Menu Bar
Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
<< Bush Strongly Disagrees with Recent Supreme Court Decision!
|
Dispatches: Is Torture a Good Idea? >>
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
How can a struggling country break out of poverty if it's trapped in a system of bad rules? Economist Paul Romer unveils a bold idea: "charter cities," city-scale administrative zones governed by a coalition of nations. (Could Guantanamo Bay become the next Hong Kong?)
Aug 5, 2009 9:03 AM
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Very interesting idea. I wonder if it would work on a smaller scale. ... Then again... I suppose you would always need co-operation of the country in which your experiment would reside. :(
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
As a strict corporatist mouthpiece, Paul Romer is not considered to be very forward thinking among economists on the cutting edge.
"You have to have some degree of monopoly power..." - Paul Romer
"People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés..." - Paul Romer
I know these quotes make Paul Romer look like he varies between utterly dangerous to free market capitalism and, quite simply, a f*cking idiot. Certainly he has a few more lucid quotes as well.
But the fact that these came out of his mouth should still be alarming and raise question to the validity of his "message."
"You have to have some degree of monopoly power..." - Paul Romer
"People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés..." - Paul Romer
I know these quotes make Paul Romer look like he varies between utterly dangerous to free market capitalism and, quite simply, a f*cking idiot. Certainly he has a few more lucid quotes as well.
But the fact that these came out of his mouth should still be alarming and raise question to the validity of his "message."
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Well he did say the land would first have to be uninhabited and allow people to have a choice as to whether or not they want to live there and follow those rules. However, I see your point in the sense that poor people (alot of people these days) who need jobs may not have much of a choice in this situation. They just need a job and will have to put up with the bullshit that goes along with it. From this perspective Romer's talking about more choices among employers located within the "charter city". If you happen to be born there or employed there and don't like how things are run then I guess Romer's saying "GTFO!". Sounds un-american. But then again doesn't everything sound un-american or like terrorism these days?
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Actually, I think you're totally right-on with Romer's beliefs. He thinks people with "ideas" (like himself) deserve the majority of wealth while people with "skills" are mere serfs who can be replaced at will.
And it does sound sort of un-american. But then again, I don't think Romer or his ilk have any loyalty to America. To them, the US is an outdated nation-state they've long abandoned in favor of a multinational system to put the control of wealth creation in the hands of a select few.
Which I obviously don't agree with. But, again, Romer's largely a monopolist.
And it does sound sort of un-american. But then again, I don't think Romer or his ilk have any loyalty to America. To them, the US is an outdated nation-state they've long abandoned in favor of a multinational system to put the control of wealth creation in the hands of a select few.
Which I obviously don't agree with. But, again, Romer's largely a monopolist.
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
I need to get out of the habit of calling things "un-american". It's like the word "terrorism". Doesn't really mean anything anymore. Especially since America itself has done more un-american shit (bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example) that the term "un-american" doesn't really have any value.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
To be a true "American", you should have no principles.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
> I know these quotes make Paul Romer look like he varies between utterly dangerous to free market capitalism and, quite simply, a f*cking idiot. Certainly he has a few more lucid quotes as well.
No they don't. They make you look like somebody who deliberately misquotes by leaving out important parts:
"People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés or antibiotics or penicillin."
You though that leaving off the part about penicillin and antibiotics was fair a fair representation of the quote? You only had to include 4 extra words. But those words would have made the quote make a lot more sense, so I can see why you left them off. *rolls eyes*
And if critising this you need the full context:
"reason: In terms of real per capita income, Americans today are seven times richer than they were in 1900. How did that happen?
Paul Romer: Many things contributed, but the essential one is technological change. What I mean by that is the discovery of better ways to do things. In most coffee shops these days, you'll find that the small, medium, and large coffee cups all use the same size lid now, whereas even five years ago they used to have different size lids for the different cups. That small change in the geometry of the cups means that somebody can save a little time in setting up the coffee shop, preparing the cups, getting your coffee, and getting out. Millions of little discoveries like that, combined with some very big discoveries, like the electric motor and antibiotics, have made the quality of life for people today dramatically higher than it was 100 years ago. The estimate you cite of a seven-fold increase in income--that's the kind of number you get from the official statistics, but the truth is that if you look at the actual change in the quality of life, it's larger than the number suggests. People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés or antibiotics or penicillin."
http://acceleratethecontradictions.blogspot.com/2008/06/futures-so-bright.html
No they don't. They make you look like somebody who deliberately misquotes by leaving out important parts:
"People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés or antibiotics or penicillin."
