Armacing

The new album is named "NTS Sessions". It's like any Autechre album for me where there are a few really amazing tracks and others that I listen to once and never listen to again. The exceptions to that rule are their Oversteps and Move Of Ten albums recently, and older albums like Tri Repetae. Some albums have more good songs like Confield, Quaristice, and Exai. Needless to say, for a band that has been producing albums since the mid 90's, there is a lot of music to take into consideration. Their style has changed a little over the years, but there are consistently a few tracks on every album that are pretty amazing.

Autechre's latest 8-disc album

It's true about those places being major centers of start-ups, but I think people starting up in SF have way more resources than people starting up in Nashville. In my assessment, Nashville (like other 2nd tier cities) serves as a poor-man's silicon valley because it's just cool enough to attract talented people, but not so expensive that you have to be rich to even get in the game or afford the cost of living like SF & NY. Actually, the article doesn't really make the case that Nashville has a disproportionate number of start-ups, only that it has some start-ups. In fairness to other cities, there are start-ups everywhere. I think you are correct to bring up corporate relocations because that factor, in combination with start-ups, is giving Nashville an advantage over a place like Cleveland or Milwaukee, where there are plenty of start-ups, but not very many corporate relocations.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/apr/16/bachelorettes-bibles-and-amazon-nashvilles-boom-brings-growing-pains As you might expect from The Guardian, they lay on the progressive/socialist/SJW editorializing pretty thick in this article. Take note of the part where the growth of small businesses is attributed to some stupid Entrepreneurship Incubator. No, it's not because industrious and intelligent individuals found a place where they are free to try out their business ideas unfettered by an intrusive local government. No, it's not because people get to keep more of the hard-earned fruits of their labor in a city/state with low taxes and a relatively low cost of living. It's because of an Entrepreneurship Incubator. Did you know that?

A lot of people who claim to be lovers of the free market don't really know what a free market is or how it works. All they really like is *money* and they think that makes them a capitalist. Those same people who espouse the virtues of free markets often defend the need for limited liability for corporations and the need for patents and copyrights because they want the government to help them get a leg-up on the competition. So they really fear the free market.

How funny would it have been if local environmental activists had been successful in getting Lake Palmer designated as a federally protected wetland? I'm sure there was a salamander or something living in and around that lake that needed to be saved.

Good point. So while a bunch of wealth might be generated in Davidson county, a big chunk of that wealth could go into the bank accounts of folks who actually live in Williamson county. My basic point is this: You can't have a thriving economy without rich people, and rich people it seems, always need a rich enclave to hide out in. Williamson serves this purpose in the Nashville Metro, so it's easy to attract corporate headquarters here. Therefore, I propose that southeastern quarter of Shelby County should be carved out as a new county entirely. This would create a high-income enclave for rich folks that has all the right demographics to attract companies and residents. Consequently, the entire Memphis metro would benefit from the economic growth in that new county. Now all we need is a name for it...

Ah! I stand corrected. Thank goodness my wager was only rhetorical and not monetary!

Yes, but I understood that the table was presenting per-capita GDP for the metro area as a whole, so that would include the Memphis suburbs. I would wager that if you looked at per-capita GDP in the Nashville metro on a county-by-county basis you would find the surrounding counties are higher than Davidson. From my perspective, I would say that Davidson county suffers from the same list if ailments you listed for Shelby county. I wonder how much of the difference is driven by Williamson county alone.

Wow, the contrast between Nashville and Memphis could not be more stark! Nashville 5th from the top, while Memphis is 2nd from the bottom. New Orleans was flooded, I get that they are on hard times. Houston's economy rises and falls with the oil industry, no surprise there. But what the heck is going on in Memphis? Apparently not much...

Honestly, I think that *is* the business model. Manufacturers want to locate in a place where they are the only game in town because it (A) means they aren't completing for workers with another business, so wages stay low, and (B) they keep the union out because the implied threat is that the company will leave the locals high-and-dry if they start to agitate for higher wages/fewer hours. I could make the argument that manufacturing flight to the hinterlands is a mirror of upper-middle class flight to the suburbs, except instead of running from public schools the factories are running from union organizers. There's also the fact that nobody wants to live next to a factory, so they locate in places where they get minimal blow-back from nimby's. For the average nimby, a factory is barely one notch above a landfill.

While I'm not sure any incentives are beneficial from an wealth-creation standpoint, I just wanted to make sure we are correctly characterizing what "rural economic development" means in TN. As far as I can determine, it means providing payroll rebates, subsidized training, possibly some subsidized land, probably some cash incentives. Sometimes there is no specific outlay of state funds at all, but rather a "fast-track" process for approvals and start-up. Basically, I read "rural economic development" as a manufacturing-focused version of the same types of incentives used to lure service-industry jobs like Amazon, E&Y, Oracle, etc.

Why do you think so? I have observed that recent rural economic development efforts have focused on manufacturing, some of it quite sophisticated. Consider the new Nokian plant in Dunlap or Wacker Chemie in Charleston. Are you against having manufacturing as part of the state's economic portfolio, or are you saying manufacturing should be located right in the city?

