wbsss4412

“Priced in” means that the full social cost is reflected in the price.

A window sticker is not “pricing in” the externality.

That’s an incredible stretch of the definition.

The other parties are other parties besides the buyer and seller.

> Moreover, even if you want to limit externalities to being completely third-party... sure: Pollution. More electrical generation capacity needed.

^this is an externality, everything else is just a poor understanding of the concept.

Talking about wanting to buy a house isn’t the same thing as actually being able to afford one though.

The definition of demand is quantity demanded at every given price level. With mortgage rates rising, the size of loans any individual can take out at every level of wealth/income is dropping significantly.

At the end of the day, you can want to buy all you want, but unless you have or can get the money, it’s a moot point.

To be transparent, I took Econ 101 over a decade ago and don’t remember.

A better way to have phrased my post is that economics fundamentally understands price levels as being driven by supply and demand, and everything else influences prices though effects on supply and demand.

Nitpick: software optimization isn’t an example of an externality. Externalities are costs/benefits that accrue to parties not involved in a transaction.

> Scalping tickets designed to be heavily discounted for fans.

You’re making a very strong assumption here.

Teams are selling at a bulk discount, that’s it. There’s nothing to suggest that they are doing it to be benevolent.

There’s too many confounding factors to drawn conclusions based on regressing interest rates vs home prices.

Interest rates are strongly correlated with government policy, which is crafted to respond to overall growth and inflation, which drive home prices.

Interest rates are highly sensitive to markets that have fairly tight feedback loops.

Home prices are set by relatively few transactions taking place at any one time in a close geographic area. There’s going to be a good amount of lag between higher rates prices actually dropping, especially given that the trend was increasing prices. We’ll likely see a leveling off first, then a degree of fall.

It’s hard to speculate about how much the prices will fall, ultimately homeowners make up such a large proportion of the population that they have a lot of leverage as a voting block, and government is responsive to their desire to protect their investment. Given the degree of run up we saw during, and even prior to, COVID, I’d estimate that there is a lot of room for prices to come down, but a lot of that drop is going to be driven by policy, not “free” markets.

Inflation is by definition the delta of price over time.

Econ 101 states that all prices are set by supply and demand.

Money doesn’t even get introduced until later.

Homelessness is highest in the areas with the tightest housing markets.

It’s maybe comforting to think that “protecting your assets” isn’t harming anyone else, but there are plenty of places with higher rates of drug abuse than California, yet California has the largest homeless population in the country, followed by Hawaii and Oregon, two states that also have short housing supplies.

Gasoline is incredibly energy dense, as you point out, it’s very unlikely that batteries will approach it anytime soon.

Fortunately/unfortunately, so much of that energy in ICE cars is wasted as heat, so the effective gap to make EVs competitive is much smaller.

If that’s the case, car users should be paying _more_.

Pedestrian and bike infrastructure is peanuts in comparison to the investment and ongoing maintenance costs that car infrastructure requires.

When was the last gas car commercially available that didn’t run without software involved?

As a practical matter I don’t see how what you wrote applies.

FAANG sounds silly too, we’re just used to it.

No one ever suggested that it was problematic that people have different cultures, or even that it’s bad to acknowledge that black culture is different from white culture, quite the contrary.

What’s problematic is the degree to which people can’t even entertain the idea that racism is the primary driver of these disparities, rather than things that are specific to POC, such a culture or genetics, especially given the clear and obvious precedent that is firmly established within this country.

What is a reach, is your reaction to this suggestion.

I’m not intimately familiar with all of the details of what is being advocated in California. All I can speak to is my perspective on what equity is and how I think it should be applied.

People who disagree with the basic concepts around equity tend to view the entire discourse as a monolith, but people are actually allowed to have different opinions on what is actually equitable and what isn’t.

Personally I wouldn’t support doing away with advanced math courses either. But just because someone does that in the name of equity, doesn’t mean I think equity itself is bad. I’m able to separate the two.

What’s the parallel of that metaphor wherein only equality of opportunity is sought, though?

> Rewriting "culture" as "they are the reason for their own problems” seems rather uncharitable, and unhelpful to the discussion. Why are you doing that, given that it's not adding any clarity?

