I had a friend who own an apartment building in California. Eviction is really hard there. Whenever a new resident moved in, my friend would file an eviction notice against them. Then 6 months later, if they turned out to be a good tenant, he would redraw the suit, but if they turned out to be bad, he had the eviction ready.
That's not allowed either. Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), aka California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, says there needs to be just cause to evict someone.
I was a commercial real estate appraiser for almost 25 years (recently retired) and over the years I worked on a lot of new developments. I found that the superpower of developers was dealing with code compliance (the rampant number of requirements due to the zoning code and municipal officials). Also being willing to deal with hour after hour of meetings in which one hears inane objections from NIMBYs. NIMBYs hate developers and insist on zoning requirements that make building difficult, but it is the very presence of the NIMBYs and the zoning that makes developers necessary. This is also part of what makes it so profitable to be a developer -- lack of competition. You have to have a certain mindset to be able to put up with the bullshit, which is something that I know I don't have.
In a sane world, we would have a lot of small time builders. If you owned a lot and wanted a house, you would hire one to build on it. Instead we are stuck with developers who have to develop entire neighborhoods to make the compliance costs make sense.
This. It took me extremely long to realize: The enemy isn't the "lazy, stupid state" OR "the greedy companies". It's the BigCorp-State complex that seems to naturally arise everywhere. Free markets are great for the consumer, but the immense pressure on companies and indirectly on the workers are so unpleasant that entrenched market actors will actively lobby for regulation, and will even have good PR doing so under the guise of being a good, socially aware company defending society against the bad, other companies. This increases the moat against newcomers and creates a regulatory cottage industry which will also work to entrench itself. The bureaucratic state will, too, need to be expanded to deal with the ever-increasing regulations.
The endstate is almost impossible to dislodge, since many people's comfortable, predictable life is financed through it, while the costs are too diffuse to be actionable. The EU is the archetypical example of this; Personal life is good, but the economy is non-innovative and derivative, we greatly benefit from being consumers to other countries who haven't yet reached this state fully (US, China).
I've often wondered how and why successful societies start to stagnate; Nowadays I'm wondering how we even managed to get out of the medieval steady state and advance to this degree.
"I must confess that this is largely what you see."
But what is really relevant is what you don't see (as it is so frequently the case): how prosperous these places would be in the absence of government stupidity.
Spolier alert: much more than what you can observe today.
Don't underestimate the degree to which coping is avoiding the formal sector entirely and doing things under the table. Or via bribery to prevent enforcement of the rules.
My sister-in-law is from Mexico City and told me that "burrocrata" (sp?) is common there. She rolls that "rr" into a marvelous "rrrrrr" that makes it obvious how she feels about them.
No, Charity Dean was his example. This is what Aaronson wrote about Fauci:
> As for Anthony Fauci, he became a national hero, maybe even deservedly so, merely by <i>not being 100% a blankface</i>, when basically every other “expert” in the US with visible power was. Fauci cleared a depressingly low bar, one that the people profiled by Lewis cleared at Simone-Biles-like heights.
"maybe even deservedly so" indicates that Scott himself is reserving judgment, "not being 100%" implies he was partly one, and the end of that statement is a contrast. You would be misleading anyone who didn't actually read the post. Nor have you presented any argument against the likes of Charity Dean.
Sorry, I read the post. Scott is a COVID lockdown authoritarian that destroyed our society for two years and doesn't regret it one bit. Charity Dean was a tyrant who caused immense suffering.
"Yet it’s hard to know which of these threats will justify the massive sacrifices urged by those single-mindedly intent on combating them, and which costs may ultimately prove unreasonable or excessive. The fact that neither Lewis nor his action figures seem remotely troubled by this may go a long way towards explaining why they’ve found so many Americans skeptical of their guidance and unwilling to obey their directives. Ultimately, Lewis’s account left me not, as he seems to have intended, with a newfound appreciation for the rash certainties of public officials like Dean and Mecher, but with a heightened appreciation for why so many Americans seem to lack faith in the judgment of the expert class."
Our society still exists, it was not "destroyed". As Bryan would put it, you are engaging in hyperbole, unfortunately common in political discussions.
A "tyrant" in classical Greek terminology is one who seizes power via force (rather than inheriting power or being elected). Dean was not actually high-ranking enough to be that at any time, and she resigned her government position in July of 2020.
In my entire lifetime I never saw a more destructive policy, nor do I expect to. It’s was worse than any war my country has been involved in, and on the absolute most comical of justifications.
To have supported Covid lockdowns to me indicates a lack of a soul.
Obviously I mean the worst policy implemented by my government. Not the worst by anyone anywhere in all history.
And as a secondary note, at least policies that are worse had some kind of reason why they happened. Communism usually came about in some kind of impoverished war torn third world hellhole that was itself already authoritarian before becoming communist. It’s tragic, but you can at least understand why it happened and what people were trying to do.