Yes, a fan of both Congo and Namibia, also Trinidad and Tobago. Basically any country that has a diagonal stripe on their flag.

Things Libertarians are for: Life, Liberty, Private Property, Absolute free speech, Peaceful free trade, Freedom of association, Speedy and accessible courts, Police dedicated to preservation of freedom, A strong military to defend domestic freedom, Freedom of religion. Things Libertarians are against: Violence, Limited Liability for Corporations, Government-issued money and restrictions on gold, Progressive taxes (high earners pay a higher rate), Government interference in the market (restrictions on agriculture , medicine, science, etc.), Intellectual Property (Copyrights, Patents), Licensing of businesses and professions (Doctors, Architects, Lawyers), Zoning and building codes, Government run monopolies (Utilities, Schools, Roads), Restrictions on trade (import & export duties), Re-distribution of wealth via welfare programs (Food stamps, government housing, medicare/Medicaid), Government ownership of land for non-military purposes (Public parks/forests/BLM), Immigration quotas, Offensive wars and interference in foreign affairs. What else?

I have seen a few people throwing around the term "Libertarianism" lately, and others who are confused about what that means. Seeing as how I am an ambassador of capitalism, a custodian of pure classical liberalism philosophy, and a herald of the coming libertarian revolution, I thought it might be a good idea to create a thread for answering questions. Of course, others can answer questions too. I will get us started with some topics, but feel free to bring up anything.

As an anthropological experiment, I would say this thread is a triumph! It's like the online equivalent of putting a spider and a scorpion in the same jar and then shaking it to see if they'll fight. For the record, I never did that in real life... just recalling what I saw on youtube one time.

I think political risk weighs more heavily on the minds of Amazon execs than natural disasters do. Think about why Japanese companies build factories in the US. It's not because they are afraid of earthquakes in JP, it's driven by the need to avoid arousing protectionist sentiments in the US. Similar story with Amazon, I think. I believe that ill-fated payroll tax in Seattle was a wake up call to Amazon about the need to diversify their footprint to a variety of political environments. Also, I think the current anti-trust frenzy in Europe adds to this anxiety about existential political threats.

You raise an interesting question about what is driving the economic growth of TN. I think we should consider the possibility that its the "whole package" of TN that is appealing to companies that move here. What do I mean by that? Nashville has it's hip, edgy, artsy, fun characteristics that are attractive to certain demographics. Williamson (and to a lesser extent other suburban counties) have good schools and all the other trappings of suburban life that are attractive to certain demographics. The advantageous tax codes are driven by the free-market/anti-government politics of the state. To the extent that Nashville is pro-government/anti free-market one could make the argument that the state is dragging Nashville along as the most desirable city in a state that is generally pro-business. On the other hand, you could say that Nashville's cultural offerings make it more attractive and drag the state along with it on it's climb to excellence. Sort of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but my opinion is that they both get credit.

Maybe this will help you focus your frustration more effectively: Governments offering incentives to businesses is not free market. That's socialism. Government determining where investments should be made with money extracted from the tax-paying public: That's central planning and it almost always results in a return-on-investment that is inferior to what the real free market can achieve. We can dive into this more thoroughly in another thread if you want, but I just wanted to set you on the right course so you don't go blaming the free market for what are really the evils of socialism.

If people had more respect for private property rights we wouldn't have this problem. A person's opinion about land usage stops right at the border of their property. Want to control what is being built on a particular parcel? Easy - - buy the land and you have total and absolute control over it. What's that? You don't have enough money to buy the land? Well then, you have no say in the matter. Return to your own land and place a pink flamingo in your front yard in protest.

Flash forward to the year 2078: "Today construction crews broke ground on yet another ultra-tall & skinny residential tower downtown. This small lot on 2nd avenue was once the site of a minor land dispute during construction of the historic 4-seasons Hotel. The new 85-story tower is expected to be completed in 3 months. Developers indicated the small size of the lot accounted for the abnormally long construction period because a single 3D printing turret would be used for the entire building."

It doesn't go far enough, really. The should be giving the houses to the homeless, not renting them. There is probably plenty of government-owned land in NOLA that could be subdivided into micro-lots and deeded to the homeless.

Great article! We should definitely not be placing pre-conditions on people's right to have housing. I would argue New Orleans would be better served simply giving houses and land to homeless people rather than renting it for them. Deed it to the people who need it as a one-time cost rather than a recurring expense. Plus, a thorough investigation of the factors that make housing expensive in NOLA would be warranted as well, in my opinion. Same goes for every other city. Sometimes high prices are driven by regulations rather than the market, and that is a problem that can be easily addressed.

Be that as it may, there is no disputing the fact that even the poorest property owner would be forced to help pay for extravagant public projects such as stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, and convention centers. All facilities that (arguably) could be built and operated by private companies. Wow, good find. And yet, a large number of people would rationalize this as "OK" somehow in their mind. That's the sad part.... that people support the trampling of other peoples rights and freedoms for the sake of... what? Convenience? Money? Aesthetics? Probably money, when it comes right down to it. I know there might be a few aggrieved neighbors, but I am convinced that the root of this opposition to AirBNB comes from the vested interests of the hotel lobby in this town.