Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sanders is from Minnesota, Clinton is from New York
A while back I had a teacher who described two different versions of socialism: Minnesota and New York socialism. He gave them the different names because of the two states he had gone to school in (Columbia and the University of Minnesota). Despite the name socialism, the theory is just how different groups see social redistribution and social insurance programs. It has nothing to do with real socialism or the seizure of the means of production. I find this system works fairly well to describe the Democratic Party's division between Clinton and Sanders and how the 2016 Democratic campaign is working itself out.
Minnesota socialism comes from a place where people look like each other, have similar names, come from the same parts of Europe, and in the words of Garrison Keillor "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." In Minnesota you'll find little diversity outside of the Twin Cities. People are white, talk in Midwestern accents, and cheer for the Vikings. Because of these similarities, it is easy to see yourself in other people. Someone's tragic accident could be your tragic accident. You realize that social insurance programs are important because they help protect people like you.
Sanders is a Minnesota socialist. He comes from Vermont where, let's be honest, there's not much diversity. His programs are not targeted, but general. It is a social ideology built out of seeing people who look like you suffer from illness, a lack of education, bad banking policy terrible wars abroad, etc. The problems that Sanders sees affect all people, and these are the issues that he is the most passionate about. I personally come from Minnesota, so this way of looking at the world has been fairly easy for me to understand and support.
Meanwhile there is another brand of socialism my teacher called New York socialism which is best shown through a piece in the Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates. In it, he argues not for general programs or a general redistribution, but rather a targeted set of programs aimed at a specific group. In this case, the call is for 34 billion dollars worth of programs targeting the black community. In his recent words about Sanders:
"There is no need to be theoretical about this. Across Europe, the kind of robust welfare state Sanders supports—higher minimum wage, single-payer health-care, low-cost higher education—has been embraced. Have these policies vanquished racism? Or has race become another rubric for asserting who should benefit from the state’s largesse and who should not? And if class-based policy alone is insufficient to banish racism in Europe, why would it prove to be sufficient in a country founded on white supremacy? And if it is not sufficient, what does it mean that even on the left wing of the Democratic party, the consideration of radical, directly anti-racist solutions has disappeared?"
The idea is that general programs cannot work for specific problems. It's the argument against the phrase "All Lives Matter." If someone's house is on fire, one does not dump water on every house. No, you dump water on the house that is burning to the ground.
New York socialism does not come from a world where every looks the same, acts the same, and has last names like Ericson, Olson, Peterson, and Danielson. New York is a tapestry of cultures, people, and experiences. If Minnesota is static, New York is vibrant and changing. Different groups have different interests, and often it becomes a fight between one group and another. Ironically enough, this is also how Republicans see social welfare - as a fight between different groups trying to take money from one another.
Clinton, in this race, is the New York socialist. Now, this may be a stretch, but at this point I am trying to understand what goes in in the minds of black voters instead of telling them they are wrong. The best article on this subject was a recent article in the New York times called "Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters" by Charles Blow. The love of Clinton comes not from a complete acceptance of the New York socialist mentality expressed by Coates, but rather a calculated view of who can get them more. They look at Clinton and Sanders and see Clinton as more electable and more shrewd in getting what she wants. Blow writes: "For many there isn’t much passion for either candidate. Instead, black folks are trying to keep their feet planted in reality and choose from among politicians who have historically promised much and delivered little." I have seen the Facebook posts by Sanders fans saying that he is more electable, but I too am not swayed. I watch Sanders, and in my gut too I can feel that saying the word socialist is just a bad thing to do on the campaign trail.
This election will be a battle between Minnesota and New York socialist views on the world. Right now, it looks like Clinton will win because she appeals not to the imagination, but the realities of voters that could see Trump put up his name on the White House.
Clinton recently won the South Carolina primary by a landslide by dominating the African American vote. I'm sure there's a large number of reasons why this happened, but most are connected to the difference between Minnesota and New York socialists and how they view the world.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Helping Men Understand Feminism
So I recently read a very interesting article about the Kesha rape/contract dispute that is currently making its way around through the press. To be honest, I don't know all of the details, and I doubt anyone in the media really does know all of the details except for those involved. Maybe it will go to court sometime soon? It took a while before Cosby went to court. And after it starts it could take a very long time until we get a verdict. I don't want to make any sort of moral judgments until a court decides.