What’s the tragic backstory or utopian vision that justified masking toddlers for two years?
I think Bryan once published some analysis of the number of QALY killed by Covid interventions, and it far exceeded the number lost to Covid. It if I’m misremembering the math isn’t that hard to do on your own.
In addition the economic cost was at least 30% of gdp, which is a staggering sum.
See also: due to extreme "regulation", drug cartels are predominately full of people skilled at paranoid violence, noticeably absent from a typical manufacturing/distribution firm.
For 20+ years I built and ran a company that operated as many as 600 campgrounds and marinas for the US Forest Service and other government land agencies. Mostly this was under concession contract, where we leased the facilities; agreed to a division of labor; accepted very restrictive environmental, pricing, and other business rules; paid the government rent, generally more than they made on the property running it themselves; and then ran it (under all the restrictions) for profit.
It was tremendously frustrating because there was so little understanding in these agencies of business or marketing, even basic things such as insurance which the Feds have not need for. But it was rewarding because federal/state/local government has monopolized ownership of most of the best and most beautiful recreation land.
Many times people would ask me why I didn't just go out and buy private campgrounds, saying it would be easier. I said it would, but there are over 600 people who can run a great KOA. There are only about 5 of us who successfully make money creating great customer experiences while still satisfying the USFS or NPS or CA state parks etc
I had a friend who own an apartment building in California. Eviction is really hard there. Whenever a new resident moved in, my friend would file an eviction notice against them. Then 6 months later, if they turned out to be a good tenant, he would redraw the suit, but if they turned out to be bad, he had the eviction ready.
That's not allowed either. Assembly Bill 1482 (AB 1482), aka California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, says there needs to be just cause to evict someone.
Blankface!
You’ve entirely missed BC’s point, haven’t you?
I was a commercial real estate appraiser for almost 25 years (recently retired) and over the years I worked on a lot of new developments. I found that the superpower of developers was dealing with code compliance (the rampant number of requirements due to the zoning code and municipal officials). Also being willing to deal with hour after hour of meetings in which one hears inane objections from NIMBYs. NIMBYs hate developers and insist on zoning requirements that make building difficult, but it is the very presence of the NIMBYs and the zoning that makes developers necessary. This is also part of what makes it so profitable to be a developer -- lack of competition. You have to have a certain mindset to be able to put up with the bullshit, which is something that I know I don't have.
In a sane world, we would have a lot of small time builders. If you owned a lot and wanted a house, you would hire one to build on it. Instead we are stuck with developers who have to develop entire neighborhoods to make the compliance costs make sense.
unfortunately, well-coping companies will support some governmental idiocy to keep the pressure on their competitors
This. It took me extremely long to realize: The enemy isn't the "lazy, stupid state" OR "the greedy companies". It's the BigCorp-State complex that seems to naturally arise everywhere. Free markets are great for the consumer, but the immense pressure on companies and indirectly on the workers are so unpleasant that entrenched market actors will actively lobby for regulation, and will even have good PR doing so under the guise of being a good, socially aware company defending society against the bad, other companies. This increases the moat against newcomers and creates a regulatory cottage industry which will also work to entrench itself. The bureaucratic state will, too, need to be expanded to deal with the ever-increasing regulations.
The endstate is almost impossible to dislodge, since many people's comfortable, predictable life is financed through it, while the costs are too diffuse to be actionable. The EU is the archetypical example of this; Personal life is good, but the economy is non-innovative and derivative, we greatly benefit from being consumers to other countries who haven't yet reached this state fully (US, China).
I've often wondered how and why successful societies start to stagnate; Nowadays I'm wondering how we even managed to get out of the medieval steady state and advance to this degree.
"I must confess that this is largely what you see."
But what is really relevant is what you don't see (as it is so frequently the case): how prosperous these places would be in the absence of government stupidity.
Spolier alert: much more than what you can observe today.
Don't underestimate the degree to which coping is avoiding the formal sector entirely and doing things under the table. Or via bribery to prevent enforcement of the rules.
My sister-in-law is from Mexico City and told me that "burrocrata" (sp?) is common there. She rolls that "rr" into a marvelous "rrrrrr" that makes it obvious how she feels about them.
I went to Scotts link and his example of an anti-blackface is Fauci and the COVID tyrannizers are his heroes. Ugh...
No, Charity Dean was his example. This is what Aaronson wrote about Fauci:
> As for Anthony Fauci, he became a national hero, maybe even deservedly so, merely by <i>not being 100% a blankface</i>, when basically every other “expert” in the US with visible power was. Fauci cleared a depressingly low bar, one that the people profiled by Lewis cleared at Simone-Biles-like heights.
