What Happens to Downtown?

[Brainster]

In case anybody's wondering, no, this isn't something that happened in "the Covid year".

OMG, people in hospitals are wearing masks! Yes, that's certainly something that didn't happen in the Covid year. Most hospitals were mask-free back then.

 

[theprestige]

Agreed, and that is the context behind a lot of this. Downtowns have been in decline for decades for the same reasons; the only reason certain parties are calling it a "problem" now is because it is now a convenient angle from which to attack the Covid response.

It's a bit like the blind hope of overturning the 2020 presidential election. They think if they can discredit the reasonableness of the response (vaccinations, masks, and mandates, etc) that means that any data collected or lessons learned as a result of those things must be discarded and ignored and things must be put back the way they were.

But that's silly; there's no un-ringing the bell. Covid's only real objective part in any of this was coincidentally providing a trial-by-fire to prove that technology has advanced to the point where a number of companies don't strictly need everyone to meet altogether in a single shiny glass building every day in order to do the kind of work they do. From a purely business/bottom line standpoint, if WFH gets the work done while saving the company money on infrastructure and services then the business should keep doing it, and most of them will unless they have a politically-motivated/Covid-denier leadership, or such a city or state government that will try to force them to revert.

I think the Covid response was fine, overall. It certainly changed the character of our downtown, though. And disrupted the regular cycle of development and redevelopment.

I think some things about the Covid response and its follow-on effects changed the character of many downtowns in certain drastic and semi-permanent ways. Portland was never going to shut down the city for a year, and then fire it back up again same as before. Remote work became too entrenched.

So the question is, what does a downtown like Portland turn into, post-Covid? In this particular case, the city government seems to be pursuing policies that exacerbate some of the problems arising from the Covid response, and doing little to offset or adapt to the "new normal" of post-Covid city centers.

What happens to downtown in the future? I don't know. But I do know that whatever it is, it will follow what is happening to downtown in the present. So I can report on what is happening to my local downtown in the present. I assume it's pretty grim everywhere. Otherwise the haters would be putting more effort into celebrating how their city got it right, and what cities like Portland could learn from their example. Instead of castigating us for reporting what's actually going on in the cities we live in.

 

[BrettM]

The urban homeless is an issue in both capitalist and socialist states. For instance, in Cuba the homeless live in informal settlements named llega y pon.

There is such a demand for housing in Cuba that a thriving black market has emerged.

(The article was written 12 years ago, but I don't think there have been any significant changes).

Black markets in socialist states are very interesting phenomena.

1. They emerge because the state has failed to provide the needs or wants of the people.

2. Black markets are capitalistic in nature.

So having black markets in a socialist state is an admission of failure. Black markets exist in capitalistic states as well, of course, but there are usually different reasons for their existence.

 

[dann]

There have been significant changes! It got worse! Not only did Trump and Biden tighten the blockade because of the sci-fi syndrome. On top of that, the country, which depends on tourism as one of its major sources of income, was hit hard by the pandemic, and in the fall of 2023 by hurricane Ian, which devastated Cuba's western province Piñar del Rio. It wouldn't have been a big problem if Cuba's economy hadn't already been devastated by the trade and finance blockade imposed upon it by its mighty neighbor.

That the world's richest nation can do so much to ruin the lives of its own inhabitants as well as those abroad is quite an accomplishment.

 

[dann]

OMG, people in hospitals are wearing masks!

Yes, they are. Again! It's almost as if "the Covid year" never really went away, isn't it?!

Yes, that's certainly something that didn't happen in the Covid year. Most hospitals were mask-free back then.

 

[Checkmite]

Black markets exist in capitalistic states as well, of course, but there are usually different reasons for their existence.

No, they exist for exactly the same reason: because money can be made by offering goods and services that people are unable to acquire normally. What's usually different is what's being sold - in a capitalist country things are offered whose sale by the regular market is highly regulated if not illegal, while in socialist countries things offered for sale are those things but also mundane goods that aren't illegal or strictly regulated but still unavailable for other reasons, like supply issues.

Those are generalizations, though. Black markets for mundane goods can and certainly do also crop up in capitalist countries due to the same supply issues - for instance, in the initial days of the pandemic, panic-buys of goods like bathroom tissue and disinfectants led to a rush that overwhelmed supply chains, causing shortages. Before law enforcement stepped in and put a stop to it, a few enterprising individuals took to their cars and started scouring rural stores for these items, buying all they could find in the hopes of getting a windfall by reselling them at drastically inflated prices to people in cities who had no other access to them.