Now, as a guy these sorts of stories terrify the crap out of me. To be completely frank with you now, I'm a virgin. It's a religious thing, and I don't believe I should have sex until I find someone who I consider a true life partner. But the idea of getting accused of being a rapist is still terrifying. A rapist is the lowest of the low, scum worse than dirt, and a stain upon mankind. To know that someone has the power to take me and turn me into that with just an accusation, true or false, feels me with a sense of dread when I think about it.
Now, I want to make very clear, I don't think this means that feminism isn't a thing, or that men are the real victims. Most rapes don't get reported, and this power only tilts the power relationship an inch. Still, that inch is terrifying for those who are used to living on the top.
But it can speak in some way to a common understanding that can be built. This is an example of something that women say men cannot understand. Well, we can understand it, and a lot of us freak out about it. When you talk about microaggressions, ask men if they have ever been walking alone at night when a woman crossed their path. Did the woman try to create distance between herself and you? Did she have a look of fear in her eyes? How did this, as a guy, make you feel? Even white men get microaggressions, and that can be a place to start a dialogue.
I checked out the rest of the site that had the Kesha article, and it made me happy I had my adblocker on to prevent them from getting any revenue from my views. Articles should not have whore or bitch in the title. That is NOT a way to start a dialogue. Blagh.
Now, as a guy these sorts of stories terrify the crap out of me. To be completely frank with you now, I'm a virgin. It's a religious thing, and I don't believe I should have sex until I find someone who I consider a true life partner. But the idea of getting accused of being a rapist is still terrifying. A rapist is the lowest of the low, scum worse than dirt, and a stain upon mankind. To know that someone has the power to take me and turn me into that with just an accusation, true or false, feels me with a sense of dread when I think about it.
Now, I want to make very clear, I don't think this means that feminism isn't a thing, or that men are the real victims. Most rapes don't get reported, and this power only tilts the power relationship an inch. Still, that inch is terrifying for those who are used to living on the top.
But it can speak in some way to a common understanding that can be built. This is an example of something that women say men cannot understand. Well, we can understand it, and a lot of us freak out about it. When you talk about microaggressions, ask men if they have ever been walking alone at night when a woman crossed their path. Did the woman try to create distance between herself and you? Did she have a look of fear in her eyes? How did this, as a guy, make you feel? Even white men get microaggressions, and that can be a place to start a dialogue.
I checked out the rest of the site that had the Kesha article, and it made me happy I had my adblocker on to prevent them from getting any revenue from my views. Articles should not have whore or bitch in the title. That is NOT a way to start a dialogue. Blagh.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Apple. Tech. Security.
As far as I can tell from everything I've read on the Iphone story there is one simple solution. If Apple can currently help the government crack the Iphone, they should. If they can't because they have created a product that can't be hacked, there's not much to talk about. Security should start getting ready for a world where some things can't be cracked, because pretty soon that'll be the case if laws aren't passed.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Even Good Change Sucks
"Saudi Arabia
70% of population under 30.
70% of labor force employed by the govt.
90% of govt revenue from oil.
yikes" ~Ian Bremmer
This FB post by Eurasia CEO Ian Bremmer made me think of a question my libertarian uncle asked me: "who exactly is hurt by falling oil prices in the USA?" I think I told him that there were some gas and oil companies that would be hurt, and certain regions like North Dakota might feel some sting, but I didn't really feel satisfied with the answer.
I think you see where I am going with this, but let me give you some background on why my uncle asked me this. I had previously said that there are several rules in economics that you should try to follow, and the first is that any quick change has the potential to be quite bad, as markets and other important institutions generally only prepare for gradual changes. The housing bubble wasn't a slowdown, but a crash in prices. Stocks in 2000 took a nosedive, not a slow ride, and it's fair to say that any crisis anywhere is manufactured from a sudden and sharp change.
So oil. That changed quite suddenly. And who will it hurt? At first not US consumers, but pretty soon it may. The oil crash has sparked economic chaos in oil producing countries. Some that were on the edge like Venezuela have already fallen, while Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others are poised on the edge. What will a Russia look like on the edge? How will Putin try to distract from economic catastrophe back home? What would happen if Russia or Saudi Arabia fell into civil war? Unfortunately, I've been in Europe this year without a car, so I've been unable to take advantage of low gas prices, but by the time I get back will I have to start some of the costs of lower gas prices?
Apart from all of the foreign policy SNAFUs that could hit us from low gas prices, there are trade problems. Unfortunately for us, when the rest of the world sneezes, the US economy can catch a cold. China's poor performance and the general weakness of third world markets might spread to Europe which is in poor condition. If the rest of the world goes bad the USA will too because we export stuff and rely on foreign markets.
