American Economics Thread

[Maikeru]

That's true, but they compiled a pretty good list of historically accurate characteristics of such falling empires of the past, I linked them mainly for that. Instead of writing it all here, people can just go and check them there themselves and see if they match with present-day America.

The UnHerd article is good. One fact people forget about the Roman Empire is that it ran a huge trade deficit with China. Roman upper classes, especially women, loved silk, which of course came from China via the Silk Roads. Unfortunately the Chinese didn't buy as much back from the Romans, so there was a huge drain of money Eastwards until the Romans were able to make silk themselves.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"During the 1st century BC silk was still a rare commodity in the Roman world; by the 1st century AD this valuable trade item became much more widely available.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In his

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(77–79 AD),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

lamented the financial drain of coin from the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to purchase this expensive luxury. He remarked that Rome's "womankind" and the purchase of luxury goods from India, Arabia, and the Seres of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

cost the empire roughly 100 million

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

per year,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and claimed that journeys were made to the Seres to acquire silk cloth along with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Despite the claims by Pliny the Elder about the trade imbalance and quantity of Rome's coinage used to purchase silk, Warwick Ball asserts that the Roman purchase of other foreign commodities, particularly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, had a much greater impact on the Roman economy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 14 AD the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

issued an edict prohibiting the wearing of silk by men, but it continued to flow unabated into the Roman world.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beyond the economic concerns that the import of silk caused a huge outflow of wealth, silk clothes were also considered to be decadent and immoral by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

I can see clothes of silk, if materials that do not hide the body, nor even one's decency, can be called clothes ... Wretched flocks of maids labour so that the adulteress may be visible through her thin dress, so that her husband has no more acquaintance than any outsider or foreigner with his wife's body.
— Seneca the Elder c. 3 BC – 65 AD, Excerpta Controversiae 2.7

Edit: This is interesting too:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Biscuits]

I think the biggest challenge is there are two types of homeless people broadly speaking, who require two different solutions:

Group A is the working people or those down on their luck who are priced out of housing near reasonably vicinity due to lack of affordable housing supply be it gentrification, zoning policies, income not keeping pace, housing investors speculating, etc. The gap is they need housing geared towards their income, which is addressed simply through investing in supply targeted towards the demographic for affordability through government subsidized efforts. This really just really requires money, and political will to invest the money.

Group B is the people with mental health or substance addiction problems who are unhoused because their disruptive behaviour results in a lack of means to be housed or the ability to remain in housing if provided with one. The gap here is this group first needs professional treatment for the root cause of their behavior, but in western countries that requires their consent, which is not really forthcoming. You cannot just round them up and send them to the psych ward or the detox facility even if sufficient resources existed since that would be involuntary confinement. They need tough love, but unfortunately the rules and regulations prevent societal intervention on that scale (families may be able to intervene on an individual level).

Hold up. They literally CAN through. There are laws that allow involuntary hospitalisation. Maybe more importantly, there are laws that allow homeless to essentially be evicted/moved at any time according to government wishes. See example: when Xi visited USA.

No matter how well intentioned the efforts of social workers and others, this group will remain unhoused unless active professional health interventions are taken. This group requires actions that take far more political will and restrictions on civil liberties, in addition to money.

Not only does the government actually have the legal power to move them, they also have all the grey area tools in the world to aid them. To survive, most homeless require decent relations with shelters and police, these two actors are already able to control homeless behavior through bargaining back to the homeless what they need to survive. If shelters start deciding some policy, it doesn't even need to be law in order for homeless to be de facto forced to obey.

Fundamentally, this is a political/cultural debate. Should reasonable housing (whatever that is defined to be) be available to all citizens at a price they can afford as a basis of society and secondly, should people be allowed to live however they wish, even if it means ruining themselves or should there be a line where that freedom is curtailed and societal intervention be taken.