"maybe even deservedly so" indicates that Scott himself is reserving judgment, "not being 100%" implies he was partly one, and the end of that statement is a contrast. You would be misleading anyone who didn't actually read the post. Nor have you presented any argument against the likes of Charity Dean.
Sorry, I read the post. Scott is a COVID lockdown authoritarian that destroyed our society for two years and doesn't regret it one bit. Charity Dean was a tyrant who caused immense suffering.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2021/09/08/best-selling-author-michael-lewiss-odd-celebration-of-school-closure/
"Yet it’s hard to know which of these threats will justify the massive sacrifices urged by those single-mindedly intent on combating them, and which costs may ultimately prove unreasonable or excessive. The fact that neither Lewis nor his action figures seem remotely troubled by this may go a long way towards explaining why they’ve found so many Americans skeptical of their guidance and unwilling to obey their directives. Ultimately, Lewis’s account left me not, as he seems to have intended, with a newfound appreciation for the rash certainties of public officials like Dean and Mecher, but with a heightened appreciation for why so many Americans seem to lack faith in the judgment of the expert class."
Our society still exists, it was not "destroyed". As Bryan would put it, you are engaging in hyperbole, unfortunately common in political discussions.
A "tyrant" in classical Greek terminology is one who seizes power via force (rather than inheriting power or being elected). Dean was not actually high-ranking enough to be that at any time, and she resigned her government position in July of 2020.
I will agree however that one should account for the costs and benefits of such policies. This was at the center of my disagreement with Phil Magness on Covid NPIs that caused him to (temporarily) block me https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2026/02/04/blocked-by-phillip-magness/
In my entire lifetime I never saw a more destructive policy, nor do I expect to. It’s was worse than any war my country has been involved in, and on the absolute most comical of justifications.
To have supported Covid lockdowns to me indicates a lack of a soul.
“In my entire lifetime I never saw a more destructive policy, nor do I expect to”
Was with you entirely until here.
North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? Pretty much every a communist country ever but China?
“COVID” was not just one policy. And I agree that the lockdown policies were *terrible*.
But to claim they were worse than Communist authoritarian anti-freedom policies of our lifetimes is just not credible.
Obviously I mean the worst policy implemented by my government. Not the worst by anyone anywhere in all history.
And as a secondary note, at least policies that are worse had some kind of reason why they happened. Communism usually came about in some kind of impoverished war torn third world hellhole that was itself already authoritarian before becoming communist. It’s tragic, but you can at least understand why it happened and what people were trying to do.
What’s the tragic backstory or utopian vision that justified masking toddlers for two years?
Worse than any war? Far fewer people were killed.
As an atheist, I don't believe in souls.
I think Bryan once published some analysis of the number of QALY killed by Covid interventions, and it far exceeded the number lost to Covid. It if I’m misremembering the math isn’t that hard to do on your own.
In addition the economic cost was at least 30% of gdp, which is a staggering sum.
"I’ve been to almost every major region of Spain, and wherever I go, the country is bursting with high-quality commerce. "
I know nothing of Europe or Spain.
But, given the 3 year start up period, isn't it just as likely that the bureaucratic barrier insulates existing businesses from competition?
That would be easy to falsify (or to probe right) by taking a look at European business margins compared to American ones.
Feeling lazy today, though
See also: due to extreme "regulation", drug cartels are predominately full of people skilled at paranoid violence, noticeably absent from a typical manufacturing/distribution firm.
For 20+ years I built and ran a company that operated as many as 600 campgrounds and marinas for the US Forest Service and other government land agencies. Mostly this was under concession contract, where we leased the facilities; agreed to a division of labor; accepted very restrictive environmental, pricing, and other business rules; paid the government rent, generally more than they made on the property running it themselves; and then ran it (under all the restrictions) for profit.
It was tremendously frustrating because there was so little understanding in these agencies of business or marketing, even basic things such as insurance which the Feds have not need for. But it was rewarding because federal/state/local government has monopolized ownership of most of the best and most beautiful recreation land.
Many times people would ask me why I didn't just go out and buy private campgrounds, saying it would be easier. I said it would, but there are over 600 people who can run a great KOA. There are only about 5 of us who successfully make money creating great customer experiences while still satisfying the USFS or NPS or CA state parks etc
Why doesn't Apple put together a military, conquer a country in which it operates, and establish a libertarian regime?
Because Apple is not in the business of conquering countries or establishing libertarian regimes.
Focusing on what you know how to do really well is always the best course of action. For governments, this means focusing on doing nothing.
Perhaps the Spanish bureaucracy is corrupt so it accepts breaking of rules for a consideration.
Perhaps the Spanish people do not trust government and so are willing to break rules.
Moral of the story: If you're good at making bureaucrats happy, you'll be really good at making customers happy.