I was under the impression that it did add clarity, so I find your question odd.

What would be the charitable interpretation of the statement “socioeconomic disparities between black Americans and white Americans are due to their respective cultures”?

We clearly have different interpretations of that metaphor.

The point is to demonstrate agency over the systems we create. What’s the flip side of that scenario? People aren’t given stools to stand on and tall people get to watch while short people don’t? Who built the fence? Why is it that height? Why aren’t there bleachers?

Is just sitting there doing nothing equality of opportunity somehow?

I claimed that disparities are evidence, not that they are proof.

It’s not nor us it ever been about the disparities alone, but the disparities in conjunction with the long history of racial oppression in America. People are alive today who grew up under Jim Crow. People are alive today who were threatened with violence for attending elementary school.

Culture is socially determined in the sense that culture is simply the collective actions and decisions that a group of people make.

Reading the intent behind that statement, though, that Nigerians have succeeded in America despite any hinderances they may have faced due to wider societies treatment of black people, that would be somewhat outside of the framework of what I am talking about.

The construction here is, do Black Americans have worse outcomes, on average, because of themselves, or because of societies treatment of them. Culture would fall into the bucket of “they are the reason for their own problems”.

Obviously Nigerians do well on average, but they are also a small fraction of the population. Pointing to Nigerians and saying that race isn’t a contributing factor is making an argument after having found the statistical outlier that proves your argument, how do Nigerians compare to the top cohort of white Americans based on ethnicity or whatever? Is it possible that Nigerians would actually be doing better were there not racial barriers?

> unless equality of outcome is your goal those differences shouldn't bother you.

I’m sorry, but this simply doesn’t follow.

The premise: that there are a multitude of things that lead to to disparities (even just random chance). If disparities are random then yes, that’s not a problem I’m going to get tussled up about.

But it’s not a matter of “it could be anything”. We have strong evidence that it is oppression, and when that is the case, that I do have reason to care about, and it’s about opportunity not outcome.

What if equal access to educational opportunities is a contribution to the problem of less supportive families? Hence why we are having this conversation.

I don’t have a problem with gifted programs in principle, but it’s also fair to ask how they are working in practice.

People in this thread are up in arms about the principle, but the reason that they are being challenged is based on how they operate in practice.

Do all children have equal access? Nominally, maybe. But that’s de facto not the case.

The best analogy I can think of is sports.

In sports, the rules are whatever we say they are, that’s the part that’s socially determined. Lebron James is a amazing basketball player, due to a combination of his genetics and his hard work. But there’s a parallel reality wherein basketball was never invented. And people enjoy sports like horse racing or marathon running, where he would never be able to be world class given his frame. What sports are popular is based on culture and happenstance, and up to the whims of society, not genetics or hard work of individuals.

For several hundred years, America literally constructed a society where it was decided that white people were considered more valuable than black people. That had nothing to do with what individual black people did, those were just the rules of the game.

You may say “but that’s not how it is anymore”, and yes things have certainly changed. But at the same time, there are people who are alive today who weren’t allowed to attend the same schools as whites, weren’t allowed to drink from the same fountains as whites, etc.

The argument that is being made, is that society continues to favor people based upon the color of their skin. Certainly, individual talents and hard work contribute to one’s place in life, but that does not mean that the playing field is level.

I certainly don’t believe in genetically engineering away differences, to answer your question directly.

But it begs the question, do you believe that racial disparities are primarily due to social factors or genetic ones? Because the whole point of equity is that advocates are arguing that it’s due to social factors, and that we should seek to change that.

I would imagine that the people who are pushing for more equitable systems would argue that would should give people who lack that kind of parental support more help.

Why should a child suffer simply because they were born into a less supportive family environment?

> That’s a very low bar if you take population level disparities and assume it’s a lack of equity causing this

Are racial disparities socially determined or not?

Ability does affect socioeconomic status, I’m not disputing that.

The question in a school context, though, is whether socioeconomic status for children determines ability.

As I stated in my original list, what I observed was that gifted classes were filled with children from high social status backgrounds. They certainly didn’t create the conditions for their socioeconomic status, their inherited it.