[wwweston]

The “it is not immediately clear” part should be taken to heart a lot more than it is. Right now I’d bet you could elect Ezra Klein president and he would be as unable to improve things as most, and he probably has a somewhat clearer picture of the factors than your average internet commentator.

Railing against optimizing for caution in a vague sense really isn’t articulating specific dynamics however well it leans into the shallow strawmanification of “regulation” that doesn’t merely dominate lay discourse but has essentially ascended into conceptual godhood without having paid real dues in sacrifice or insight.

There is no respectable theory of why that has even begun to grasp the problem.

[aaronbrethorst]

I recommend checking out the Vital City NYC link i shared. It articulates some of the “specific dynamics” you’re thoughtfully, if turgidly requesting.

[wwweston]

no more turgid than the much of the boner for building boosterism, just more notes, which may not be a bad thing if some of the scope of consideration could stand to be inflated.

before I check vital city, should I anticipate that they go beyond articulating “here’s a series of public institutions that took a long time to do things“ and perhaps even into “here’s our theory of the incentives and other motivations that underlie the sociology of this behavior”? or mostly the former?

[aaronbrethorst]

Put down the thesaurus, my dude. And yes.

[twojacobtwo]

Thank you for using "turgidly" as such. You've given me a new appreciation for the term.

[km144]

Theories are hard because the world is complex. I guess that sounds trivial but it really should be said more often. There is no silver bullet with these things, because the systems are so complicated that it is hard to reason about how one thing is the true root cause without implicating another cause. That's also why economics is so difficult I suppose.