It's not a cultural debate, it's a money debate. To "fix" the homeless would require a large up front money investment. All the laws and tools already exist to round up homeless and essentially treat them however good or bad the state wishes, to the point where legally, they can all be rounded into concentration camps should the USG decide to do it.

The main debate point is that you need a high cost initiative, and no initiative is ever risk free, especially not in countries with a lot of institutional corruption. So the initiative to improve homeless situation could end up doing nothing. And even if it did something, there is a risk that the improved quality labor you get from housing them isn't enough to compensate for the resources used on the initiative.

 

[HighGround]

Hold up. They literally CAN through. There are laws that allow involuntary hospitalisation. Maybe more importantly, there are laws that allow homeless to essentially be evicted/moved at any time according to government wishes. See example: when Xi visited USA.

This isn't true. Well, it's true in a sense that yes, the government can do a lot of extreme measures, but it's not true because that's generally not how it works.

Now I don't know how it works in every state, but this is how it works in Washington State (where i live). Involuntary hospitalisation is covered under the Involuntary Treatment Act. ACLU has a fairly short

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I'll bold the referenced text.

Under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) in Washington State, a person may be involuntarily committed if 1) they are likely to pose a serious harm to themselves or others or if 2) they are in imminent danger from a grave disability.

The length of time a person may be detained depends on the level of evaluation they receive. A person may be detained for an initial 120-hour emergency detention, which could then be extended into a 14-day intensive treatment program, which is subject to a probable cause hearing in front of a Superior Court judge. During these 14 days, facility staff or the designated crisis responder may petition to keep the individual committed for an additional 90 or 180 days.

Now this might fool you into thinking that the government can, at any time, hospitalize all the homeless whenever it wants. In an emergency, it probably could, but in reality they would face a steep burden of proof in the courts. Note the two standars of proof that the Government must meet in order to commit someone.

1) Pose a serious harm to themselves or others.
2) In imminent danger from grave disability.

Section 1 could be interpreted liberally, but it won't be. US Courts will generally be extremely reluctant to deprive someone's civil liberties on a "they could hurt someone". The Government will have to meet a pretty high standard of proof that a homeless person is a public menace. There would have to be a recorded incident at the very least (and homeless are generally not terrorizing the populace, even the vagrant).

Section 2 is also problematic. The issue is that by the time someone is in "imminent danger from grave disability" they'll already be in an emergency room where they'll get fixed up and then checked out. Yeah, we do get regular influx of people from ER rooms into ITA courts (I've clerked in these courts). But this is a pretty small percentage of the overall homeless population.

So while you may look at Newsom's stunt and come to the conclusion that this is just an issue of political will... It is. But it's also not. It's also an issue of there being legal barriers that need to be solved/overcome by the Government.

 

[TK3600]

Hold up. They literally CAN through. There are laws that allow involuntary hospitalisation. Maybe more importantly, there are laws that allow homeless to essentially be evicted/moved at any time according to government wishes. See example: when Xi visited USA.

Not only does the government actually have the legal power to move them, they also have all the grey area tools in the world to aid them. To survive, most homeless require decent relations with shelters and police, these two actors are already able to control homeless behavior through bargaining back to the homeless what they need to survive. If shelters start deciding some policy, it doesn't even need to be law in order for homeless to be de facto forced to obey.

It's not a cultural debate, it's a money debate. To "fix" the homeless would require a large up front money investment. All the laws and tools already exist to round up homeless and essentially treat them however good or bad the state wishes, to the point where legally, they can all be rounded into concentration camps should the USG decide to do it.

The main debate point is that you need a high cost initiative, and no initiative is ever risk free, especially not in countries with a lot of institutional corruption. So the initiative to improve homeless situation could end up doing nothing. And even if it did something, there is a risk that the improved quality labor you get from housing them isn't enough to compensate for the resources used on the initiative.

