The way I put it when I spoke to a local group of Republican women about 10 years ago, a group that had been enjoying my talk up until then, was, "Judge the policy by the content, not by whether the person proposing it has an R or a D after his name." That seemed obvious to me. But I saw a lot of upset in their faces.
My way of thinking is a product of my formative college years, spent in the wonderful world of EconLib, MRU, EconTalk, and beyond. Thank you for passing down this worldview.
90% of NYC permits in 2024 were for some form of government controlled housing, only 10% were totally free market. "Reducing red tape" is not free market, it is just making it easier to build housing projects. More New Yorkers dependent on the city for housing, more D voters, more government.
This was actually a very enjoyable piece. Thanks!
Thanks, Sven. I’m glad you liked it.
The way I put it when I spoke to a local group of Republican women about 10 years ago, a group that had been enjoying my talk up until then, was, "Judge the policy by the content, not by whether the person proposing it has an R or a D after his name." That seemed obvious to me. But I saw a lot of upset in their faces.
My way of thinking is a product of my formative college years, spent in the wonderful world of EconLib, MRU, EconTalk, and beyond. Thank you for passing down this worldview.
You're welcome, to the extent I was part of that (EconLog.)
90% of NYC permits in 2024 were for some form of government controlled housing, only 10% were totally free market. "Reducing red tape" is not free market, it is just making it easier to build housing projects. More New Yorkers dependent on the city for housing, more D voters, more government.
In essence: two things can be true at once. This was practical and refreshing to read, thank you!
Thank you, Brenna. I am so glad you enjoyed it.