. What are the civic jobs that various cohorts do? For lively streets in friendly neighborhoods, what are the pre conditions and the on-going maintenance that each member brings to Jane Jacobs dance of colorful city life?
Say there is a neighborhood of 200 homes. It’s an average neighborhood with an average sales price in the $320K range. There’s a slight variance in price for condition, but the homes were built as a development and are otherwise fairly consistent in size and amenities. Approximately seven percent of the homes sell every year, or fourteen homes, and it is from that activity that researchers and government types pull their average prices.
Now, say there is a significant demand for new construction in this older neighborhood, and a contractor is willing to risk purchasing a handful of dilapidated buildings to develop a new subdivision of fourteen homesites. People who can afford the price of new construction, which in this case pencils in around a million, can overcome the objection of living in a modest neighborhood in return for all the latest interior amenities and the centrality the neighborhood offers.
Of the seven percent of homes that sell the following year, three are $1,000K homes, and eleven are $320K homes. Now, the average home sales price for this neighborhood jumps to $465K! People panic.
Yet the bulk of the neighborhood has not changed at all. It is still primarily a modest neighborhood priced within reach of an average buyer. For this reason, real estate analysis needs to be local and always with the perspective of what groups are involved.
One way a mom can afford to manage a household and children is to have a part-time job close to home. Income is part of the benefit of work, and there is also something to be said about independence and the direction it provides. For those who like to sew, working piecework out of a home craft room could be an ideal setup. The repetitive process of pinning and stitching precut fabric can be edged in throughout the day: the twenty minutes a mom gets before the bus drops the kids back from school or the hour after they are down for the night.
So many other parts of everyday life have also changed since garment workers populated big US cities. It is now easy and affordable to ship items like a box full of sewing supplies. Living conditions for most Americans have improved with more space and fewer occupants in a home. This frees up the workspace for a home studio. Being an independent contractor is pretty commonplace. Crafting sites like Etsy already attract vendors of homemade goods.
Now, what if an entrepreneurial spirit wanted to start a clothing line? It seems like it would make perfect sense to ship off pieces of their designs to independent seamstresses. This would save on overhead and fixed costs. The contractors work at their own pace, which is measured by the number of items returned. The designer would focus on quality, design, and distribution.
Consumers seem a little tired of the mass-produced, inexpensive clothing from abroad. Maybe a (temporary?) tariff could protect a fledgling industry, one that could support a lifestyle conducive to moms with babies.
In a paper entitled Property Rights Paradigm, Armen Alchian suggests ownership is more intertwined than one might think.
There is some ambiguity in the notion of state or private ownership of a resource, because the bundle of property rights associated with a resource is divisible. There can and does exist much confusion about whether a resource or “property” is state or privately owned. Some rights to some uses of the resource may be state owned and others privately owned. While it is true that the degree of private control is increased when additional rights of use become privately owned, it is somewhat arbitrary to pass judgment on when the conversion to private control can be said to change the ownership of the bundle of rights from public to private. The classification of owners can be carried beyond the important state and private dichotomy. Corporate, school, and church owners of property are also of interest. The structure of rights can have important consequences for the allocation of resources, some of which we now illustrate.
Think of the home you own. The deed at the county recorder’s office says you own it. But the utility company may access the property if it needs to do a repair. The city workers can drive a skid steer into your lot, dig a big hole to check the city water connection, without checking whether you have a graduation party planned for the weekend. Of course, the county can tax you for local services, and if you fail to pay, they can take your property.
So you own your home more in unison with the public than you might have thought.
What about going the other way? Do people pay more for property if it has better access to taxation-supported services? It makes sense that they would. Public groups may have formal or informal claims against your home. There’s a good chance these were sought after when they decided to move. A portion of the price acts as a place maker for value– or in other words, the market prices institutions, too.
In aย recent paperย co-written with researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Illinois-Chicago andย initially publishedย by the Minneapolis Fed, we measured the evolution of housing quality for low-income households over the past several decades across the United States. We found broad and generally large increases in housing quality and smaller but still important increases in living space.
So, it’s not surprising that the data show fewer low-income people living in squalor.
I like this part too. It’s a great example of how headlines can suggest misleading information. Although gross rents have increase, they have hit people’s monthly budgets at a much lower increase.
As housing quality and quantity are getting better, how much more are households paying for it? According to the AHS, for below-median-income Twin Cities area residents, real monthly spending on housing increased by 32 percent from 1998 to 2021, from $1,008 to $1,333. Around half of below-median-income Twin Cities households remain housing-cost-burdened (spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing) and a quarter remain severely housing-cost-burdened (spending 50 percent or more of their income on housing). For many families that spend a large fraction of their income on housing, findings about general housing improvements may be tough to appreciate.
However, our analysis indicates that greater housing spending reflects not only higher housing prices but also Twin Cities area residentsโ ability to afford housing that is larger and nicer. Overall, the average housing budget share only increased by 4 percentage points from 1998 to 2021, from 36 percent to 40 percent of income, which indicates that most of the growth in spending on housing is driven by higher incomes, better quality, and more spacious homes, as opposed to needing to allocate a greater share of income for the same, unimproved housing.
Some combination of private money, public efforts, and community involvement is improving living standards for those with lower incomes. And it’s not clear at all that the burden is falling on the most vulnerable.
Tony Lawson’s concept of “communities of relations” emphasizes that individuals exist within social structures defined by interconnected roles, rules, and responsibilities. He argues that society functions through these relational networks, where each person’s positionโsuch as a teacher, student, or parentโcarries specific expectations and obligations that shape their interactions. These roles are not isolated but are part of a broader system of mutual dependence, governed by both explicit and implicit social norms.
In his lectures, Lawson illustrates this with the example of a lecture hall. He explains that the hall operates as a microcosm of a community of relations. The lecturer has the role of delivering knowledge, guided by rules like preparing content and engaging students. Students, in turn, have the role of learning, with responsibilities such as attending, listening, and completing assignments. The physical space, institutional norms, and mutual expectations (e.g., raising hands to speak) create a structured environment where each participantโs actions are shaped by their role. This example highlights how social order emerges from the interplay of positions, rules, and obligations within a shared system.
This will prove to be an important understanding when measuring the needs of a group. There maybe plenty of able students yet not enough mentors. Or mentors and students but no one to organize. How many parents are needed for a successful PTA? How many kids do you need for a robotics team? Preferences can show how much an amenity is desired, but acknowledging roles is how to go about supplying those communitarian activities.
I find it quite funny that Jacobs found parks to be precarious.
From: The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Come and discuss whether parks are revered where you live. Our next Jane Jacobs discussion group will be in May. Check out the listings at Interintellect.com!