And the money debate go back into political debate. Why is it expensive? Corruption. Go look at the cost of public housing, it cost more than hotel! And corruption stemmed from political problem. Legalized bribery called lobbying. Mass privatization. Fix the politic and money problem go away, and money fix the cultural problem.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The UnHerd article is good. One fact people forget about the Roman Empire is that it ran a huge trade deficit with China. Roman upper classes, especially women, loved silk, which of course came from China via the Silk Roads. Unfortunately the Chinese didn't buy as much back from the Romans, so there was a huge drain of money Eastwards until the Romans were able to make silk themselves.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"During the 1st century BC silk was still a rare commodity in the Roman world; by the 1st century AD this valuable trade item became much more widely available.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In his

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(77–79 AD),

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

lamented the financial drain of coin from the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to purchase this expensive luxury. He remarked that Rome's "womankind" and the purchase of luxury goods from India, Arabia, and the Seres of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

cost the empire roughly 100 million

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

per year,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and claimed that journeys were made to the Seres to acquire silk cloth along with

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Despite the claims by Pliny the Elder about the trade imbalance and quantity of Rome's coinage used to purchase silk, Warwick Ball asserts that the Roman purchase of other foreign commodities, particularly

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, had a much greater impact on the Roman economy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In 14 AD the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

issued an edict prohibiting the wearing of silk by men, but it continued to flow unabated into the Roman world.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beyond the economic concerns that the import of silk caused a huge outflow of wealth, silk clothes were also considered to be decadent and immoral by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:



Edit: This is interesting too:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Silk was truly the Tiktok or SHEIN of classical antiquity.

 

[Maikeru]

Silk was truly the Tiktok or SHEIN of classical antiquity.

Ultimately the Romans (well, Byzantines) were able to force a handover of the source code and algos.

 

[BlackWindMnt]

Ultimately the Romans (well, Byzantines) were able to force a handover of the source code and algos.

More like industrial spionage....
Don't trust dem ngo they are like the modern day versions of those traveling "priests"...

 

[Biscuits]

This isn't true. Well, it's true in a sense that yes, the government can do a lot of extreme measures, but it's not true because that's generally not how it works.

Now I don't know how it works in every state, but this is how it works in Washington State (where i live). Involuntary hospitalisation is covered under the Involuntary Treatment Act. ACLU has a fairly short

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. I'll bold the referenced text.

Under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA) in Washington State, a person may be involuntarily committed if 1) they are likely to pose a serious harm to themselves or others or if 2) they are in imminent danger from a grave disability.

The length of time a person may be detained depends on the level of evaluation they receive. A person may be detained for an initial 120-hour emergency detention, which could then be extended into a 14-day intensive treatment program, which is subject to a probable cause hearing in front of a Superior Court judge. During these 14 days, facility staff or the designated crisis responder may petition to keep the individual committed for an additional 90 or 180 days.

Now this might fool you into thinking that the government can, at any time, hospitalize all the homeless whenever it wants. In an emergency, it probably could, but in reality they would face a steep burden of proof in the courts. Note the two standars of proof that the Government must meet in order to commit someone.

1) Pose a serious harm to themselves or others.
2) In imminent danger from grave disability.

Section 1 could be interpreted liberally, but it won't be. US Courts will generally be extremely reluctant to deprive someone's civil liberties on a "they could hurt someone". The Government will have to meet a pretty high standard of proof that a homeless person is a public menace. There would have to be a recorded incident at the very least (and homeless are generally not terrorizing the populace, even the vagrant).

Section 2 is also problematic. The issue is that by the time someone is in "imminent danger from grave disability" they'll already be in an emergency room where they'll get fixed up and then checked out. Yeah, we do get regular influx of people from ER rooms into ITA courts (I've clerked in these courts). But this is a pretty small percentage of the overall homeless population.

So while you may look at Newsom's stunt and come to the conclusion that this is just an issue of political will... It is. But it's also not. It's also an issue of there being legal barriers that need to be solved/overcome by the Government.