One way to look at when a recession might come is from US bonds. If people flood into what is generally considered a very safe asset, it means that markets are scary, and investors need some stability. If bonds don't get much attention then we know the economy is flying high and we might want to look for bubbles.
Things aren't that bad right now, even though the bond market says otherwise. However, things might just get really bad quite soon, which is likely what the bond market is trying to say.
70% of population under 30.
70% of labor force employed by the govt.
90% of govt revenue from oil.
yikes" ~Ian Bremmer
This FB post by Eurasia CEO Ian Bremmer made me think of a question my libertarian uncle asked me: "who exactly is hurt by falling oil prices in the USA?" I think I told him that there were some gas and oil companies that would be hurt, and certain regions like North Dakota might feel some sting, but I didn't really feel satisfied with the answer.
I think you see where I am going with this, but let me give you some background on why my uncle asked me this. I had previously said that there are several rules in economics that you should try to follow, and the first is that any quick change has the potential to be quite bad, as markets and other important institutions generally only prepare for gradual changes. The housing bubble wasn't a slowdown, but a crash in prices. Stocks in 2000 took a nosedive, not a slow ride, and it's fair to say that any crisis anywhere is manufactured from a sudden and sharp change.
So oil. That changed quite suddenly. And who will it hurt? At first not US consumers, but pretty soon it may. The oil crash has sparked economic chaos in oil producing countries. Some that were on the edge like Venezuela have already fallen, while Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others are poised on the edge. What will a Russia look like on the edge? How will Putin try to distract from economic catastrophe back home? What would happen if Russia or Saudi Arabia fell into civil war? Unfortunately, I've been in Europe this year without a car, so I've been unable to take advantage of low gas prices, but by the time I get back will I have to start some of the costs of lower gas prices?
Apart from all of the foreign policy SNAFUs that could hit us from low gas prices, there are trade problems. Unfortunately for us, when the rest of the world sneezes, the US economy can catch a cold. China's poor performance and the general weakness of third world markets might spread to Europe which is in poor condition. If the rest of the world goes bad the USA will too because we export stuff and rely on foreign markets.
One way to look at when a recession might come is from US bonds. If people flood into what is generally considered a very safe asset, it means that markets are scary, and investors need some stability. If bonds don't get much attention then we know the economy is flying high and we might want to look for bubbles.
Things aren't that bad right now, even though the bond market says otherwise. However, things might just get really bad quite soon, which is likely what the bond market is trying to say.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Slate Strikes Again!
Slate strikes again with a gender politic article by Christina Cauterucci that makes me feel a little funky.The article is about two famous celebrity stars flirting with the reporter with the twist that they are female.
Cauterucci states that, "Johnson and Mann’s shameless flirting is degrading, and definitely creepy." This is in response to the male bloggers who point out this "gender inequality." She rationalizes it by saying that this bad action is ok because it is uncommon. Men are usually the ones doing what Johnson and Mann perpetrated on this poor defenseless reporter. Women need to make men into victims every once and a while to upend the patriarchy.
I want to say that both Cauterucci and the male youtubers screaming of gender inequality are wrong because of context. Looking at the context of the encounter is incredibly important. Does the "victim" want the attention? Does the "victim" seem to like the flirting? Is the flirting happening in an appropriate place (say a party, a date, etc.). It is wrong to flirt hard like that in a workplace. It is wrong to not stop when you get negative signals. Respect the other person's signals. Don't flaunt your position of power.
Here's one piece of information that I would need before I make a ruling. Did they talk before the camera started rolling? It seems to me that he is in on the flirting from stage 1, and probably had the camera turned on early to capture some of it. There's nothing wrong with flirting, and certainly nothing wrong with flirting on camera. Flirting can be interesting television is all of the success of America's Romance movie industry is to be believed.
His reaction probably redoubled their efforts, as he was clearly loving it. There was never a single sign I saw for them to stop. Quite importantly, he flirts back. He lets loose a terrible pick up line, and they call it terrible but ask for another. They actually find the second one funny, and the routine goes back and forth. Quite importantly, he flirts back.
I honestly think there's nothing wrong with the male gaze as long as it's met by the female gaze or vice versa.
Cauterucci states that, "Johnson and Mann’s shameless flirting is degrading, and definitely creepy." This is in response to the male bloggers who point out this "gender inequality." She rationalizes it by saying that this bad action is ok because it is uncommon. Men are usually the ones doing what Johnson and Mann perpetrated on this poor defenseless reporter. Women need to make men into victims every once and a while to upend the patriarchy.