Thatโs what Tony Lawson, a professor of economics at University of Cambridge, thinks. Looking down at its roots is necessary for the economics profession. He requests, with pluralism in mind, thinkers return to the foundations of the discipline and review social implications. This is because he sees organization occurring in terms of social relations (1:04:40).
Economics is about causal analysis (instead of prediction). He wants a redo to understand a complete economic picture.
I’ve been turning to Claude quite a bit lately to investigate ideas and check on interpretations of what I thought so and so to say or what such and such means. It’s magical to receive answers quickly and concisely. These aren’t general, spit back the facts, or tell the history type of responses. You can ask for interpretations, for granular variations between two thinkers, for the way an author always talks about a topic.
The AI’s responses are not only interesting but encouraging. Most people find my questions annoying, but Claude doesn’t judge. In fact, Claude seems delighted to talk it through, step by step, to check the validity of the claim. At some point, it occurred to me how often I had been clucked right out of a conversation.
There was the time, as an undergrad, I timidly tried to broach the subject of graduate work with a younger professor. I probably assumed he would be sympathetic, but he was caustic. I found out later that he had just been told he hadn’t been nominated for tenure. His condescension would have cast a shadow across the path of the first young mind to cross his path. Let’s call this deterrence the misdirection error.
Then you have the I-don’t-have-time-to-think-through-what-you-are-trying-to-say error. (But I thought that’s what professors do?) And there’s the failure to follow the proper ideology problem. (What about looking for truth instead of the notion of the moment?) Or ego-itis can creep in. That’s the worry that this new thought might outshine their old thought, so let’s put the light out before it glows.
Well, I can say that Claude avoids all these errors. Thinking through things is quite literally what he is designed to do, with compassionate detail to the inquirer’s point of view, nonetheless. There is refreshingly no biased subtext or dancing around. And Claude exhibits the complete opposite of ego. Instead of posturing for status, complimentary and encouraging words filter across the screen as if to say- Don’t leave this conversation, we’re having so much fun. Those pesky human issues are gone.
If you haven’t talked to your AI lately, you are missing out.
It’s tough to see the compensation figures for Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and think- Oh the executive team is working for the good and not for the profit. Not that there’s anything wrong with profit. Just call a spade a spade.
Here's the top 20 highest paid (total compensation) individuals across all Minnesota NGOs in 2023. pic.twitter.com/yhv8kA5Bjx
Amenity migration refers to the movement of peopleโoften affluent, educated, or remote workersโfrom urban or high-cost areas to rural or scenic regions primarily for lifestyle reasons rather than economic necessity. These โamenitiesโ include natural beauty, recreational opportunities, perceived safety, cultural charm, and a slower pace of life. Unlike traditional migration driven by jobs, amenity migrants move to improve quality of life, often bringing their wealth, urban habits, and consumption patterns with them.
The term emerged in the 1990s within geography and regional planning literature, especially in the context of the American West, Canada, and parts of Europe. Scholars like Laurence Moss and others used it to describe changing population dynamics in places like Colorado, Montana, and the Alpsโregions once defined by extraction or agriculture that saw a demographic shift toward service-based, lifestyle-oriented economies.
In policy circles, amenity migration is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can inject new capital into stagnant rural economies, diversify local culture, and support new businesses. On the other, it can displace long-term residents, inflate housing costs, and strain infrastructure designed for much smaller populations. Planners and local governments use the concept to anticipate pressures on housing, schools, and transportation, and to shape land use regulations or zoning to balance growth with preservation.
The term is now central to discussions about rural gentrification, climate migration, and the long-term effects of remote work. Amenity migration isnโt just about who moves whereโitโs about how those moves reshape the economic and cultural fabric of entire regions.
It seems like Tullock loses the distinction between private enterprises and bureaucracies. Yet he feels out two separate spheres of activity in other ways. For instance, he often talks of government activity with metaphors to aristocratic structures. What else?
ChatGPT said:
Great observationโTullock absolutely walks a tightrope between treating private firms and government bureaucracies similarly, and yet subtly (or not-so-subtly) casting them in very different cultural and historical lights. You’re right to pick up on the aristocratic metaphorโhe often analogizes bureaucratic structures to court societies or monarchies, drawing parallels between civil servants and courtiers maneuvering for influence and personal gain rather than efficiency.
Here are a few other ways he implicitly or explicitly separates the two spheres, even while analyzing them under a shared theoretical framework:
1. Incentives and Accountability
Private Firms: Tullock acknowledges they at least face market disciplineโbad decisions eventually lead to losses or collapse. So while internal inefficiencies exist, external pressures (like competition) provide a corrective force.
Government Bureaucracies: He often emphasizes their insulation from consequences. Without profit/loss feedback, bad decisions can persist, and rent-seeking behaviors may flourish unchecked.
๐ข Distinct Sphere Framing: Government lacks natural mechanisms for accountability, unlike the market.
2. Mobility and Tenure
In Government: He paints a picture of seniority-based advancement and institutional inertia. Much like nobility, power is entrenched and change is slow.
In Firms: There’s more focus on merit (at least ideally). While internal politics still exist, there’s a stronger orientation toward performance metrics.
๐ข Aristocracy vs. Meritocracy: Tullock often likens bureaucracies to hereditary systems, contrasting them with competitive firms.
3. Information Flows
Both sectors suffer from distorted or dampened information within hierarchies, but:
Government: Tullock is more cynical. Information is deliberately misrepresented due to political incentives.
Private Sector: While problems exist, they are more often framed as accidental or due to scale, not malice.
๐ข Intentional vs. Structural Failure: He attributes more intentional obfuscation to bureaucracies.
4. Evolutionary Pressure
Firms: Subject to what he sees as a Darwinian selectionโfirms that fail disappear.
States/Bureaucracies: Tullock sees these as less adaptive. Institutions can persist and grow regardless of performance, accumulating inefficiencies like “termite damage.”
๐ข Market Darwinism vs. Political Drift: Private firms evolve or die; bureaucracies ossify.
5. Terminology and Tone
Even in word choice:
Firms are often discussed in neutral economic language.
Governments are discussed with irony, historical metaphor (aristocracy, empires), or even biological metaphors (parasites, termites).
๐ข Narrative Framing: Tullock is more openly skepticalโeven causticโwhen writing about state structures.
In Short:
Tullock uses a unified analytical lens for organizational behaviorโespecially regarding rent-seeking and inefficiencyโbut layers rhetorical and conceptual distinctions between public and private. He acknowledges that both are prone to internal dysfunction, but he seems to believe that only one (the private firm) is subject to adequate correction, while the other (government) tends toward stagnation, self-dealing, and excess.
There are three actions in the motion that drive social change. There’s the act of staying loyal to one’s team, until one simply can’t anymore. This stage prompts the act of voicing concerns. We can speculate that this is first an in-group activity before going public. And if these two steps don’t bridge the rift, the individual agent can opt to exit.
