[rando18423]

I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree? I think that because I'm a quant and I see people making pretty basic mistakes here, or making fallacious assumptions about other fields assuming they follow the same logic as software, quite often, and that seemed to be happening in this thread. I maintain that developers are usually not qualified to talk about economics in much beyond the most basic sense, because they haven't actually studied advanced economics beyond how it pertains to the tech industry. They just make linear extrapolations and are shocked (shocked!) when their narrow (and admittedly unique) model of the world breaks down.

[mhuffman]

> I think his point is that the idea that knowing you will be retaliated against, even if it's a "net loss" in some ways for those retaliating against you, is an extremely powerful force for good in our society. Do you disagree?

If you have taken anything beyond economics in the most basic sense, then you know the answer to any economic question is, "it depends."

So in this case, I do not think that the riots did anything to the city government's or local police force's sensibilities, because it doesn't cost them anything...they get to use the house's (the citizens) money. It is the same reason lawsuit settlements do not seem to have an effect on police misconduct -- they don't care, it doesn't really cost them anything. So to your direct question, regarding the Baltimore riots, no I do not think it was a net good. The people protesting got nothing, businesses and private property got trashed, and the city paid costs with taxpayer's money, and nothing changed. There was nothing good that came of that, or the threat of that.

I do take your point about armchair economists seemingly having the solution to nuanced macroeconomic problems that stymie experts, and I agree we have seen a lot of that recently with Brexit.

However, I do not think that people can't have an opinion on something because their eduction level in that specific area is not elite enough, better to explain why they might not be right, if you have a better answer.

Maybe you could make them one of today's lucky 10,000.[1]

[1]https://xkcd.com/1053/

[rando18423]

Hold on you really don't think the Baltimore police will back off or hesitate before they do what they did again? The only thing that influences their decisions are if it cost them money or not????

[mhuffman]

Of course for a short time they will, because they do not want to be fired for bringing unwanted attention.

But yes, I believe that will be short lived. There are no real consequences to their actions, and the riot did not change that.

So if you think a riot and damaging private property for a short window of kid gloves if you are black from the police is a win, then ok.

[mhuffman]

And to be more clear, yes, if penalties came out of their pensions instead of taxpayers pockets, they would change their behavior long-term.

[rando18423]

You don't think having to stand down rioters, have molotovs and stones thrown at you by an entire community of people proclaiming they are fucking done with dealing with you around, have shots fired at you, have officers shot in their squad cars has any effect on long term behavior? Sorry I'm just sitting here scratching my head.

[mhuffman]

I can't tell if you are being serious or not, but there is no mystery and this should not be confusing to you.

Baltimore was far from the first "ethnic" riot[1] in this country and none of them have ever caused a lasting change in police behavior. If anything, they just reinforced the notion among police that militarization of police is necessary. And I stick by this track record for my analysis of the situation.

Now, there is some very recent activity to support your analysis. Namely, Baltimore has released a new "use of force policy" in reaction to the Baltimore riots.[2]

I am not immediately conceding here, because it is common for local governments to make token "changes" to placate the agitated after flareups, mostly to save their next election. Furthermore, as the article points out, this change has no teeth, meaning there is no external oversight, so these are all more "recommendations" than anything else. The attorney for the ACLU expresses the same skepticism that I have regarding the recommendations.

So will Baltimore be the first to cause lasting change in local police behavior? It remains to be seen, but if it does, it will be the first. Showing that historically, riots do nothing for long-term change.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots#1978_to_t... [2] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-pol...