I want to say that both Cauterucci and the male youtubers screaming of gender inequality are wrong because of context. Looking at the context of the encounter is incredibly important. Does the "victim" want the attention? Does the "victim" seem to like the flirting? Is the flirting happening in an appropriate place (say a party, a date, etc.). It is wrong to flirt hard like that in a workplace. It is wrong to not stop when you get negative signals. Respect the other person's signals. Don't flaunt your position of power.
Here's one piece of information that I would need before I make a ruling. Did they talk before the camera started rolling? It seems to me that he is in on the flirting from stage 1, and probably had the camera turned on early to capture some of it. There's nothing wrong with flirting, and certainly nothing wrong with flirting on camera. Flirting can be interesting television is all of the success of America's Romance movie industry is to be believed.
His reaction probably redoubled their efforts, as he was clearly loving it. There was never a single sign I saw for them to stop. Quite importantly, he flirts back. He lets loose a terrible pick up line, and they call it terrible but ask for another. They actually find the second one funny, and the routine goes back and forth. Quite importantly, he flirts back.
I honestly think there's nothing wrong with the male gaze as long as it's met by the female gaze or vice versa.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Cruz and Ethanol
I'm continuing to think about the party system in the USA and this article in particular. It came up in my mind again as I was thinking about Ted Cruz and the Iowa Caucuses, and his failure in part due to an inability to be pro-ethanol. I honestly admire the position, but it is insane to run for President in the USA while being anti-ethanol. You shoot yourself in the foot when you do that, which can really hurt your momentum. Both parties, to a certain extent are quite regional. Lindsey Graham fought for the Export Import Bank not for ideology, but rather because Boeing had factories in his state. Are Republicans really just ideological and not interested in interest group politics? We'll see in Iowa today.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
I was wrong
It's very rare that I can say something and be wrong about it the very next day. After I raised my eyebrows at a piece from Vox that criticized, but suggested nothing the Academy put out an announcement that they were changing their rules for membership in order to bring in more diversity. I'm not sure it will be successful, but it's action, and rather swift action too.
It brings up the possibility of anger leading to groups in power coming up with solutions. The groups in power may know more than the people on the outside, and find better ways to fix the system. On the other hand, they may just offer token improvements if policies aren't handed to them.
I think this case saw success because the Oscars are all about their moment in the sun, while other groups can just ride out the media buzz. The media cycle peaked at just the right time to threaten the business model that the Academy is built on.
Good for them. I was wrong.
It brings up the possibility of anger leading to groups in power coming up with solutions. The groups in power may know more than the people on the outside, and find better ways to fix the system. On the other hand, they may just offer token improvements if policies aren't handed to them.
I think this case saw success because the Oscars are all about their moment in the sun, while other groups can just ride out the media buzz. The media cycle peaked at just the right time to threaten the business model that the Academy is built on.
Good for them. I was wrong.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
A few thoughts on this week's news.
A couple of very very quick thoughts on the week's news I've read.
-All of the stories about the weather, and particularly the current weather in DC show where journalism comes from in this country. Or, at least, the journalism that I read. Two feet of snow in Minnesota wouldn't even get noticed by the press, but if it happens in DC you see articles on how to drive, how to walk, how to shovel, and more. I'm too lazy to get links, but they're out there.
-African American media anger cycles rarely talk about solutions. I've read or seen at least two dozen articles on the Oscars and how few African Americans are put up by the Oscars. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, which means easy solutions are hard to find. Therefore I haven't seen a single solution to this problem besides instituting a rule to look at at least one minority candidate for each role. I like that idea, but so far no movement has emerged around solutions to get back room stuff done in a way that gets more African Americans in the pictures.
The news made me sad this week.....
-All of the stories about the weather, and particularly the current weather in DC show where journalism comes from in this country. Or, at least, the journalism that I read. Two feet of snow in Minnesota wouldn't even get noticed by the press, but if it happens in DC you see articles on how to drive, how to walk, how to shovel, and more. I'm too lazy to get links, but they're out there.
-African American media anger cycles rarely talk about solutions. I've read or seen at least two dozen articles on the Oscars and how few African Americans are put up by the Oscars. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, which means easy solutions are hard to find. Therefore I haven't seen a single solution to this problem besides instituting a rule to look at at least one minority candidate for each role. I like that idea, but so far no movement has emerged around solutions to get back room stuff done in a way that gets more African Americans in the pictures.
