Imagine how much success, growth, productivity, intelligence, and virtue society would lose out on if the rich were abolished. The ultimate progressive vision for society is Detroit. You won’t find any rich people there. We should look to the rich as role models, not as enemies.
Well if you’re looking at the rich as role models: the ultra wealthy in this country are 60% democrats, with the wealthiest of families being 75% democrats. I actually answered a question from an anon on the same topic here.
The only place where America makes money happens to be in the progressive bubbles of the country. See, there’s this thing called “reality,” and it really doesn’t work with your world view.
If you want to look to the rich as role models, go ahead. You better start turning blue though if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
This is so backward it’s painful to read. south-florida-blog clearly has no concept of the economics of Detroit or of any other city, for that matter.
I’ll make it as simple as I can.
The Detroit metropolitan area is relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the nation. In fact, many of the zip codes surrounding Detroit ARE the wealthiest in the nation.
An urban city center has costs and stresses that are built into it as a hub for a region, including the extensive infrastructure required to maintain that role. In successful cities, the wealthy neighborhoods contribute to those costs. This benefits the entire region.
In highly segregated cities, especially those filled with “go-it-alone” wealth (aka greedy & apathetic types), they do not. When this happens, the urban core will financially fail.
In some parts of the country we can see this actively being addressed. Denver, for example, built a new urban core called Tech Center that ultimately had to charge a use tax on commuting workers to survive. It did. Detroit couldn’t do that. Atlanta has seen one of its wealthiest neighborhoods, Sandy Springs, secede for the same reasons of greed and isolationism, but that movement hasn’t snowballed as in Detroit. There are similar examples all over the US of this basic economic relationship in action.
One of the best analogues to Detroit is actually DC. Suffering for years with tenants (government agencies) that paid no tax, the city struggled with safety and infrastructure for decades, with its wealth primarily in its suburbs. Now, however, there is a wide recognition of the money that can be siphoned off our federal government, and Washington has become an extremely wealthy town. That isn’t something Detroit can build upon, obviously.
Detroit is an example of destruction by greed and segregation. Hardly a progressive model for anything.
It takes more than emptying taxpayer’s pockets to fix a dysfunctional city. Whether or not you like other people’s greed (I assume you don’t have a problem with your own), you have to recognize that markets are beneficial to society.
Wow, that was the most off-topic and willfully blind response I could have imagined.
There are known ways that cities function economically (based on markets). A retreat into failed dogma doesn’t change that.
I used to think markets were failed dogma until I saw the evidence in classes for my MPA program. Free markets (within reason) correlate with good outcomes.
Let me try again. I can see that this is more difficult for you to comprehend than I could have expected, especially for someone who has taken classes toward an MPA.
While you’re probably embarrassed that you’ve learned nearly nothing about planning in your program so far, I’m sure you will over time. Don’t give up.
Market isolationism (or “taking your ball and going home”), as the wealthiest areas around Detroit forced to occur by their refusal to contribute, generally does not work well for a metropolitan region. There is a large degree of coordination and cooperation that is necessary, and that includes sharing costs of maintaining an extensive (and expensive) urban core. This is not actually an example of free markets, but one of isolated markets.
Things like streets, transit and sewer systems are more complex and expensive in an urban business district. The urban business district, in turn, provides a market and meeting space for the region. However, without the high concentration of wealthy residents found in bedroom communities living there, the tax base can become too small to support its function. When that happens, the infrastructure (including schools, museums, and all sorts of other things) aren’t affordable for residents to maintain. In the case of a city like Detroit, that meant that the poorest residents in the region were saddled with the highest costs, and were in effect subsidizing the central marketplace for the use of their much wealthier neighbors.
Most metro areas would work (and actually have worked) to avoid the impending catastrophe, and try to head it off before it happened. The Detroit metro area did not, and instead, the wealthy surrounding areas abandoned the core. This is, obviously, bad for the region, bad for the people living there, and bad for markets.
Good luck with your studies. It sounds like you have a long way to go.