The final paragraph has comes in with some real punch. Preach on! Now of the three main items you mentioned, "climate change, the exploitation of labor, or gaps in equality nationally and internationally" I find it easiest to see how I have personally been "a Jefferson" in relation to climate change, and overall environmental care, in terms of lifestyle choices. Clearly, I know better that my choices to prioritize comfort cooling, and convenience portioned foods with excess packaging are bad for carbon output and for manageability of human generated waste materials (like plastics) - yet I persist. A lot of people are in the same boat. On exploitation of labor or equality gaps nationally and internationally, I think it is a little bit more difficult to trace obviously right or wrong lifestyle choices and to be able to detect real obvious legislative solutions that we have clearly rejected as voters - as has been the case with the environment.
Hey Rob, thanks for reading, and thanks for your thoughtful response. Such a complex issue for us all, especially on that income inequality issue. I don't know the policy response to the fact that most of our presidential candidates (and Hollywood stars, superstar athletes and musical celbs) over the last few decades have owned multiple homes while lots of people are without a primary domicile. You can't legislate against that; but could you do some things with the tax code to promote a narroowing of that gap through more confiscatory taxation, a la FDR? ( I know; not with this Congress!)
On income inequality issues, especially with respect to inequality of housing affordability, I would be very wary of trying to rigidly regulate inequality away, but income transfers via subsidies, paid for by taxes, can be part of the solution. An example of bad consequences of a "one-house rule" that sticks in my mind was negative effects and distortions that had on Libya's economy when Qaddafi imposed that rule there in the 1970s according to one of my college profs. Also, I recall from the German film, "Goodbye Lenin" that in some Socialist countries, like East Germany, some people who weren't necessarily super-elite had second houses at least at the "lake cabin" level. For countering homelessness (or to be PC to cater to the unhoused) and bring about housing abundance, I've been reading about recommendations of the "Yes, In My Backyard" (YIMBY) movement, largely through the "Slow Boring" substack of Matthew Yglesias, who also writes on Bloomberg.com. Basically the idea is to be more flexible with zoning to allow more mixed use that includes residential units and less land reserved for single family home only usage.
Rich,
The final paragraph has comes in with some real punch. Preach on! Now of the three main items you mentioned, "climate change, the exploitation of labor, or gaps in equality nationally and internationally" I find it easiest to see how I have personally been "a Jefferson" in relation to climate change, and overall environmental care, in terms of lifestyle choices. Clearly, I know better that my choices to prioritize comfort cooling, and convenience portioned foods with excess packaging are bad for carbon output and for manageability of human generated waste materials (like plastics) - yet I persist. A lot of people are in the same boat. On exploitation of labor or equality gaps nationally and internationally, I think it is a little bit more difficult to trace obviously right or wrong lifestyle choices and to be able to detect real obvious legislative solutions that we have clearly rejected as voters - as has been the case with the environment.
Hey Rob, thanks for reading, and thanks for your thoughtful response. Such a complex issue for us all, especially on that income inequality issue. I don't know the policy response to the fact that most of our presidential candidates (and Hollywood stars, superstar athletes and musical celbs) over the last few decades have owned multiple homes while lots of people are without a primary domicile. You can't legislate against that; but could you do some things with the tax code to promote a narroowing of that gap through more confiscatory taxation, a la FDR? ( I know; not with this Congress!)
Thanks!
On income inequality issues, especially with respect to inequality of housing affordability, I would be very wary of trying to rigidly regulate inequality away, but income transfers via subsidies, paid for by taxes, can be part of the solution. An example of bad consequences of a "one-house rule" that sticks in my mind was negative effects and distortions that had on Libya's economy when Qaddafi imposed that rule there in the 1970s according to one of my college profs. Also, I recall from the German film, "Goodbye Lenin" that in some Socialist countries, like East Germany, some people who weren't necessarily super-elite had second houses at least at the "lake cabin" level. For countering homelessness (or to be PC to cater to the unhoused) and bring about housing abundance, I've been reading about recommendations of the "Yes, In My Backyard" (YIMBY) movement, largely through the "Slow Boring" substack of Matthew Yglesias, who also writes on Bloomberg.com. Basically the idea is to be more flexible with zoning to allow more mixed use that includes residential units and less land reserved for single family home only usage.
Excellent context, Rob! So well-informed!