You though that leaving off the part about penicillin and antibiotics was fair a fair representation of the quote? You only had to include 4 extra words. But those words would have made the quote make a lot more sense, so I can see why you left them off. *rolls eyes*
And if critising this you need the full context:
"reason: In terms of real per capita income, Americans today are seven times richer than they were in 1900. How did that happen?
Paul Romer: Many things contributed, but the essential one is technological change. What I mean by that is the discovery of better ways to do things. In most coffee shops these days, you'll find that the small, medium, and large coffee cups all use the same size lid now, whereas even five years ago they used to have different size lids for the different cups. That small change in the geometry of the cups means that somebody can save a little time in setting up the coffee shop, preparing the cups, getting your coffee, and getting out. Millions of little discoveries like that, combined with some very big discoveries, like the electric motor and antibiotics, have made the quality of life for people today dramatically higher than it was 100 years ago. The estimate you cite of a seven-fold increase in income--that's the kind of number you get from the official statistics, but the truth is that if you look at the actual change in the quality of life, it's larger than the number suggests. People who had today's average income in 1900 were not as well off as the average person today, because they didn't have access to cheap lattés or antibiotics or penicillin."
http://acceleratethecontradictions.blogspot.com/2008/06/futures-so-bright.html
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
I don't know why I'm shocked that your other one was also a serious misquote but I am:
> "You have to have some degree of monopoly power..." - Paul Romer
Oh that's the sentence is it? Love the way you gave the "you" a capital to make people think it was the start of the sentence. Actual quote:
"But in the realm of ideas, you have to have some degree of monopoly power."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_7_33/ai_80924448/pg_6/
I dunno what the requirements for becoming a moderator are here, but apparently they aren't set high enough. Maybe next time you should provide links to the source of your quotes so that you won't be as tempted to mislead others in order to defame somebody you obviously don't like.
> "You have to have some degree of monopoly power..." - Paul Romer
Oh that's the sentence is it? Love the way you gave the "you" a capital to make people think it was the start of the sentence. Actual quote:
"But in the realm of ideas, you have to have some degree of monopoly power."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_7_33/ai_80924448/pg_6/
I dunno what the requirements for becoming a moderator are here, but apparently they aren't set high enough. Maybe next time you should provide links to the source of your quotes so that you won't be as tempted to mislead others in order to defame somebody you obviously don't like.
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Hey Gerry, thanks for your comments. (Both of 'em! :)
So you, like Romer, equate "cheap lattés" with "antibiotics or penicillin?" Seriously? Wow. And you believe it actually makes some kinda sense to mention them together in the same sentence without irony? Cool.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what the qualifications are for being a Moderator... :) But I'd guess it's not typing "*rolls eyes*" just because you might disagree with someone's comment. The reason M&C is so special is because folks tend to not get so emotional or insulting. They generally leave that for the 14 year olds on youtube.
My post has nothing to do with playground stuff of whether I like or don't like Paul. We're both guys with a Stanford Economics background. I do, however, disagree with his corporate globalist New Growth Theory. I believe in ideas that run virtually the opposite.
I'm sure Stanford doesn't mind, but I hope that's okay with you, too.
And sorry I must have gotten under your skin given your multiple posts to my comment. Plus my apologies for not including grad-school style annotations. You're right. Internet commenters should absolutely do your research for you. (psst...most people have heard of that brand new fangled invention called "Google..." :)
All that said, it may work in your favor to not merely regurgitate quotes as gospel and attack the poster and think that's somehow debate. Perhaps you'll be taken seriously if you address the ideas. Which, in this case, is how Romer's mere utterance of these wacky statements raises question to his theories.
So as to my own comment...
The first focuses on the lattes due to the inherent absurdity of mentioning 'em. And the obvious humor. Sorry you weren't able to get it. Tho' it's truly fascinating that you too would seemingly include "cheap lattes" in the same sentence with antibiotics as things which substantively make our lives better. (really? wow...) But then again, yum...lattes. I like 'em, too. I just never thought to tell people that they're on the same level as antibiotics. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And per the second, you do know Paul's theories on "ideas," right? Or perhaps not. Paul believes that ideas (like a patent on an AIDS vaccine) can be a monopoly - for perpetuity. Mmm...corporations love this... And Paul justifies this idea because he feels it increases competition to push the world to generate a wholly different product. Which is probably true. But in the meantime, prices on the AIDS vaccine may be insanely high with profits driving wealth consolidation into the hands of a few alongside the deaths of multitudes. And Paul believes "ideas" are worthy of the wealth but the production/distribution not so much. But that's okay. Because in Paul's hypothetical world, a monopoly is okay. Sinclairian? Yes.