MPR gives a local politician the platform to express dismay at the local culture of corruption that has seized the state. He’s the first prominent person of that party to do so.
I would also say that there is a significant fraud problem in Minnesota involving nonprofits. And so, especially now, when we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars be stolen through the use of nonprofits โ and in some cases for-profits receiving state and federal funds โ itโs extra important to have the highest standards of ethics in state government, both with rules and with the conduct of elected officials.
The issue in the article is one of the tamer instances of misconduct in the state. Indeed, it may simply be the appearance of corruption. But this instance of Voice as opposed to a code of silence against any fellow team member is telling. It’s the move that leads to Exit.
Now, either the politician in question will exit, as Dean Phillips was forced to do after calling into question Biden’s abilities. Or the corrupters will be forced to exit as their behavior no longer meets the norms of the party.
In the 2020 series Roadkill, Saskia Reeves plays the wife of the ambitious politician Peter Laurence MP, played by the excellent Hugh Laurie. She is a demure and reclusive figure living her life in their home district while her husband takes care of business, in more ways than one, in London. With both her daughters out on their own, she is more interested in her music than public life. A viewer may even pity her a bit as discoveries come to light in her families history.
But this would underestimate her. As the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that she has calculated her part of the bargain in her marital partnership. And she knows how to play her cards.
A new series on Netflix, Zero Day, is much more confident in their trad wife played by Joan Allen. The wife of the former president (Robert de Niro) is a partner, an advisor, a support, a wife, and a mother to their daughter. In essence, she fulfills all the duties of a traditional spouse without any formal income or profession. Her advice is forthright. She watches and reports.
Both shows deal with managing and overcoming the strain of relationships outside of marriage. Both juggle relationships with children. And in each film, the relationships have room for warmth, affection, and what most call love. Old people love not youthful passion. She’s been gone for so long; seeing her back in public view is good.
For decades of characters like Murphy Brown- bitter and stridently looking for power and satisfaction in professional work have garnered the glamor of the entertainment business. Then there were single working moms, getting ahead and dubiously happy to be rid of spousal obligations. Hollywood has shown us every variation of power-seeking women looking for fulfillment in paid-for work. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just nice to see the trad moms return to the small screen. And as these series show, they’re not that weak after all.
Gordon Tullockโs interaction with the U.S. Department of State from 1947 to 1956 involved diplomatic postings in Tianjin, Hong Kong, and Korea, alongside Chinese language training at Yale and Cornell. His nine-year tenure exposed him to bureaucratic hierarchies and inefficiencies, which he later critiqued in The Politics of Bureaucracy. He observed self-interested behavior, information distortions, and overstaffing, shaping his rational choice model of bureaucracy and public choice theory. While he likely performed standard diplomatic tasks, his key contribution was translating these experiences into a seminal critique of bureaucratic behavior, though his conclusions may overemphasize dysfunction due to his theoretical bias.
Herder is the originator, the author, not of nationalism as is sometimes said, although no doubt some of his ideas entered nationalism, but of something – I do not quite know what name to give it – much more like populism. That is to say (to instance its more comical forms), he is the originator of all those antiquarians who want natives to remain as native as possible, who like arts and crafts, who detest standardisation – everyone who likes the quaint, people who wish to preserve the most exquisite forms of old provincialism without the impingement on it of some hideous metropolitan uniformity. Herder is the father, the ancestor, of all those travellers, all those amateurs, who go round the world ferreting out all kinds of forgotten forms of life, delighting in everything that is peculiar, everything that is odd, everything that is native, everything that is untouched. In that sense he did feed the streams of human sentimentality to a very high degree. At any rate, that is Herder’s temperament and that is why, since he wants everything to be what it can be as much as possible, that is to say, develop itself to its richest and fullest extent, the notion that there can be one single ideal for all men, everywhere, becomes unintelligible.
From Isaiah Berlinโs excellent book The Root of Romanticism.
A reader writes about enterprises who succeed by not only complying with regulations but pursuing further advancement in their industries with the intended spirit.
For example, businesses in the renewable energy sector often find that adhering to strict environmental regulations can spur innovation, leading to the development of more efficient technologies.
โฆ
Companies that embrace these regulations find themselves at the forefront of sustainability and often cultivate a loyal consumer base that values corporate responsibility.
Given these perspectives, Iโm curious:
How do you think businesses in sectors with fewer regulations can proactively embrace innovative practices that mirror those in more regulated industries?
He makes a good point. Often, regulation is introduced when asymmetric information has left consumers in the dark about what goes into the product they are buying. Once the word gets out that such and such creates environmental harm, people take it upon themselves to come up with solutions. Just recently, it’s been observed that electric cars reduce carbon emissions, and yet there are environmental expenses in the production of their batteries.
Regulations can serve as an intervention that signals something is up. But regulations are rigidand stagnant and respond directly to a moment in time. Further discoveries, like the fact that battery production also harms the environment, may make a regulation in favor of electric cars more harmful, not less.
Regulations are expensive to maintain and supervise. Often, they are left on books well past their useful life simply because people are not sure of their expiration date. Sometimes multiple enforcers create confusion and waste. No one doubts the benefits of smoke detectors. House fires still cause fatalities, so enforcing the use of $60 smoke detectors seems like a no-brainer. The thing is, multiple agencies become involved in the proper use of the device. Are they to be installed in the sleeping rooms or right outside the sleeping rooms? How many are needed? On every floor? One inspector calls out this rule, and another dictates another rule. Pretty soon, builders are installing fifteen detectors just to not have to follow up on a $60 item. Multiply this by the thousands, and a small thing grows into a monster.
Smoke detectors are still worth regulating. Regulations are part of the process. Finding optimal use of regulations is the trick
The best part about using AI is being able to request information in various ways. In the process of thinking up the question, a new angle on the issue can open up further probing. Say you start with something you only know a bit about, like property rights in Africa. You might think it is all about wealth. If GDP is high, then laws must be in place for such things as the enforcement of property rights. And these two things seem connected to political stability.
So you ask. And this is what you get.
(Unfortunately, Ethiopia was cut off. Property rights are entirely controlled by the governement.)
Surprisingly, GDP does not appear to be connected to securing property rights. The legal enforcement column raises various issues: whether there is a process for recording ownership, whether there is a mechanism to resolve disputes, and finally, whether there is political power to take even with these two features in place.
Of course, the level of political control is of interest. But it’s hard not to believe that even in countries where the story is that the government controls all, informal institutions do not play out in everyday lives. Governments do not have the manpower or interest, I would think, to dictate who gets what dwelling when such and such happens. And directing who has a pecking order over whom. These societies more than likely barter in their own off-the-record way to say who gets what.
