What does the concept of Private Property mean in San Francisco?

Less, and less:

I Was Assaulted For Wearing Google Glass In The Wrong Part Of San Francisco

[...] If those people hadn't moved to San Francisco, people wouldn't be priced out of their neighborhoods, rental properties wouldn't be purchased by wealthy young millionaires, and tenants wouldn't be evicted from the homes they've lived in for several decades.

My love for gadgets makes me look and sound like one of the people whom residents of the city have come to feel oppressed by.

The individual who smashed my Google Glass on Friday — because of political beliefs or a personal impact that has been made by the tech industry — felt that it was appropriate to destroy my personal property in protest against what I seemed to stand for, based on my appearance; never mind the irony in choosing to assault someone based on their appearance as a way to preserve San Francisco's culture.

It's important to note that not everyone protesting the tech industry's impact on the city has taken such an oppositional stance.

At the march we covered on Friday, teachers, tenant rights activists, and other concerned citizens carried banners and chanted slogans that specifically asked Google to live up to the famous "Don't be evil" motto and step in where its employees were displacing longtime San Franciscans:
[photo]
You don't see a crowd of more than a hundred people go to an investment banker's house when he evicts longtime tenants, to publicly ask his or her employer for help, because of course no investment bank would do something like that.

Google, for all the backlash it's gotten over gentrification, last year's NSA revelations, and personal data collection for ads, still looks like a company that gives a damn.

The company has taken some steps to address concerns of protestors and people's negative reactions to Google Glass. It started paying the city for the use of its bus stops. It has put out guides for Glass users on the behavior that should be avoided so that you don't look like a "Glasshole."

But those don't do anything to address the underlying issues. Something clearly needs to be done to address rising housing costs and gentrification in the city — people on all sides are being forced from their homes and made to feel unsafe on the streets and on their commutes to and from work. [...]

It's delusional for any renter to think they have the same rights as property owners. But then San Francisco is full of delusional people. Many of them think ownership of property is evil.

I lived there for 24 years, as a renter for 14 of those years. After being forced to move several times, we decided we wanted more control over our lives, so we eventually bought a house.

Many people were envious that we were "lucky" enough to buy a house. But luck had nothing to do with it. We scrimped and saved for years, forgoing vacations, eating out in restaurants, nice clothes and cars, gagets, and many of the other things that San Franciscan's typically spend their money on.

It amazes me how easily that those that make no sacrifices to save and buy property complain that other people who buy homes are "lucky", and that it's not fair; they believe that they themselves should somehow have the same thing, without the effort and sacrifice.

People aren't being displaced from THEIR homes. If they don't OWN the home, it isn't THEIRS. That's why it can be sold out from under them. It's not THEIRS. It belongs to someone else.

When renters have the same rights as property owners, then the concept of private property ceases to have any meaning. But of course that's fine with many San Franciscans, it's what they want. And one of many reasons why I left. Too many delusional people, wanting reality to change to suit them.

I thought it was funny that the author thought it was ironic that San Franciscan's would attack someone based on their appearance, as a way of preserving San Francisco. It makes perfect sense. Delusional people often have no sense of irony. It's one of the perks of being delusional.
     

What the 1930's can teach us about NOW

Guess Who?

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.

Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House. [...]

Read the rest to see why, and how we must avoid having history repeat itself. Roosevelt wasn't even following pure Keynesian economics, he was following an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, whom most other economists disagreed with. Roosevelt knew little about economics, but a great deal about politics. The combination was devastating.

Another contemporary economist, Amity Shlaes, takes a look at the 1930's:

The Rules of the Game and Economic Recovery

THE MONOPOLY BOARD GAME originated during the Great Depression. At first its inventor, Charles Darrow, could not interest manufacturers. Parker Brothers turned the game down, citing “52 design errors.” But Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and Parker Brothers finally bought Monopoly. By 1935, the New York Times was reporting that “leading all other board games … is the season’s craze, ‘Monopoly,’ the game of real estate.”

Most of us are familiar with the object of Monopoly: the accumulation of property on which one places houses and hotels, and from which one receives revenue. Many of us have a favorite token. Perennially popular is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which Americans who work hard can aspire. The top hat is a token that has remained in the game, even while others have changed over the decades.

One’s willingness to play Monopoly depends on a few conditions—for instance, a predictable number of “Pay Income Tax” cards. These cards are manageable when you know in advance the amount of money printed on them and how many of them are in the deck. It helps, too, that there are a limited and predictable number of “Go to Jail” cards. This is what Frank Knight of the University of Chicago would call a knowable risk, as opposed to an uncertainty. Likewise, there must be a limited and predictable number of “Chance” cards. In other words, there has to be some certainty that property rights are secure and that the risks to property are few in number and can be managed.

The bank must be dependable, too. There is a fixed supply of Monopoly money and the bank is supposed to follow the rules of the game, exercising little or no independent discretion. If players sit down at the Monopoly board only to discover a bank that overreaches or is too unpredictable or discretionary, we all know what happens. They will walk away from the board. There is no game. [...]

She then explains the relevance of the Monopoly analogy to the 1930's. She goes into detail, using specific events to illustrate her premises.

I've often heard that government interference and intervention at the time actually prolonged the depression by eroding confidence and creating instability. Here, Shlaes offers the damning evidence for all to see. After explaining in detail, looking at causes and effects, she then demonstrates their relevance to the events of our times:

[...] It is not hard to see some of today’s troubles as a repeat of the errors of the 1930s. There is arrogance up top. The federal government is dilettantish with money and exhibits disregard and even hostility to all other players. It is only as a result of this that economic recovery seems out of reach.

The key to recovery, now as in the 1930s, is to be found in property rights. These rights suffer under our current politics in several ways. The mortgage crisis, for example, arose out of a long-standing erosion of the property rights concept—first on the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also on that of the Federal Reserve. Broadening FDR’s entitlement theories, Congress taught the country that home ownership was a “right.” This fostered a misunderstanding of what property is. The owners didn’t realize what ownership entailed—that is, they didn’t grasp that they were obligated to deliver on the terms of the contract of their mortgage. In the bipartisan enthusiasm for making everyone an owner, our government debased the concept of home ownership.

Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally. A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law. The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands. That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.

Three other threats to property loom. One is tax increases, such as the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. More taxes mean less private property. A second threat is in the area of infrastructure. Stimulus plans tend to emphasize infrastructure—especially roads and railroads. And after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision of 2005, the federal government will have enormous license to use eminent domain to claim private property for these purposes. Third and finally, there is the worst kind of confiscation of private property: inflation, which excessive government spending necessarily encourages. Many of us sense that inflation is closer than the country thinks.

If the experience of the Great Depression teaches anything, it is that property rights must be firmly established or else we will not have the kind of economic activity that leads to strong recovery. The Monopoly board game reminds us that economic growth isn’t mysterious and inscrutable. Economic growth depends on the impulse of the small businessman and entrepreneur to get back in the game. In order for this to happen, we don’t need a perfect government. All we need is one that is “not too bad,” whose rules are not constantly changing and snuffing out the willingness of these players to take risks. We need a government under which the money supply doesn’t change unpredictably, there are not too many “Go to Jail” cards, and the top hats are confident in the possibility of seeing significant returns on investment. [...]

It's definitely worth reading the whole thing. If you don't have the time to buy and read here book, this lecture she gave is the next best thing.