But you don't need to hospitalize most of them for extended periods of time. That was my whole point. You just need to "herd" them with the same methods used already to herd tent cities into where the government is okay with them hanging out.

Except this time you herd them into rehabilitation programs. Which eventually allow them housing.

Most homeless are gonna be at least somewhat hanging around shelters. They need food, heating, basic healthcare and to not be thrown in jail/abused by cops. All of those can be used as positive and negative incentives to force them into government decided programs. Only someone who is psychotic would ignore all the above factors just to choose and remain homeless, that's a very very small part of all homeless. Those can be taken under ITA, or simply liquidated by environment or police.

What I'm saying is that the current legal and grey area capabilities of the USG, when taken together, is sufficient to halt homelessness epidemic. And it would not require a signficant amendment from procedures they already carry out normally.

Money/profitability/political will for people to stake their career on such a risky endeavour with potentially no/poor return is the bottleneck.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hats off to CNBC for actually addressing this instead of calling it “vibecession” and sweeping it under the rug.

 

[paiemon]

Hold up. They literally CAN through. There are laws that allow involuntary hospitalisation. Maybe more importantly, there are laws that allow homeless to essentially be evicted/moved at any time according to government wishes. See example: when Xi visited USA.

Not only does the government actually have the legal power to move them, they also have all the grey area tools in the world to aid them. To survive, most homeless require decent relations with shelters and police, these two actors are already able to control homeless behavior through bargaining back to the homeless what they need to survive. If shelters start deciding some policy, it doesn't even need to be law in order for homeless to be de facto forced to obey.

It's not a cultural debate, it's a money debate. To "fix" the homeless would require a large up front money investment. All the laws and tools already exist to round up homeless and essentially treat them however good or bad the state wishes, to the point where legally, they can all be rounded into concentration camps should the USG decide to do it.

The main debate point is that you need a high cost initiative, and no initiative is ever risk free, especially not in countries with a lot of institutional corruption. So the initiative to improve homeless situation could end up doing nothing. And even if it did something, there is a risk that the improved quality labor you get from housing them isn't enough to compensate for the resources used on the initiative.

There are laws that allow short term involuntary hospitalization (up to 72hrs afaik) based on a medical professionals judgement. Anything longer in most states usually requires court judgements and is rare since it would mean they would also need to considered a danger to themselves and others as ruled by the supreme court in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. You can certainly move/evict homeless people, but as far as I can tell whatever public ordinance they used to sweep them away was only temporary as they just drift back. Now California recently signed a law to allow for long term involuntary confinement in certain situations, but its also being challenged in court so its far from a done deal. No government would take the chance to go ahead and start putting people into long term involuntary confinement without solid laws behind them

Now in certain states, government institutions such as the police are less favorable towards the homeless and do harass them, but since we are focusing on California with its more civil liberty friendly policies police "raids" on homeless encampments are not as likely as say, Texas or Florida. These people are on the streets because they won't stay in shelters, they are surviving on the streets because they shun fixed shelters or are shunned in turn. So no shelter policy would change that if they can manage in the outdoors, which again California is one of the more favorable locations for doing so. Whether we agree or not, in California being unhoused is not a crime, even if it is a nuisance and disturbance. So the police can't sweep them away under existing laws for more then temporary periods under most circumstances. You'd have to suspend certain parts of existing laws or invoke specific ones for that purpose to round them up as you say, and it would almost certainly be challenged in court as an overreach for the points above where homeless is not a crime nor a clear and present danger.

The culture of civil liberties and voluntary choice indirectly feeds into whether the high cost initiative to resolve the issue should be taken, because it drives the political will to fund the initiative. If it is not a priority to the voters who choose the governing political party in power, they will not spend the political power to push through funding initiatives or allocating funding to solving the issue. Its how its become this festering, growing issue because most people just ignore it until it gets to the point where parts of the urban centers are overrun and now its on voters minds so the California government is stepping in.