Post

looked at in longer perspective, it's striking how much this resembles the premodern system of exclusion, rents, and personalist connections, which was--and this part's important--radically worse than the modern system of impersonal rules and general taxation

Boston’s chief planner is a true believer in the San Francisco model, in which you make it impossible to profitably build apartments by-right so developers are forced into a politicized discretionary negotiation with the city, which relaxes the rules in exchange for below-market units.

the idea that a city's social services should be paid for one-by-one by these insane discretionary deals on a development-by-development basis is just madness. it's such a tremendous drain on the general prosperity in return for ???

one of the really useful takeaways from fukuyama's political order books is a clear conceptual understanding of what corruption *is* in its fundamental nature. and the answer... is patronage networks organized on personal connections! corruption is *inherent* in these discretionary systems!

This post is unavailable.

90 reposts627 likes

Hayek is also good on this of course. "Impersonal rules >> executive discretion" is like the whole of the road to serfdom standing on one foot, the rest is commentary.

Which is also what's bad about the tech giants rejecting the whole idea of customer service: gmail is as important as a government agency and your only real option if something goes wrong, is the patronage network option — you gotta know somebody who knows somebody. It's Extremely Bad.