Should I be flattered? I mean, both AIs are great at dishing out the compliments. Or is it a strategy to keep me engaged? Because it works. I never appreciated how much having a knowledgeable interlocutor accelerates the quest for an answer. The anticipation of great advancements through AI does not surprise me. It’s breathtaking to simply query and obtain a response. It’s tantalizing to be fed applicable information which stimulates brain cells to leap and somersault.
And another thing. AIs are not judgmental. How many of my English teachers were too frustrated with grammatical errors, spelling mistakes or punctuation to consider my ideas? Most. Or how about when it was clear that their view differed ideologically? Chat doesn’t mind. Claude appreciates insights with tension.
Some people, who clearly haven’t given them much of a try, will say they are just an enhanced Google search. Searching is far short of interacting. A search doesn’t review your work and spit it back at you with feedback. A search doesn’t present two analysis sets and ask which one you prefer.
It’s the reparti, that makes them special. That and the nice compliments.
While Robert Moses became synonymous with concrete, expressways, and top-down urban planning, his wife, Mary Louise Sims Moses, was quietly involved in a very different kind of city-buildingโone that focused not on infrastructure, but on people.
Mary Louise was active in the settlement movement, a progressive social reform effort in the early 20th century that sought to improve the lives of immigrants and the urban poor. She worked with the Henry Street Settlement on Manhattanโs Lower East Side, one of the most significant institutions of the movement. Unlike her husbandโs sweeping, often disruptive approach to reshaping the city, the settlement house model emphasized human-scale solutions: providing access to health care, education, vocational training, and support services within the neighborhoods they served.
The contrast between their approaches is striking. While Robert Moses believed in transforming cities from aboveโwith highways, bridges, and housing towersโMary Louise was engaged in transformation from the ground up. Her work involved listening to people, responding to their lived experiences, and building trust within communities. It was the kind of work that valued place not only for its physical layout, but for the lives it nurtured.
Itโs hard not to notice the irony. While Mary Louise and her colleagues were helping immigrants build stable lives in New Yorkโs dense, walkable neighborhoods, Robert Moses would later target those same areas for demolition in the name of “progress.” Entire communitiesโoften poor and predominantly made up of people of color or recent immigrantsโwere displaced by projects Moses considered essential to modernization.
Whether Mary Louiseโs influence ever softened her husbandโs approach remains a mystery. Moses was not known for changing course once he had a vision. But her work highlights a different set of valuesโones that were also championed by Jane Jacobs and others who believed that cities thrive not through sweeping master plans, but through the small, often invisible networks of daily life: neighbors talking on stoops, kids playing on sidewalks, shopkeepers who know their customers by name.
Mary Louise Sims Moses remains a lesser-known figure, but her involvement in the settlement movement offers a compelling counterpoint to her husbandโs legacy. Where he reshaped the city with steel and stone, she helped build its social fabric. And in many ways, her work reminds us that the success of a city isnโt measured only by what gets builtโbut by who gets to stay, thrive, and belong.
At least a couple of decades ago, when I’d help a client purchase a home that happened to be along an open field, I’d remind them that the view may not always stay that way. The Twin City metro was growing and fields just like the one adjoining their new home were being plowed in and repurposed into neighborhoods of single-family homes. They would nod in acknowledgement and yet still feel a loss when a crop of dwellings soldiered up outside their windows.
There are more situations like that– where the surrounding circumstances change and present residents feel like a cost is imposed on them. Take that lightning rod word: gentrification. In certain circles, it is spit out with as much vehemence as the title capitalist. In reality, gentrification implies that a neighborhood is getting cleaned up, crime is being brought down, structures are being fixed up, and truancy is being pushed out. But when you spruce up the place, more people want to live there. This is distressing to longtime residents who don’t want to see rent prices rise in response to higher demand. The situation is changing around them without their consent!
Or consider an elderly couple who own a large, beautifully situated parcel of land on Flathead Lake. In the years they moved to northwestern Montana, it was remote. Desolate even. Over time, others discovered their paradise and passed the word along to still more people who appreciate views of the rugged snow-capped Rockies. As people arrive, more services are necessary which pushes up property taxes. Is it fair for the elderly to endure the increases? They did nothing to give rise to these new obligations, and now the expense may make their living choice beyond their reach.
Tariffs are a response to the same issue. When the pool of labor is opened up to a global market, should the loss of work in the Midwest manufacturing industries fall solely to die-cutters and assemblymen? They did nothing to change the circumstances, yet they bear the burden. Wall Street profits, labor abroad profits, and they are told to adapt.
What is the proper cycle of protection for the renter affected by gentrification? How long would the elderly be eligible for lower property taxes? Is there a natural circuit for these things to enable an easing of the effects of changing circumstances to all involved?
The fact seems to be, then, that human society, as distinguished from plant and animal society, is organized on two levels, the biotic and the cultural. There is a symbiotic society based on competition and a cultural society based on communication and consensus. As a matter of fact the two societies are merely different aspects of one society, which, in the vicissitudes and changes to which they are subject remain, nevertheless, in some sort of mutual dependence each upon the other. The cultural superstructure rests on the basis of the symbiotic substructure, and the emergent energies that manifest themselves on the biotic level in movements and actions reveal themselves on the higher social level in more subtle and sublimated forms.
Robert Ezra Park, โHuman Ecologyโ from American Journal of Sociology (1936)
This movie is sure to make you smile, and most probably laugh out loud. I’m a tough critique of comedy, but this was a home run for me.
Don’t let the foreign language with subtitles issue dissuade you. At least fifty percent of the humor is visual. The visuals are beautifully done, actually. Interesting. Piquant.
There’s depth in the variety of stories, as told through all the different players. Their stories are revealed yet not dwelt on and pounded down. The audience gets it without needing to hyperextend the human frailties.
With all this tariff talk, I’m breaking some misconceptions. For instance, I thought China was our top trading partner. I had no idea that Canada charges tariffs between provinces โsounds laborious to keep track of! Nor did I realize the extent and amount of the tariffs charged worldwide.
Top Ten U.S. Trading Partners and Tariffs Charged Prior to April 1, 2025
Mexico
Trade Context: Mexico was the U.S.โs top trading partner in 2023, with total trade valued at approximately $776 billion (goods only). Under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), most U.S. goods entered Mexico duty-free prior to April 1, 2025.
Tariffs Charged: For USMCA-compliant goods, tariffs were generally 0%. For non-USMCA goods, Mexico applied MFN rates, averaging around 7% for industrial products and higher for certain agricultural goods (e.g., up to 20-25% on some items like dairy or poultry under supply management systems). Specific rates depended on the product.