Another kind of black market that exists in the US is resellers of stolen goods. A year or two ago in a couple of cities national headlines were made over flash-theft mobs in some higher-end clothing and luxury good stores. For political reasons this was often spun as "BLM = crime" at the time, but in reality these were organized gangs who intended to sell the merchandise for cheap (or cheapER at least) on p2p outlets like Ebay and Craigslist. Because the merch was stolen they could afford to vastly undercut the retailers and still get rich. While flash-theft mobs are certainly dramatic in front of the cameras, the underlying concept is one of the oldest and most reliable ways of making money by organized crime in the US, it's just usually train cars, shipping containers, and warehouses that are pilfered rather than the sales floor.

 

[Brainster]

Those are generalizations, though. Black markets for mundane goods can and certainly do also crop up in capitalist countries due to the same supply issues - for instance, in the initial days of the pandemic, panic-buys of goods like bathroom tissue and disinfectants led to a rush that overwhelmed supply chains, causing shortages. Before law enforcement stepped in and put a stop to it, a few enterprising individuals took to their cars and started scouring rural stores for these items, buying all they could find in the hopes of getting a windfall by reselling them at drastically inflated prices to people in cities who had no other access to them.

Thank god for law enforcement preventing people from selling goods at the price that the market will bear.

 

[wareyin]

Thank god for law enforcement preventing people from selling goods at the price that the market will bear.

Well, yes. Price gouging is rather frowned upon by at least 37 states. Creating extra scarcity by buying up all existing stock, then reselling that supply at vastly inflated prices is a **** way to do business.

This demonstrates why capitalism does need to be reigned in sometimes.

 

[BrettM]

How do cartels fit into the picture? And monopolies? Are there monopolies in socialist states?

 

[wareyin]

How do cartels fit into the picture? And monopolies? Are there monopolies in socialist states?

Define your terms, please. Depending on how you define monopolies and socialist states, they could by definition not exist, or be possible, or be the only alternative.

 

[BrettM]

I need help here. I think a monopoly is a single, dominant enterprise in a particular sector of industry. Their dominance allows them to behave differently to their customers and competitors than if they were one of many more or less equal enterprises.

Cartels are a collection of a number of dominant players, who collude to benefit each other. I view cartels as being a kind of super-monopoly.

 

[dann]

Thank god for law enforcement preventing people from selling goods at the price that the market will bear.

Well, yes. Price gouging is rather frowned upon by at least 37 states. Creating extra scarcity by buying up all existing stock, then reselling that supply at vastly inflated prices is a **** way to do business.

This demonstrates why capitalism does need to be reigned in sometimes.

Even Harry Lime* is "selling goods at the price that the market will bear." Selling goods at the price the market will bear is a tautology: Goods were sold, so the market bore it. For Brainster it's a way of saying that since the market is praiseworthy, any market transaction is good. 'You complain because you had to pay rent, and now you don't have money to feed your children? Don't blame the market. Left alone, the market makes everything cheap. (Your wages in particular if the market hasn't already made you redundant.'

And when prices are raised by people profiteering from the scarcity of affordable housing, that must also be good because the market bears it ... until it doesn't.

It's Brainster's way of praising guys like Bob Nichols and the market that enables them:

Bob Nichols: "We have an unprecedented opportunity, at least in my working lifetime, to really press rents, press rents on renewal, because the country is highly occupied. We're 97.5 percent. And so where are people gonna go? They can't go anywhere. They wanna be in an apartment, and so they have to be in apartments. And we have an unprecedented opportunity to press both on renewing leases for existing residents and to reset market rates, which we've reset numerous times even this year."
post 249

The market has no problem whatsoever with bearing this. The market is thriving. The people who are made homeless suffer the consequences. And Brainster and Trump know how to take care of that problem when they ruin the ambience of downtown and thus the market. Ab in die KZ.

Reining in price gouging doesn't seem to be something that happens only sometimes, wareyin. It seems to be a permanent feature of capitalism (same link).

*I know Harry Lime is fictional, but it's a name many of us know.

 

[dann]

I think a monopoly is a single, dominant enterprise in a particular sector of industry. Their dominance allows them to behave differently to their customers and competitors than if they were one of many more or less equal enterprises.

Do you know what a euphemism is?

 

[dann]

There are many ways to kill people. You can shoot them with an AR-15, deny them access to health care, deprive them of healthy food, evict them or place them in unhealthy housing, make them work two or three jobs at minimum wage, drive them to suicide, enlist them as soldiers, etc. Very few of these ways of killing people are prohibited by the state, and the market is fine with all of them. (Loosely based on Bertolt Brecht)

 

[The Atheist]

I need help here. I think a monopoly is a single, dominant enterprise in a particular sector of industry. Their dominance allows them to behave differently to their customers and competitors than if they were one of many more or less equal enterprises.

