[bumby]

This assumes people don’t care about the larger scale of poverty or that those regional/national poverty rates won’t have second order effects that will later impact these well-off communities.

One of the difficulties in game theory is mitigating all kinds of human biases that lead to suboptimal solutions. In this case, governments can be myopic in both time and space. There are examples in game theory where the rational choice in one context leads to worst conditions for everyone, overall.

[lotsofpulp]

Neighborhoods being separated by socioeconomic status is a phenomenon seen all over the world, probably for much of human history, so it seems like this is the most likely solution, absent a national wealth redistribution program (which would theoretically work due to immigration controls).

[bumby]

I think we can agree that separation of socioeconomic status is prevalent (and maybe useful) while still disagreeing on what degree of that produces a vibrant and stable society. So the question is what degree do we find acceptable? I personally don't want beautiful gated communities contrasted with slums to be the norm, for a variety of reasons.

As to the "rules" of game theory in this context, they are arbitrarily set by society. They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable.

(As an aside, I don't think that "most likely" should be conflated with "optimal". There's lots of analogies that come to mind to describe that point, but I'd rather hold off so as not to come across as debating in bad faith)

[lotsofpulp]

> They are not natural laws, so we probably shouldn’t treat them as immutable.

Which is why I wrote that the federal government needs to take action. Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem is not helpful.

[bumby]

Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder.

I'm more inclined to think poverty, like most complex problems, requires actions at practically all levels, ranging from familial, local, state, and national actions. One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility. As long as I pay my taxes, it's "not my problem" to solve. Ironically, most people acknowledge it's the people closest to the problem who are in the best position to solve it. It's also hard to expect these problems to be solved nationally when roughly half the population wants to see the federal government reduced.

[lotsofpulp]

> Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of that money going to any poverty-related social programs other than making poor people's lives harder.

I don’t understand the relevance or logic of this paragraph. Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people. That they did not spend it on courting lower socioeconomic classes is the claim that indymike made for why Carmel is the way it is.

> One of the downsides to federalism is it creates a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

I vote for the leaders I think will help raise the floor of quality of life, but I do not think I should sacrifice and possibly sink my community because other parts of the federation are not ready to play ball. At some point, I have to prioritize me and mine.

[bumby]

>Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people.

Yes, that's what I was saying. I took your previous statement "Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national problem" as an implication that Carmel's debt was somehow trying to solve a poverty problem. It isn't. As you say, it's about attracting wealthy people (and to a certain extent, expelling poor people).

>I do not think I should sacrifice and possibly sink my community

Utilitarian thinkers may disagree on this.

>At some point, I have to prioritize me and mine.

Kantian thinkers may disagree on this. If you logically extend this, it becomes a prisoner's dilemma and results in worse results for everybody. (which brings us back to the issues I have with applying game theory as your original post stated.)

The real argument is defining that "point" where sacrificing for the group devolves into worse outcomes. If you have succinct ideas on that, I'd be curious to hear them. But too often it becomes a fuzzy, abstract concept that just rationalizes otherwise selfish behavior.