The news made me sad this week.....
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Changing Parties ~ Democratic Inaction
So a certain paper has been rattling around in my brain for a while now. The paper, "Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics" presents a fairly convincing case for rethinking the concept of the modern American politic parties. The basic argument is that the two parties are not fundamentally the same; Republicans are individuals built on principle while Democrats are a coalition built on action. It attempts to explain some Republican action since the George W. Bush administration. It's limited government vs. specific policy proposals. Weirdly enough, a majority of the country supports both concepts. In the words of the authors:
"Liberal positions are more popular than conservative positions, and sometimes substantially so, on nearly all domestic policy issues, even those—such as crime or welfare— sometimes thought to be “owned” by the Republican Party. Yet conservative responses predominate on items measuring ideological self-identification or attitudes regarding the general size and power of government. Depending on the scope of the questions asked, this summary of American public opinion reveals both a center-right and a center-left nation."
A Democrat will often talk about class, working mothers, the working class, the poor, women, etc according to the authors while Republicans will often say that they believe in a smaller government, stronger military, or individuals to be responsible for their own lives.
The person who brought this to my attention, Tanner Greer (check out his blog) says that the Republicans are transforming from a party of ideals into an interest group party like the Democrats. Trump, the center of the plague on the Republican party has appealed to only one group: white working class Americans. There is fairly good statistical data supporting the fact this has not been the case, and Trump certainly is going in that direction. I don't really mean to challenge this concept or idea in any sense.
I think this is a good explanation of my own way of looking at the world as well as Hillary Clinton when it comes to Democrats and that the Democratic Party is going through the opposite of the Republican Party with Bernie Sanders. I've had a number of times where I've read articles (like this one just today) that bugged the hell out of me. There is a large trend in liberal politics seen through Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter that push more rhetoric than substantive policy. In both cases I've understood the reason for anger, but could never see a common policy or game plan for either movement. Awareness isn't going to solve these issues in the media environment we live where one moment big banks and racism are problems and the next we're all upset with a Minnesotan dentist who shot a lion. Systems don't move fast enough to react to simple anger. I've had a number of discussions on Black Lives Matter where I ask what it is they want to accomplish. There are a number of things I agree with (body cams, federal prosecution for police murder, etc.) and there are some I can't get behind (giving reparations).
But what separates Democrats from Republicans is how they try to get these things done. Republicans can shut down government, but Democrats make compromises and fight little by little to get what they want. When Black Lives Matter shuts down a highway, shuts down a mall on Christmas, or shuts down an airport on Christmas I see more Republican tactics than Democratic ones. All of my policy minded friends out there should know that supporting a socialist will not lead to compromise or progress, but will simply gum up the system. Republicans can do that, as they win if nothing happens or the system gets gummed up, but Democrats are supposed to make the system run. What will happen when both parties are against action?
"Liberal positions are more popular than conservative positions, and sometimes substantially so, on nearly all domestic policy issues, even those—such as crime or welfare— sometimes thought to be “owned” by the Republican Party. Yet conservative responses predominate on items measuring ideological self-identification or attitudes regarding the general size and power of government. Depending on the scope of the questions asked, this summary of American public opinion reveals both a center-right and a center-left nation."
A Democrat will often talk about class, working mothers, the working class, the poor, women, etc according to the authors while Republicans will often say that they believe in a smaller government, stronger military, or individuals to be responsible for their own lives.
The person who brought this to my attention, Tanner Greer (check out his blog) says that the Republicans are transforming from a party of ideals into an interest group party like the Democrats. Trump, the center of the plague on the Republican party has appealed to only one group: white working class Americans. There is fairly good statistical data supporting the fact this has not been the case, and Trump certainly is going in that direction. I don't really mean to challenge this concept or idea in any sense.
I think this is a good explanation of my own way of looking at the world as well as Hillary Clinton when it comes to Democrats and that the Democratic Party is going through the opposite of the Republican Party with Bernie Sanders. I've had a number of times where I've read articles (like this one just today) that bugged the hell out of me. There is a large trend in liberal politics seen through Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter that push more rhetoric than substantive policy. In both cases I've understood the reason for anger, but could never see a common policy or game plan for either movement. Awareness isn't going to solve these issues in the media environment we live where one moment big banks and racism are problems and the next we're all upset with a Minnesotan dentist who shot a lion. Systems don't move fast enough to react to simple anger. I've had a number of discussions on Black Lives Matter where I ask what it is they want to accomplish. There are a number of things I agree with (body cams, federal prosecution for police murder, etc.) and there are some I can't get behind (giving reparations).