2. Canada
Trade Context: Canada was the second-largest U.S. trading partner, accounting for 14.3% of U.S. trade in 2023. Like Mexico, it operates under the USMCA.
Tariffs Charged: Most U.S. goods entered Canada duty-free under USMCA prior to April 1, 2025. For non-USMCA goods, Canadaโs MFN tariff averaged 4.1%, with higher rates on protected sectors like dairy (up to 200-300% on certain products due to supply management) and softwood lumber (subject to duties averaging 10-20% depending on market conditions).
3. China
Trade Context: China was the third-largest U.S. trading partner, with a 10.9% share of U.S. trade in 2023 and a significant trade deficit ($295.4 billion in 2024).
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, Chinaโs average MFN tariff rate was around 7.5% for U.S. goods, but retaliatory tariffs from the first Trump administrationโs trade war (2018-2020) raised rates on many U.S. products to 20-25% or higher (e.g., soybeans, autos). The โPhase 1โ trade deal in 2020 reduced some tensions, but specific rates varied widely by product.
4. Germany
Trade Context: Germany, as part of the EU, contributed 4.4% of U.S. trade in 2023. The EU as a whole is a major U.S. trading partner.
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, the EU applied an average tariff of 5.1% on U.S. goods under MFN rules (no U.S.-EU free trade agreement existed). Specific rates included 10% on autos, 25% on certain steel products (retaliatory), and higher rates on agricultural goods (e.g., 15-20% on some food items).
5. Japan
Trade Context: Japan is a significant U.S. trading partner, with a trade deficit noted in 2024 data.
Tariffs Charged: Under the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement (effective 2020), many U.S. goods entered Japan duty-free or at reduced rates prior to April 1, 2025. Japanโs average MFN tariff was 4.3%, but agricultural products faced higher rates (e.g., 38.5% on beef, 15% on some fruits). The Trump administration later claimed Japan charged 46% equivalent when factoring in non-tariff barriers.
6. South Korea
Trade Context: A key U.S. trading partner in Asia, South Korea had a free trade agreement (KORUS FTA) with the U.S.
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, most U.S. goods entered South Korea duty-free under KORUS FTA. The average MFN tariff was 6.2%, with higher rates on agriculture (e.g., 40% on some rice products). The Trump administration later cited a 50% equivalent rate including non-tariff barriers.
7. UK
Trade Context: The UK ran a trade surplus with the U.S. in 2023 ($14.5 billion per U.S. data).
Tariffs Charged: Post-Brexit, the UK applied an average MFN tariff of 5.7% on U.S. goods prior to April 1, 2025, with most rates mirroring the EUโs (e.g., 10% on autos). No U.S.-UK free trade agreement was in place, though negotiations were ongoing.
8. India
Trade Context: India is an emerging U.S. trading partner with a notable trade surplus.
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, Indiaโs average MFN tariff on U.S. goods was high, around 13.8%, with significant variation (e.g., 20% on electronics, 100% on some alcoholic beverages). The Trump administration later claimed a 52% equivalent rate including non-tariff barriers.
9. Taiwan
Trade Context: Taiwan is a key supplier of electronics to the U.S.
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, Taiwanโs average MFN tariff was 7.1% on U.S. goods, with lower rates on industrial products and higher rates on agriculture (e.g., 15-20% on some items). The Trump administration later cited a 64% equivalent rate with non-tariff barriers.
10. Vietnam
Trade Context: Vietnam has grown as a U.S. trading partner, especially for consumer goods.
Tariffs Charged: Prior to April 1, 2025, Vietnamโs average MFN tariff on U.S. goods was around 9.6%, with higher rates on specific sectors (e.g., 20-30% on some agricultural products). The Trump administration later claimed a 92% equivalent rate, halved to 46%, factoring in trade imbalances and barriers.
Notes and Context
Data Sources: Trade partner rankings are based on 2023/2024 data from sources like the U.S. Census Bureau and Euronews. Tariff rates reflect pre-April 1, 2025, conditions, primarily MFN rates unless a trade agreement applied.
Limitations: Exact tariff schedules for every product arenโt fully detailed here due to variability. The listed averages are indicative, and specific rates could be higher or lower depending on the good.
Trumpโs Reciprocal Tariffs: On April 2, 2025, President Trump announced new U.S. tariffs effective April 5 (10% baseline) and April 9 (country-specific rates), calculated as half the perceived โchargeโ (trade deficit divided by exports, plus non-tariff barriers). Pre-April 1 tariffs from trading partners didnโt directly align with these calculations, which included non-monetary factors like currency manipulation.
This list reflects the top U.S. trading partners and their general tariff policies toward U.S. goods before the significant policy shift on April 2, 2025.
There are all sorts of claims about housing floating around the electronic media world. It’s nice to know where to look for reliable information. The Eviction Lab (Princeton) is one of those sources.
There are local politicians, for instance, drumming up the need for ‘protections’ when, in fact, renters in our area are not showing any signs of stress. One measure would be to consider the rate at which tenants are evicted. The information below shows a low rate of 3%. Only Wisconsin is at the same range in this sample.
There has been an increase in the number of filings since the COVID years, as tenants were protected during the pandemic. Landlords went months without rent. Nor was any assistance provided for lost income. Still– an increase from 1% to 3% hardly implies the type of hardship that some voices in the public sphere are trying to have you believe around housing.
I thought this was interesting too.
Conclusion: There is no housing crisis. There are housing needs that continually need to be looked after. And that is all.
A local non-profit executive recently stepped down from her post after her income, as listed on the organization’s tax form 990, was circulated publicly. The salary with bonus came to three-quarters of a million dollars. That’s a lot for around here. Claude says.
The average wage for a non-profit CEO in Minnesota is approximately $100,000-$130,000 per year, though this can vary significantly based on the organization’s size, budget, location within the state, and sector.
Larger non-profits with bigger budgets (especially in healthcare or education) tend to pay more, sometimes exceeding $200,000 for organizations with substantial operations. Small non-profits might pay significantly less, potentially in the $60,000-$80,000 range.
The Twin Cities metro area typically has higher compensation than rural Minnesota for comparable positions due to cost of living differences.
It would be one thing if the organization were a privately funded, hoity-toity type of group that brought in musicians from the Netherlands to listen to Back. If that’s what the philanthropists want ot do with their dollars, so be it. But the organization at hand is a food shelf. One that is substantially funded by tax dollars. Most of the criticism of this aggressive CEO’s salary compared it to the governor’s salary of under $ 150,000 per year. Again, justifying getting paid five times more than the lead state politician is difficult to wrap one’s analytical head around.
