CHICAGO | General Discussions

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

DSA morons think government is the best investor, even though we have millenia of history proving otherwise. Government can help, but in the end, it is the profit motive that is best for investment. There is very little the City of Chicago can do to help Englewood. The schools there are a reflection of the population. The streets aren't any worse than where I live. Maybe more police would help.

There are dozens of ways where a government is the best or only plausible or practical investor: Research with greater than 10-year time horizons, infrastructure projects that span regions, public health initiatives, civil defense, public goods with a low rate of return. I don't know EXACTLY what the reason is, but there's IS a reason why there aren't any good for-profit universities turning out PhDs anywhere.

There are also areas where markets operate well, but can fail in ways that are agreed upon by economists of all stripes, and thus benefit from regulation or at least enforcement. Multipolar traps and the Tragedy of the Commons and whatnot.

Markets do have limits. But markets are usually rational and self organizing and self optimizing. And balancing the various competing considerations that could determine where people would prefer to have a house and what kind of house is the kind of thing markets are *very* useful for.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

There are dozens of ways where a government is the best or only plausible or practical investor: Research with greater than 10-year time horizons, infrastructure projects that span regions, public health initiatives, civil defense, public goods with a low rate of return. I don't know EXACTLY what the reason is, but there's IS a reason why there aren't any good for-profit universities turning out PhDs anywhere.

There are also areas where markets operate well, but can fail in ways that are agreed upon by economists of all stripes, and thus benefit from regulation or at least enforcement. Multipolar traps and the Tragedy of the Commons and whatnot.

Markets do have limits. But markets are usually rational and self organizing and self optimizing. And balancing the various competing considerations that could determine where people would prefer to have a house and what kind of house is the kind of thing markets are *very* useful for.

I think he was referring to government investment for developments in Englewood, not government investment in general.

The socialists would say government should be the developer for Englewood. The city should build grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, shops, schools, housing ect. All the while, the housing should be free, the food should be nearly free, while the jobs in the stores and shops should pay high wages with benefits, the schools should be free. The construction jobs should only hire local people ect. Many communist countries tried this in the 20th century, it doesn't work in reality.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I think he was referring to government investment for developments in Englewood, not government investment in general.

The socialists would say government should be the developer for Englewood. The city should build grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, shops, schools, housing ect. All the while, the housing should be free, the food should be nearly free, while the jobs in the stores and shops should pay high wages with benefits, the schools should be free. The construction jobs should only hire local people ect. Many communist countries tried this in the 20th century, it doesn't work in reality.

I haven't heard this request, can you provide some links to people saying the city should build all these things?

Conversely, we do have an example of the city using public (TIF) funds to spur private investment in Englewood. It's called Englewood Square and has national brands like Whole Foods, Chipotle and Starbucks and a few local shops.

Does that not fit the profile?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I think he was referring to government investment for developments in Englewood, not government investment in general.

The socialists would say government should be the developer for Englewood. The city should build grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, shops, schools, housing ect. All the while, the housing should be free, the food should be nearly free, while the jobs in the stores and shops should pay high wages with benefits, the schools should be free. The construction jobs should only hire local people ect. Many communist countries tried this in the 20th century, it doesn't work in reality.

Exactly

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Exactly

I provided an example of government investment in Englewood bringing private dollars along with it.

Can you elaborate on how Englewood Square doesn't fit the model of private investment following public investment?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I provided an example of government investment in Englewood bringing private dollars along with it.

Can you elaborate on how Englewood Square doesn't fit the model of private investment following public investment?

Englewood Square is a good example of what the City can do and a good example of TIF working. That strip mall is definitely good for the neighborhood, but it hasn't materially made a difference. At the end of the day, Englewood is still in decline with high crime and population loss.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Englewood Square is a good example of what the City can do and a good example of TIF working. That strip mall is definitely good for the neighborhood, but it hasn't materially made a difference. At the end of the day, Englewood is still in decline with high crime and population loss.

A far cry from your original comment:

Government can help, but in the end, it is the profit motive that is best for investment. There is very little the City of Chicago can do to help Englewood.

How can you claim it hasn't made a material difference? How many local residents are employed by Englewood Square? How many are eating healthier because of the new options available? You don't know the answers to these questions and neither do I.

Will this one development save an entire neighborhood, no. Then again, nobody ever claimed it would. It has, however, proven that private investment will follow public investment even in places like Englewood. Ranting about socialism (or trying to conflate it to communism, like Baronvonellis) doesn't really help anyone answer any of those questions and certainly doesn't help the people living in Englewood today.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

A far cry from your original comment:



How can you claim it hasn't made a material difference? How many local residents are employed by Englewood Square? How many are eating healthier because of the new options available? You don't know the answers to these questions and neither do I.

Will this one development save an entire neighborhood, no. Then again, nobody ever claimed it would. It has, however, proven that private investment will follow public investment even in places like Englewood. Ranting about socialism (or trying to conflate it to communism, like Baronvonellis) doesn't really help anyone answer any of those questions and certainly doesn't help the people living in Englewood today.

Reread my comment you quoted. To a limited extent TIF can help and it should be utilized. I never said otherwise. I have always been in favor of TIF. Big picture, City government will never solve Englewood's problems.

You're right that I don't know how many local residents are employed at Englewood Square (all 42,000 SF of it), but knowing retail, there are probably not that many, and a good portion are part time.

[Baronvonellis]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

A far cry from your original comment:



How can you claim it hasn't made a material difference? How many local residents are employed by Englewood Square? How many are eating healthier because of the new options available? You don't know the answers to these questions and neither do I.

Will this one development save an entire neighborhood, no. Then again, nobody ever claimed it would. It has, however, proven that private investment will follow public investment even in places like Englewood. Ranting about socialism (or trying to conflate it to communism, like Baronvonellis) doesn't really help anyone answer any of those questions and certainly doesn't help the people living in Englewood today.

Well yes this was built with public money. How successful are the businesses today? I don't go there so I'm legitimately asking how it's doing. I mean it's nice they built a whole foods, but the food there is very expensive. I have a middle class job and would never shop at whole foods. I don't know why they think people in poverty could afford to shop at whole foods. It would have been better to open a Jewel there. What private investment has followed this public investment in Englewood?

To make any great change in Englewood, it would have to be Communism. The leaders in those areas are asking the city to build everything for them.