But what separates Democrats from Republicans is how they try to get these things done. Republicans can shut down government, but Democrats make compromises and fight little by little to get what they want. When Black Lives Matter shuts down a highway, shuts down a mall on Christmas, or shuts down an airport on Christmas I see more Republican tactics than Democratic ones. All of my policy minded friends out there should know that supporting a socialist will not lead to compromise or progress, but will simply gum up the system. Republicans can do that, as they win if nothing happens or the system gets gummed up, but Democrats are supposed to make the system run. What will happen when both parties are against action?
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The Mayo Clinic and Inequality
I was writing about Rochester Minnesota and I remembered a lesson from my undergrad public economics class.
The lesson was that weirdly enough, inequality increases public goods. The understanding beyond writing out math is that when everyone is equal it is hard for anyone to step up and provide the good of their own free will because of the free rider problem. Due to this fact the government uses coercion to get its money to provide a more optimal level of public goods than we would willingly just give over. On the other hand, in really unequal areas, the government doesn't have to do much to create public goods. The rich will simply do it on their own.
For a while I had to scratch my head to think of any examples of the rich providing public goods. There were a lot of counter arguments that popped into my head. Most charitable giving goes to places that receive a lot of other charitable giving. If there is an expensive park around built by a rich philanthropist, there are probably other rich people around that the philanthropist could hope to free ride on to get some public goods. Additionally, a lot of philanthropy is not for public goods that the philanthropist himself plans to use. Usually it is something the philanthropist has already used or a cause that gives him or her some utility from helping others. The standard economic model did not fit as well, or so I thought in class. Of course, behavioral quirks got in the way of another rational economic model.
For a while I had to scratch my head to think of any examples of the rich providing public goods. There were a lot of counter arguments that popped into my head. Most charitable giving goes to places that receive a lot of other charitable giving. If there is an expensive park around built by a rich philanthropist, there are probably other rich people around that the philanthropist could hope to free ride on to get some public goods. Additionally, a lot of philanthropy is not for public goods that the philanthropist himself plans to use. Usually it is something the philanthropist has already used or a cause that gives him or her some utility from helping others. The standard economic model did not fit as well, or so I thought in class. Of course, behavioral quirks got in the way of another rational economic model.
However, I feel the Mayo Clinic shows the model can work. Especially when applied to businesses that are more rational than the individual. The Mayo Clinic fulfilled a number of important parts of the model. It employs around one third of the town, dwarfing other businesses in the area. There is a lot of money in the area, so you can actually have public goods. Finally, the model's results jive well with what is happening in Rochester MN right now. The city is undergoing an expansion called "Destination Medical Center" that aims to make Rochester an even better place to live and visit (for medical treatment). The plan will cost six billion dollars and the vast majority of that money is being spent by Mayo. Most of that money is going into public goods for visitors, residents, and medical tourists.
It's fairly logical for Mayo to do this. On the website for the Destination Medical Zone they say that medical tourists spend 70% of their time out and about in Rochester, so their business depends on the amenities available in Rochester. It's also not possible for Mayo to free ride. There are no other businesses that could build these public goods in Rochester. It would be a bad idea to rely entirely on the government to provide the public goods that Mayo wants, as Mayo knows its preferences better than the city officials do.
It's fairly logical for Mayo to do this. On the website for the Destination Medical Zone they say that medical tourists spend 70% of their time out and about in Rochester, so their business depends on the amenities available in Rochester. It's also not possible for Mayo to free ride. There are no other businesses that could build these public goods in Rochester. It would be a bad idea to rely entirely on the government to provide the public goods that Mayo wants, as Mayo knows its preferences better than the city officials do.
It seems to me that the model was a fairly accurate way to describe how things are going in Rochester. There's a lot that can be learned from this in how industries set up public goods institutions. In places where you have a company that dominates the area, it can be the institution that provides public goods. In areas that you have multiple institutions you need a coercive mechanism or a strong private partnership institution that can provide public goods.
It would be an interesting idea to explore how institutions vs. individuals provide public goods within this model. What level of inequality do you need with individuals to get public goods? what level do you need with businesses to get public goods?
Below is some of a model I wrote up for the class. Feel free to plug and chug to find something else fun. The variable A is a way to change preferences and how much the agents like the public good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)