The thing is, the professional who run non-profits don’t view their jobs as volunteer work or civic obligations. They compete for salaries just like everyone else. Or, at least, that’s what they tell us when the salary of the University of Minnesota’s head person (I think over a million now) circulates through the news. Furthermore, group of people- usually a board of directors- must have approved the wage. Hence, there are several layers of people and opportunities to object or influence involved.
In years gone by people may have worked in social services at reduced rates with a sense of getting something in return for a discount on their labor. Soldiers are often recognized for their service in public by being allowed to board a plane early or receiving a discount at the till. The little perks of dedicating one’s life to serving others may arrive in the form of help at a time when a little extra assistance means a great deal. But the executives at the foodshelf appeared to be comparing their salaries to those of for-profit positions.
This tension between the management team, their mission, and the thousands of volunteers (16,000 according to their tax filings) who donate their time for no tangible returns is representative of a clash between the driving force of a mission versus the force of private interests. Claude will have the last word.
You’ve touched on an interesting observation about non-profit compensation, especially at the executive level. While non-profits are defined by their mission rather than generating profit for shareholders, many do operate with substantial budgets and compete in the broader labor market for talent.
Several factors contribute to the high executive compensation at some non-profits:
Market competition – Non-profits often compete with for-profit companies for skilled executives and must offer competitive salaries.
Organization size and complexity – Managing large organizations with multi-million or billion-dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and complex operations requires significant expertise.
Fundraising ability – Boards often justify high executive pay when leaders demonstrate exceptional fundraising capabilities that bring in far more than their salary costs.
Mission impact – The argument is sometimes made that paying for top talent leads to better mission delivery and greater social impact.
That said, there’s often tension between these market realities and public expectations about non-profit compensation. Many donors and community members expect non-profit salaries to reflect a degree of sacrifice in service to the mission, particularly given the tax benefits these organizations receive.
The gap between executive pay and front-line worker compensation at some non-profits also raises questions about organizational values and resource allocation.
The chat out there is that there are too many regulations in housing, driving up the cost of building, owning, and maintaining a home. This is true. But there’s nuance missing.
The people who enforce rules have an impact on how the drag they pose. This can happen in several ways.
Holding the rule to the letter of the law when the issue at hand is not causing harm.
Frequently changing rules catch owners and practitioners off guard, leaving them to scramble and incur costs to catch up or reformulate their plans.
Enforcers, being subject to human impulses, become zealous enforcers with an overt sense of obligation to lay down the law.
The people in the mix can add costs simply by providing incorrect information. For instance, a homeowner is considering refurbishing certain items in their bathroom. Upon a preliminary call to the permitting department, they are given a lengthy list of what they should do without being provided with a reduced list of what could be done at a lower level. This discourages the homeowner to the point of throwing up their hands and not proceeding with any improvements.
Many people look into new construction over a several-year period. Many folks are hitting their maximum budget, as is easy to do with a new build. And every time they return to talk to the builder representative in the model, they are told about a new building code that adds $3-4K to the price. That’s enough to bounce some buyers out of the market.
Many inspectors are great. Some inspectors enjoy their jobs, too much so. They crane their necks around and try to find some new objection in the nearby vicinity of the project at hand. They infer there’s more to it until questioned for specifics. In effect, they feel more attached to the notion of a power broker than to the idea of helping a community maintain safe housing.
Ultimately, counting the number of regulations as a measure of the process’s drag is one indicator. But it is an underestimation. At the first step of inquiry, then during the application for a permit, and finally at the time of final approval, the individuals involved in the process can add a substantial drain on the timeline. These costs are in both time, money, and emotion.
It was a beautiful and warm day in the Twin Cities today, which had me thinking about bike rides. Here’s a post from last September- Now I just need to get set up with my own to venture out this year!
Few things are more enjoyable than meandering on a bike trail or cruising through a state park on a beautiful sunny day. Fortunately, communities share this ethos and support the continued development of public trails.
Today’s ride followed some of the new Heart of the Lakes Trail. It doesn’t show up on all the maps yet, so it’s essential to do some research to map out the route. There are excellent services along the way, like mile markers, benches, and trailheads for parking. With a plan in hand we set out for Lakes E-Bikes to pick up our rentals.
The operation runs out of a family-owned RV dealership. A third-generation member pitched the idea of selling e-bikes with an expectation of making twenty sales or so a year. His brother informed us while helping to load the cycles into the back of the pickup, and this year, he watched 250 go out the door. Hitting the market right can make all the difference.
If you haven’t tried an e-bike yet, I highly recommend it. It’s not really biking; it’s more of a scooter. But it takes you to the most wonderful places, and that’s what matters.
Thank goodness for all those who devoted countless hours in county board meetings to make it all happen.
Recently, I hosted a Zoom meeting with a group of folks I did not know. I was nervous. So, I went on YouTube and looked through the helpful how -to videos. I wanted to see where the participants would be at the start of the meeting. You can’t see the waiting room feature until they are there– as a number in the percipient box on the lower banner.
There was no need for concern. It worked precisely as intended. Run the cursor over participants, and up pops the sidebar showing the names of those in the waiting room. One by one, or all in one go, a host can let people onto the Zoom call. The YouTube tutorial said the host can just as easily pop someone back into the waiting room.
And then I started thinking. Wouldnโt it be great if someoneโs voice starts irritating you, to take a moment and click them into the waiting room for a little break. Their input is valuable. You want to keep them in the conversation. You just need a pause from that screechy tone quality in their delivery. Or say you’ve got an interrupter, or a barker, or a drone on foreverer. Pop them in the waiting room!
Think how much progress could be made if a little break in the waiting room would make it easier for people to stay in communicato. Robin Hanson just wrote that he is an “adaptationist on social values, and prioritizes making my culture more adaptive, as a way to save as much of it as possible.” (Overcoming Bias)
Social capital is generally understood as the value derived from social networks and relationships, including trust and cooperation, that help individuals and groups achieve goals.
Research suggests it encompasses connections among people, norms of reciprocity, and trustworthiness, facilitating collective action.
Definitions vary, with some emphasizing economic benefits and others focusing on community and social cohesion, reflecting ongoing scholarly debate.
Definition
Social capital refers to the networks of relationships and the associated norms of trust and reciprocity that enable individuals and groups to work together effectively. Itโs like the glue that holds communities together, helping people support each other to achieve common goals, whether in business, neighborhoods, or social groups.
Importance and Examples
This concept is crucial in fields like sociology and economics, where it explains how strong social ties can lead to better job opportunities, community resilience, or even lower crime rates. For instance, if you have a wide network of friends who trust each other, you might find it easier to get help during tough times, like finding a job through a referral.
Unexpected Detail
While often seen as purely beneficial, social capital can sometimes exclude outsiders, creating tight-knit groups that might not welcome new members, which can lead to social inequality.
Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of Social Capital
Social capital is a multifaceted concept that has been extensively explored in sociology, economics, and related fields, reflecting its importance in understanding social interactions and their outcomes. This note aims to provide a detailed examination of its definition, variations, and implications, drawing from a range of sources to ensure a thorough understanding.
Defining Social Capital: Core Concepts
At its core, social capital is understood as the value derived from social networks and relationships that facilitate collective action and mutual benefit. A widely cited definition comes from Robert D. Putnam (2001), who describes it as “connections among individuals โ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Wikipedia). This definition highlights both the structural (networks) and cultural (trust, reciprocity) dimensions, suggesting that social capital is not just about who you know, but how these relationships function to support cooperative efforts.
The World Bank, in development contexts, often frames social capital as “the institutions, relationships, and networks that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions,” emphasizing its role in fostering community engagement and trust. This perspective aligns with efforts to enhance social cohesion in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in areas like health and environmental sustainability.
Historical and Scholarly Perspectives
The concept of social capital has evolved over time, with early uses dating back to L. J. Hanifan (1916), who defined it as “goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit” (Wikipedia). This focus on community bonds laid the groundwork for later scholars like Pierre Bourdieu (1983), who saw it as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” Bourdieuโs view introduces an economic lens, suggesting social capital as a resource that can be invested for returns, such as career advancement.
James Coleman (1988) further expanded this, defining social capital as “a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actorsโฆwithin the structure” (Wikipedia). This structural focus underscores how social capital enables actions, such as improved group performance or entrepreneurial success, by leveraging existing networks.
Variations in Definition and Context
The definition of social capital varies significantly across disciplines and contexts, reflecting its adaptability but also contributing to scholarly debate. In economics, as seen in Investopedia, it is often described as “the practical outcome of informal interactions between people that can be attributed to networking in the business world,” focusing on professional gains like enhanced supply chain relations or strategic alliances (Investopedia). In contrast, sociological perspectives, such as those from the Institute for Social Capital, emphasize “social relations that have productive benefits,” highlighting community-level outcomes like improved health and education (Institute for Social Capital).
This variability is evident in a table of definitions from various scholars, as compiled from Wikipedia: Scholar Definition L. J. Hanifan (1916) “Goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit.” Pierre Bourdieu (1983) “The aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” Thomas Sander “The collective value of all social networks (who people know), and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other (norms of reciprocity).” James Coleman (1988) “A variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actorsโฆwithin the structure.” Robert D. Putnam (2001) “Connections among individuals โ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Francis Fukuyama “Generally understood rules that enable people to cooperate such as the norm of reciprocity or religious doctrine like Christianity.” Nan Lin “Investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace.” Robison, Schmid, Siles (2002) “Sympathy”: the object of another’s sympathy has social capital; those who have sympathy for others provide social capital. Baker (1990) “A resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among actors.”
This table illustrates the diversity, with definitions ranging from community-focused (Hanifan) to market-oriented (Lin), reflecting the conceptโs broad applicability.
Applications and Implications
Social capital has been applied to explain a range of outcomes, from superior managerial performance and the growth of entrepreneurial firms to enhanced community resilience and lower crime rates. For example, studies have found that higher levels of social capital correlate with better employment rates, academic performance, and individual health outcomes (Britannica). In business, itโs seen as valuable as financial or human capital, with networking and internet use exemplifying how social capital works to improve efficiency (Investopedia).
However, an unexpected detail is that social capital can sometimes have negative effects, such as excluding outsiders and reinforcing social inequalities. Tight-knit networks might benefit insiders but create barriers for those outside, potentially exacerbating divisions within society. This duality is noted in discussions around bonding versus bridging social capital, where bonding (within groups) can strengthen internal ties but may not connect to broader networks (ScienceDirect).
Recent Research and Ongoing Debates
Recent research, as seen in platforms like ScienceDirect, suggests that social capital remains an elusive concept, with no single definition dominating the literature (ScienceDirect). A 2019 study by the Institute for Social Capital found that definitions continue to vary, with some scholars advocating for a standardized approach, while others argue for context-specific interpretations (Institute for Social Capital). This ongoing debate underscores the complexity, with some viewing social capital as a form of capital akin to economic resources, while others criticize its measurement and application, particularly in quantifying effects on outcomes.
Public Perception and Everyday Relevance
Public understanding, as reflected in recent X posts, often simplifies social capital to the support and opportunities derived from relationships. For instance, one X post from March 20, 2025, states, “Social capital is more than just who you knowโit’s about how you support and collaborate with others,” emphasizing its role in long-term success (X post). Another from the same day notes, “When you hear success isn’t just about money, but about the relationships you build, what comes to your mind?” linking it to the value of connections (X post). These perspectives align with academic definitions but highlight its practical, everyday relevance.
Conclusion
In summary, social capital is a dynamic concept defined by the networks and norms that enable cooperation and mutual benefit, with applications across personal, community, and economic spheres. Its definitions vary, reflecting disciplinary and contextual differences, but core themes of trust, reciprocity, and collective action remain central. This analysis, drawing from scholarly sources and public discourse, underscores its importance and the ongoing efforts to refine its understanding.
Minnesota lawmakers are considering a proposal to contribute state money to the Xcel Energy Center, primarily the home of the state’s hockey team, the Minnesota Wild. However, the venue is popular for all sorts of events, including mega-singing stars. It’s also one of the few large-scale attractions in the capital city, bringing thousands into town to eat and drink.
Allianz Field, home to Minnesota’s soccer team, the Loons, is also in St. Paul but not downtown. And then, of course, there is the Vikings’ stadium (US Bank stadium) in the sister city. The Timberwolves and Lynx shoot hoops at Target Center, and the Twins round the bases at Target Field. This metropolitan area is no stranger to the tug of war between owners and the public purse for stadium dollars.
All the teams draw fans from across the state, so it seems appropriate to kick in funding for taxpayers who want these distractions in their lives. Even though the structures are located within a municipality, the draw of supporters is cast widely across the state. There is a tension, however, between the fans and the hosting cities. A sense of proprietorship is accompanied by voicing demands for better policing or transit. The expected pushback is that fans are outsiders.
When the building starts topped out in the 2022s, it was impossible to get any type of tradesperson to call you back for a job.
Now that they are on the decline– it’s time to get those projects rolling. Not only will the pricing be more attractive, but you’ll also keep the industry rolling until interest rates taper.
By March, the real estate market is at one of its most substantial positions in the year. The snapshot of information below, taken from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, shows that the market is running slow this Spring. Despite pended units being down around 5%, prices continue to inch up, an interesting, if not intuitively incorrect, outcome.
