An important video about the city I'm from

https://youtu.be/1hhJ_49leBw

Yeah, the video's from 2009 -- actually, shot just months after I finally left it for good, starting my brief time in the US Army.

The video doesn't go into explicit detail on this, but it's implied: there was no practical police presence there. I have little doubt that the Detroit Police existed and were probably one of the better-funded in the nation around the time the video was made, blah blah blah... but whatever they did with the money, it certainly wasn't patrols. I always looked at traffic lights as mere suggestions, and I certainly wasn't alone.

I worked for a rather insane, but thankfully not really corrupt, Detroit landlord at the time, and because I was astonishingly poor I lived in recently acquired properties at night as co-workers fixed things up during the day. My rent was only sightly above zero, because what Mr. Chowder is touring is fairly representative of what I was actually living in. Well, at least at the beginning of a project; it'd get better from there. Then it'd be suitable for rental, and the process would begin again at a new property.

The point I'm getting at, the reason why the video is important, is: I've been through some real Book of Eli, Zombieland, post-apocalyptic shit. Not in Afghanistan or Juarez but in the United States of America.

We are not immune. It could happen, and happen here. Because it has.

At the time, I didn't interpret it as leftist policies. I worked briefly for an auto parts manufacturer (before the landlord) and was thereby introduced to the unmitigated bullshit which is Detroit unions, but as a resident rather than a worker, it didn't feel like liberalism. It felt like anarchy.

But here's the thing: government is not all-powerful. Not even if they declare themselves to be so. Governments can fail, and that failure, the result of the collapse, that is the anarchy of my youth. And if you want a government or business to fail, there's hardly a better way than to stretch it beyond its limits. Promise everything, while demanding nothing from the people in return. Give it all away, take nothing in. Allow the truly corrupt to steal all the money out from under you, so money is tossed at a problem which remains utterly unsolved. Preach endless entitlements, and the end comes swiftly enough.

I'm not saying you can't be liberals. I'm just saying: be conservative about it. We must rein in what we expect government to be capable of. We must limit our concern to a short list of achievable goals, focusing on what's most important, instead of accepting every suggestion to appease everyone. We simply cannot afford that. We must prioritize wisely, or that most important will slip out from under us.

You honestly feel that the local/state government and unions caused Detroits problems?

Scrotie. You know that's gross oversimplification. I also grew up there, both in the city and downriver. There is literally no government policy- liberal or conservative- that would have stopped the bleeding.

We moved downriver because of a single 5 letter word: Crack. I was way too little at the time to know exactly what was going on, but after we moved, a few years later the same thing happened, and I was aware enough to realize what drugs were.

I'm not trying to oversimplify here, either. But I think you're really ignoring the final punch in Detroit's gut. Crack ruined that place for good. You were alive in the 80s and early 90s... you remember how fuckin hopeless and scary the crack epidemic was.

And you also remember that it was only "solved" by the meth/heroin epidemic. So, if you're going to pin this mainly on liberal policies, then what was the solution exactly?

"

Antnee wrote:

You honestly feel that the local/state government and unions caused Detroits problems?

Scrotie. You know that's gross oversimplification. I also grew up there, both in the city and downriver. There is literally no government policy- liberal or conservative- that would have stopped the bleeding.

We moved downriver because of a single 5 letter word: Crack. I was way too little at the time to know exactly what was going on, but after we moved, a few years later the same thing happened, and I was aware enough to realize what drugs were.

I'm not trying to oversimplify here, either. But I think you're really ignoring the final punch in Detroit's gut. Crack ruined that place for good. You were alive in the 80s and early 90s... you remember how fuckin hopeless and scary the crack epidemic was.

You honestly feel that crack addiction was a cause of Detroits problems, rather than a symptom of them?

Not every city in the country had the same results. Being rational here means looking for correlations. If crack really was the sole problem (not saying you're saying that), then the whole country would be fucked by now. It's not enough to just look at Detroit and see crack and run like hell from it; we need to understand how it got there to defend against it cropping up again.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm not saying you can't be liberals. I'm just saying: be conservative about it. We must rein in what we expect government to be capable of. We must limit our concern to a short list of achievable goals, focusing on what's most important, instead of accepting every suggestion to appease everyone. We simply cannot afford that. We must prioritize wisely, or that most important will slip out from under us.

Amen.

I live in a place where right wing politics were completely obliterated (five dictatorships and a neoliberal government responsible for a Great Depression do that) and left wing politics are overtly protectionist, statist and unions are utterly corrupt. The moral of this tale is that you need a viable right wing government to balance the excesses of the left, because a party monopoly decreases the quality of governance.

Bloated governments are a big problem. While Laissez Faire is impractical (feel free to disagree of course), striving for not being overtly interventionist is a noble goal.

That's the reason I generally prefer to be near the center on economics (and I'd rather push everyone towards that) rather than being overtly left wing.

In that sense, people like Sanders are problematic because their promises are pie in the sky (still, his non economic points have a lot of value) and generally lack nuance about some problems.

...