And this is something I completely disagree with. So sorry to apparently offend...
Whew! And sorry for the superlong diatribe. I wasn't planning on my previous comment being a dissertation. Or having to explain so much to you. Rather, it was a quick jumping off place for those who may wish to study further and decide for themselves. But I guess most folks just want handouts, so I should try to remember that.
And ultimately, it's really not about me. It's about the ideas. And if you like Paul's New Growth Theory, that's great. I honestly can't tell what you yourself thought since you just regurgitated Paul's quotes and laid into me.
But it's not personal. Feel free to address any of the actual ideas themselves and not the poster if you have something of merit next time. I will honestly appreciate your time and effort and won't attack you should we disagree.
Hmm. Come to think of it, that's probably exactly what makes a Moderator...
Cheers, mate.
So you, like Romer, equate "cheap lattés" with "antibiotics or penicillin?" Seriously? Wow. And you believe it actually makes some kinda sense to mention them together in the same sentence without irony? Cool.
To be honest, I'm not really sure what the qualifications are for being a Moderator... :) But I'd guess it's not typing "*rolls eyes*" just because you might disagree with someone's comment. The reason M&C is so special is because folks tend to not get so emotional or insulting. They generally leave that for the 14 year olds on youtube.
My post has nothing to do with playground stuff of whether I like or don't like Paul. We're both guys with a Stanford Economics background. I do, however, disagree with his corporate globalist New Growth Theory. I believe in ideas that run virtually the opposite.
I'm sure Stanford doesn't mind, but I hope that's okay with you, too.
And sorry I must have gotten under your skin given your multiple posts to my comment. Plus my apologies for not including grad-school style annotations. You're right. Internet commenters should absolutely do your research for you. (psst...most people have heard of that brand new fangled invention called "Google..." :)
All that said, it may work in your favor to not merely regurgitate quotes as gospel and attack the poster and think that's somehow debate. Perhaps you'll be taken seriously if you address the ideas. Which, in this case, is how Romer's mere utterance of these wacky statements raises question to his theories.
So as to my own comment...
The first focuses on the lattes due to the inherent absurdity of mentioning 'em. And the obvious humor. Sorry you weren't able to get it. Tho' it's truly fascinating that you too would seemingly include "cheap lattes" in the same sentence with antibiotics as things which substantively make our lives better. (really? wow...) But then again, yum...lattes. I like 'em, too. I just never thought to tell people that they're on the same level as antibiotics. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
And per the second, you do know Paul's theories on "ideas," right? Or perhaps not. Paul believes that ideas (like a patent on an AIDS vaccine) can be a monopoly - for perpetuity. Mmm...corporations love this... And Paul justifies this idea because he feels it increases competition to push the world to generate a wholly different product. Which is probably true. But in the meantime, prices on the AIDS vaccine may be insanely high with profits driving wealth consolidation into the hands of a few alongside the deaths of multitudes. And Paul believes "ideas" are worthy of the wealth but the production/distribution not so much. But that's okay. Because in Paul's hypothetical world, a monopoly is okay. Sinclairian? Yes.
And this is something I completely disagree with. So sorry to apparently offend...
Whew! And sorry for the superlong diatribe. I wasn't planning on my previous comment being a dissertation. Or having to explain so much to you. Rather, it was a quick jumping off place for those who may wish to study further and decide for themselves. But I guess most folks just want handouts, so I should try to remember that.
And ultimately, it's really not about me. It's about the ideas. And if you like Paul's New Growth Theory, that's great. I honestly can't tell what you yourself thought since you just regurgitated Paul's quotes and laid into me.
But it's not personal. Feel free to address any of the actual ideas themselves and not the poster if you have something of merit next time. I will honestly appreciate your time and effort and won't attack you should we disagree.
Hmm. Come to think of it, that's probably exactly what makes a Moderator...
Cheers, mate.
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
I'll drink squashed lemming brain to that.
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
I don't care if you disagree with his ideas or what he says. I do have a problem with you deliberately misquoting people in an effort to discredit those ideas.
By: gerrywastaken
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
Paul discredits his own theories well enough with his own words... :)
Thanks, Gerry.
Thanks, Gerry.
Re: Paul Romer's Radical Idea: Charter Cities
I wish you had taken that attitude when you first posted.
By: gerrywastaken