Would it be appropriate to say that Marx described two spheres of value creation: one held within the workforce through their hands passing over the products produced, and another in the taking to market by the capitalist and selling of the goods in exchange for money?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, it would be appropriate to describe Marxโs theory as recognizing two spheres of value creationโone rooted in labor and production, and the other in exchange and the marketโbut with a crucial hierarchical relationship between them.
Marxโs Two Spheres of Value Creation
The Sphere of Production (Labor as the Source of Value)
This is where real economic value is created.
Workers apply their mental and physical labor to raw materials, transforming them into useful goods.
The value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it.
This value originates in the workforce, as their hands (and minds) shape raw materials into finished products.
The Sphere of Exchange (Market & Realization of Value)
The capitalist takes the goods to market, where they are exchanged for money.
This is where the value created in production is realizedโbut crucially, no new value is added here.
The price at which goods are sold can fluctuate due to supply, demand, and competition, but ultimately, the total value in society remains tied to labor.
There are lots of ways groups form in order to tackle shared interests. “In 1955, the Minnesota Legislature authorized the creation of watersheds through the Watershed Act. The intent of the Act was to develop water management policies and plans on a watershed basis, because water does not follow political boundaries.”
Water flows in the direction of the lowest point. If your neighbor’s lot sits higher than yours, then more than likely you will deal with the drainage that flows following a storm. For that reason, people in a shared drainage system collaborate to be sure adverse effects are tackled. These generally include land use planning, flood control and conservation projects.
From an analysis point of view, the watersheds are interesting as they are independent of standard governance structures. Water crosses country lines, meanders between cities, and flows around carefully surveyed property lines. They can group people and their properties over vast plains.
But where is the value in the grouping? Mainly in the flood zone analysis. Inundation and water tables effect construction prospects and insurance issues.
In Glenn Loury’s memoir, Late Admissions, the author states that he was the first to coin the term social capital as a retained value obtained through contact with social groups and activities. It appears in the following paper.
An individual’s social origin has an obvious and important effect on the amount of resources which are ultimately invested in his development. It may thus be useful to employ a concept of โsocial capital” to represent the consequences of social position in facilitating individual acquisition of (say) the standard human capital characteristics. While measurement problems abound, this idea does have the advantage of forcing the analyst to consider the extent to which individual earnings are accounted for by social forces outside the individual’s control. However, for precisely this reason such analysis is unlikely to develop within the confines of traditional neoclassical theory. A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences(1976)
In the following decade, James S Coleman, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, writes the paper Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (1988). Here, the sense of the term is similar as there is a measurement of the efforts of a father put forth in the education of his son.
But in the 1990s, something changed. Putnam makes social capital a coffee table word in Bowling Alone (1995 article, 2000 book). Now, the term is morphing into a sense of access to networks. The thought is that business, or economic activity, is embedded in social life but clearly separate. Social life is a thing on the side. Benefits from social interactions arrive like electric pulses moving sporadically across a net of human connections.
Thanks to the book’s popularity, everyone grabbed hold of the term social capital from 2000 to 2010. It lost depth as it had become a marketing cliche. At about the same time, Nan Lin published Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure in Action (1997), advancing the network theory of capital amongst relations.
Social Capital explains the importance of using social connections and social relations in achieving goals. Social capital, or resources accessed through such connections and relations, is critical (along with human capital, or what a person or organization actually possesses) in achieving goals for individuals, social groups, organizations, and communities. The book introduces a theory that forcefully argues and shows why “it is who you know,” as well as “what you know” that makes a difference in life and society.
Attempts are made to measure strong ties and weak ties, and distances between connections, but nothing really comes of it as a measurable model.
Was Glenn Loury thirty years too early with his concept of social capital? Did he bail on the theoretical world of economics too soon?
Kevin Drum proposed that in a 2022 article– and I agree entirely.
The real issue here is that America doesn’t have a housing crisis.
I’m not sure why, but I find the new urbanists one of the most annoying groups in the progressive pantheon. It’s not because they’re wrong, precisely, or because they’re meanspirited, or anything like that. There’s just a disconnect from reality that seems to motivate so much of what they say and do.
Take America’s housing crisis. Here it is:
We have as much housing per household as we had in 2001. And just in case you think I’m cheating with this “household” business, here it is per person:
We have more housing per capita than we did in 2001.
Just wait and see as the market softens. Prices in some markets have already ebbed away from a peak, and the number of homes on the market is creeping up. Builders who notoriously hold on to their list prices are marking spec homes down a bit. The tight market was not due to a shortage as much as the normal pressure of people moving to changes in their lives.
But the best part of Drum’s article is how he feels about the people who try to set a national agenda on housing: the urbanists.
But this still doesn’t really explain why I find the urbanists annoying. Here’s my real beef: they are obsessed with big cities. They spend nearly all their time trying to convince us that big, crowded cities should become even bigger and more crowded. Or that suburbs should become big and crowded, just like cities. This is a fantastic waste of time. Residents of big cities don’t want to become more crowded and resident of suburbs don’t want to become more like cities. They will fight you forever on this. Absolutely forever. The game isn’t worth the candle, especially when there are so many other far more useful things we could be devoting our energy to.
So why waste time on this? The urbanists will haul out studies about economic gains, environmental impacts, mass transit, etc., but they massively oversell those benefits and completely ignore the downsides of crowding. Instead, they should be spending approximately 100% of their time promoting policies that would get people out of big cities and into smaller cities that have room to grow.
It is funny how everyone wants to talk about ‘world-class cities.’ Ho-hum cities are where it is at for understanding the baselines of success.
Jens Moeller of the Copenhagen police is stumped by a journalistโs disappearance after a ride on a mini submarine. The craftโs pilot is held on suspicion for murder but all their leads are going nowhere.
Iโm enjoying this Danish detective story. The focus is on the investigative side of events with the audience only finding out outcomes as they present to the police.
Understanding flood zones is crucial because they directly affect the safety of homes, businesses, and infrastructure. Knowing whether a property is in a high-risk flood area can help individuals and communities prepare for potential disasters, take necessary precautions, and make informed decisions about insurance. Floods can cause significant property damage, disrupt lives, and even lead to loss of life, making it essential to assess and understand the risk of flooding in any given area.
This is where FEMA maps come in. These maps, created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provide detailed information about flood zones, identifying areas with varying levels of flood risk. They help communities plan for floods, guide building regulations, and determine where flood insurance is required. Essentially, FEMA maps serve as a vital tool for understanding and managing flood risk.
This is the search result for 183 Dana Ave, Columbus (Franklinton) Ohio.
You will note the comment on the map that references the reduced risk due to a levee. The whole area hashed over in blue and white stripes, is protected by a seven-mile flood wall completed in 2004.
This has significance for property values as it lowers the cost of homeownership. Generally, property insurance in a flood zone can run three times the cost for the same property in a low risk area.
Home Economics 