Cartels are a collection of a number of dominant players, who collude to benefit each other. I view cartels as being a kind of super-monopoly.

You don't need help, anyone not understanding needs the help - you are factually and grammatically correct.

 

[Brainster]

Well, yes. Price gouging is rather frowned upon by at least 37 states. Creating extra scarcity by buying up all existing stock, then reselling that supply at vastly inflated prices is a **** way to do business.

This demonstrates why capitalism does need to be reigned in sometimes.

At least according to Checkmite, that was not what was happening. Instead enterprising individuals went out to rural areas where there was an oversupply. Price-gouging laws discourage this behavior it is true; the question is who benefits from those laws? Not the people trying to make a little profit, not the folks who couldn't find a sheet to wipe their butts on and who would gladly pay a little extra. Not even the folks who can't afford to pay extra; it just means more competition from the second group whenever a shipment does arrive.

As far as I can see the only people it helps are those who think it's unfair for someone to benefit from a sudden shortage of something, because it's a windfall. The obvious problem is that limiting the price of a good is a 100% certain way to ensure that the market will not work hard to eliminate the shortage.

 

[dann]

As far as I can see the only people it helps are those who think it's unfair for someone to benefit from a sudden shortage of something, because it's a windfall. The obvious problem is that limiting the price of a good is a 100% certain way to ensure that the market will not work hard to eliminate the shortage.

Ah, yes. Because that's what the market does in a market economy, isn't it?! The market works hard to eliminate shortages!
Let me present to you, for the third time, exhibit A:

Bob Nichols: "We have an unprecedented opportunity, at least in my working lifetime, to really press rents, press rents on renewal, because the country is highly occupied. We're 97.5 percent. And so where are people gonna go? They can't go anywhere. They wanna be in an apartment, and so they have to be in apartments. And we have an unprecedented opportunity to press both on renewing leases for existing residents and to reset market rates, which we've reset numerous times even this year."
post 249

Yes, capitalism is such a beautiful beneficial-to-all invention, isn't it?! Preferably unfettered. Restricting "the people trying to make a little profit" is communist authoritarianism, and while we are waiting for the market to make everything affordable to everybody, the homeless should be put in camps.

 

[dann]

A few market economies actually seem to find ... not exactly ideal but at least somewhat functional solutions to homelessness, but for some reason it's never solved by the market or by "the people trying to make a little profit":

 

[wareyin]

At least according to Checkmite, that was not what was happening. Instead enterprising individuals went out to rural areas where there was an oversupply. Price-gouging laws discourage this behavior it is true; the question is who benefits from those laws? Not the people trying to make a little profit, not the folks who couldn't find a sheet to wipe their butts on and who would gladly pay a little extra. Not even the folks who can't afford to pay extra; it just means more competition from the second group whenever a shipment does arrive.

As far as I can see the only people it helps are those who think it's unfair for someone to benefit from a sudden shortage of something, because it's a windfall. The obvious problem is that limiting the price of a good is a 100% certain way to ensure that the market will not work hard to eliminate the shortage.

There was no "oversupply", and the people who couldn't find a sheet to wipe their butts were put in that situation by the very people you're lauding.

The people who benefit from price gouging laws are literally everyone except the people who manipulate the market by deliberately causing a shortage during a crisis in an attempt to gain a windfall.

 

[Suddenly]

At least according to Checkmite, that was not what was happening. Instead enterprising individuals went out to rural areas where there was an oversupply. Price-gouging laws discourage this behavior it is true; the question is who benefits from those laws? Not the people trying to make a little profit, not the folks who couldn't find a sheet to wipe their butts on and who would gladly pay a little extra. Not even the folks who can't afford to pay extra; it just means more competition from the second group whenever a shipment does arrive.

As far as I can see the only people it helps are those who think it's unfair for someone to benefit from a sudden shortage of something, because it's a windfall. The obvious problem is that limiting the price of a good is a 100% certain way to ensure that the market will not work hard to eliminate the shortage.

Acute shortages of necessities is where market dynamics break down. It creates a bubble.

Those people caused a shortage in a rural area to supply people who are already hording in urban areas so now horders have more of the supply and there is a greater demand. They made things way worse and solved nothing. It isn't like toilet paper companies magically increased supply because the margins were higher.


The laws are there to discourage hording. The biggest benefits from these laws are acute shortages that we never see.

That, and this sort of thing is seen as very anti-social and there are more than a few would be gougers who are still alive. Someone who wanders into a water shortage asking $50 for a bottle of water is at best going to get his stuff stolen and the idea the cops should step in to protect that behavior is some dystopian police state stuff.