I've read a little about Detroit, and I'm not sure how it's going to change. And yes, Democrats have a awful lot of blame there (although, as many will say, they are not the only factor at that).

Regarding laissez-faire: I've actually shifted slightly left on this issue. Very slightly, but still significantly.

The core idea behind laissez-faire is a separation of trade and state, similar to a separation of church and state. However, this idea has its own internal contradiction:
1. With no government, capitalism cannot exist, because the defense of the people from coercion and fraud cannot be secured, thus free trade cannot be secured.
2. With government, a full separation of trade and state cannot exist, because there's no such thing as a free lunch - and thus no such thing as free freedom. Protecting people from coercion and fraud costs money, money government must collect, transforming it into an economic actor.

Now, "near laissez-faire" or "laissez-faire-ish" is still possible. Needing to participate economically to survive is nothing new - it's the human condition, really - but that didn't mean sticking one's nose in everyone's business. Also, even though we tend to believe in separation of church and state, there are still laws about churches (ex: IRS nonprofit status), so that doesn't exist in pure form, either.

The core of what I believe is:
1. There's no such thing as a free lunch - nor a free law. There is always a cost... so there had better be a solid benefit.
2. Regardless of intent or opinion, the laws which raise the economically measured, statistical, factual standard of living for its constituency, even after factoring in their cost, are the good ones; the ones which lower it, are the bad ones. Period. Politics can be a science, but with economics as its master, not as its slave.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The core of what I believe is:
1. There's no such thing as a free lunch - nor a free law
2. Regardless of intent or opinion, the laws which raise the economically measured, statistical, factual standard of living for its constituency, even after factoring in their cost, are the good ones; the ones which lower it, are the bad ones. Period. Politics can be a science, but with economics as its master, not as its slave.

The first one is I agree with. About the second, there are limits to consequentialism (we can tolerate ethically gray stuff, but we cannot accept everything, there is stuff that may be unaceptable), although results are the most important thing at the end. People have different views of what's allowable but we have improved a lot compared to the past.

Politics is more like engineering, positive economics should be used to check some claims (like reducing taxes improves revenue).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

You honestly feel that the local/state government and unions caused Detroits problems?

Scrotie. You know that's gross oversimplification. I also grew up there, both in the city and downriver. There is literally no government policy- liberal or conservative- that would have stopped the bleeding.

We moved downriver because of a single 5 letter word: Crack. I was way too little at the time to know exactly what was going on, but after we moved, a few years later the same thing happened, and I was aware enough to realize what drugs were.

I'm not trying to oversimplify here, either. But I think you're really ignoring the final punch in Detroit's gut. Crack ruined that place for good. You were alive in the 80s and early 90s... you remember how fuckin hopeless and scary the crack epidemic was.

You honestly feel that crack addiction was a cause of Detroits problems, rather than a symptom of them?

Not every city in the country had the same results. Being rational here means looking for correlations. If crack really was the sole problem (not saying you're saying that), then the whole country would be fucked by now. It's not enough to just look at Detroit and see crack and run like hell from it; we need to understand how it got there to defend against it cropping up again.

The key word in my diatribe was final. Detroit is a unique place, and suffered a unique set of circumstances. As you said, it's a model for what could be. And largely I agree with that.

But as usual, the answer to left-wing policies seems to be "not that". What's the answer?

"

Antnee wrote:

But as usual, the answer to left-wing policies seems to be "not that". What's the answer?

I'll take a wild guess and say that a lot of regulations there could be streamlined and the state sector probably is bloated (that doesn't mean that there is poorly regulated stuff at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive; a safety net for problems like drugs is a must for sure).

That being said, getting to an ideal point seems like a nightmare and politically unfeasible.

You tell me. I've just read a little about this, I think I'll mostly read what you and Scrotie say from now on.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

But as usual, the answer to left-wing policies seems to be "not that". What's the answer?

I'll take a wild guess and say that a lot of regulations there could be streamlined and the state sector probably is bloated (that doesn't mean that there is poorly regulated stuff at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive).

That being said, getting to an ideal point seems like a nightmare and politically unfeasible.

You tell me. I've just read a little about this, I think I'll mostly read what you and Scrotie say from now on.

I actually don't think there is a solution to Detroit's problems. My beef is simply with the idea that left wing policies contributed even significantly to their decline- in fact I think they slowed it.

Detroit has collapsed, and is struggling to become what it was. It has no useful infrastructure for a 21st century economy. It will never be great again.

Edit: To add to that dark statement, it's just a matter of math. When a house is left to rot, it not only drops property values around it like a stone, but it incurs an additional cost for anyone who wants to develop it in the future. This means that no one wants to live there, which decreases tax revenue needed to actually address the problems, which drops property values, which...

It's a rapidly accelerating downward spiral. It cannot be stopped once set in motion. Take a stroll through Detroit using google street view; I'll get you started.

There's no fucking way to bring a neighborhood back from that.

Ehhmm, I'm talking out of my ass, but wouldn't be better to de urbanize that place (the place had a car industry or something that collapsed, isn't it?), help poor people to move to places with jobs and center efforts in smaller areas? It seems something that cannot be solved locally.