I'm a big fan of Banfield too. I bet he would have been amazing in conversation. His book on why southern Italy is poor is good too.
He did have a lot of policy advice in The Unheavenly City, so things weren't hopeless, except that the elites would never take his advice. He pointed out how cheap housing was in the tenement era, before regulation require high quality and huge costs, and made cheap housing illegal.
Is Time Preference difference from Impulsivity? I guess so-- that what hyperbolic discounting is getting at in an unduly complex way.
"I soon acquired and read Banfield’s entire book, and was deeply impressed. For Banfield, the main long-run cause of poverty is irresponsible behavior, which strongly suggests that the main long-run solution to poverty is for the poor to behave much more responsibly."
This is misanthropic and anti-libertarian. The main long-run cause of poverty is government: counter-productive regulations, perverse incentives, vast tax-extorted spending, welfare handouts, etc., etc. This causes a phenomenal compound loss over even relatively short time periods, which ensures that poverty continues. The poor make what they regard to be prudent choices given their values and circumstances.
I think it's a good mix of both. Obviously government makes it harder for many people to make gains, but its also pretty clear to me that a fair amount of poverty in stable democratic nations is from poor individual choices. I don't think that observation is misanthropic or anti libertarian.
The anti-libertarian part is in failing to grasp the stratospheric immensity of the compound loss that governments cause, without which there would be no involuntary poverty after only a dozen or two years.
The misanthropic part is blaming poor people when they are only making the best of the poverty that the government has created. This can include a prudent choice to stay on low-income welfare as the government has made it not worth working.
It's a bit weird hearing about how easy it is to get a job while I've been unemployed for over a year (my situation may be specific to people who've made a career in software development).
You can argue that movies are still generally anti-crime, but compared to the era of the Hays Code, they are much more lax. I believe Francois Truffaut said there was no such thing as an anti-war film, because depictions of war will still excite audiences, but in the case of crime films used to be much more explicit about how crime could never pay, and certain actions couldn't even be depicted.
I think his point is clearly that it is NOT hard to get a full-time job, specifically untrained or low-trained labor, of which you naturally are not pursuing.
I have actually applied to entry-level jobs, but never got a response, presumably after they looked at my resume and saw it didn't fit an entry-level position.
I haven't read the book or heard the discussion, but irresponsibility seems to me a direct result of government meddling more and more, taking away more and more individual responsibility. The more it meddles, the more it makes sense to sic government on others before they sic government on you, and the less it makes sense to plan for your future when you have no idea what the future will bring except more government meddling which ruins all your plans.
Your so-called data points are nothing of the sort.
I had no intention of providing data points. I said "seems to me". It is my opinion, nothing more. You're the one arguing against it with your own opinion, and now you slag on me for not providing data for my opinion? Go away.
I'm a big fan of Banfield too. I bet he would have been amazing in conversation. His book on why southern Italy is poor is good too.
He did have a lot of policy advice in The Unheavenly City, so things weren't hopeless, except that the elites would never take his advice. He pointed out how cheap housing was in the tenement era, before regulation require high quality and huge costs, and made cheap housing illegal.
Is Time Preference difference from Impulsivity? I guess so-- that what hyperbolic discounting is getting at in an unduly complex way.
"I soon acquired and read Banfield’s entire book, and was deeply impressed. For Banfield, the main long-run cause of poverty is irresponsible behavior, which strongly suggests that the main long-run solution to poverty is for the poor to behave much more responsibly."
This is misanthropic and anti-libertarian. The main long-run cause of poverty is government: counter-productive regulations, perverse incentives, vast tax-extorted spending, welfare handouts, etc., etc. This causes a phenomenal compound loss over even relatively short time periods, which ensures that poverty continues. The poor make what they regard to be prudent choices given their values and circumstances.
I think it's a good mix of both. Obviously government makes it harder for many people to make gains, but its also pretty clear to me that a fair amount of poverty in stable democratic nations is from poor individual choices. I don't think that observation is misanthropic or anti libertarian.
The anti-libertarian part is in failing to grasp the stratospheric immensity of the compound loss that governments cause, without which there would be no involuntary poverty after only a dozen or two years.
The misanthropic part is blaming poor people when they are only making the best of the poverty that the government has created. This can include a prudent choice to stay on low-income welfare as the government has made it not worth working.
some reviews
https://quillette.com/2020/05/17/return-to-the-unheavenly-city/
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-perils-of-doing-something
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/a-dose-of-civic-realism/
https://edwardcbanfield.org/2023/11/09/another-retro-review-of-edward-c-banfields-the-unheavenly-city/
Excellent!
Living in a poor country, I think of Banfield often, but mostly The Moral Basis of a Backward Society."
It's a bit weird hearing about how easy it is to get a job while I've been unemployed for over a year (my situation may be specific to people who've made a career in software development).
You can argue that movies are still generally anti-crime, but compared to the era of the Hays Code, they are much more lax. I believe Francois Truffaut said there was no such thing as an anti-war film, because depictions of war will still excite audiences, but in the case of crime films used to be much more explicit about how crime could never pay, and certain actions couldn't even be depicted.
I think his point is clearly that it is NOT hard to get a full-time job, specifically untrained or low-trained labor, of which you naturally are not pursuing.
I have actually applied to entry-level jobs, but never got a response, presumably after they looked at my resume and saw it didn't fit an entry-level position.
I haven't read the book or heard the discussion, but irresponsibility seems to me a direct result of government meddling more and more, taking away more and more individual responsibility. The more it meddles, the more it makes sense to sic government on others before they sic government on you, and the less it makes sense to plan for your future when you have no idea what the future will bring except more government meddling which ruins all your plans.
I probably rant a lot about that.
I’ve been around some pretty irresponsible people but government policy had nothing to do with their behavior.
You mean irresponsible individuals. I’m talking about masses of people in general. Of course there will be exceptions.
You didn’t back up your thoughts with *any* evidence. I at least had actual data points, however insignificant they may be.
Your so-called data points are nothing of the sort.
I had no intention of providing data points. I said "seems to me". It is my opinion, nothing more. You're the one arguing against it with your own opinion, and now you slag on me for not providing data for my opinion? Go away.