"This is unregulated capitalism, unbridled capitalism, capitalism run amok."
Um, what? California, and specifically San Francisco, has some of the most regulated and restricted development on the planet. This is not unregulated capitalism.
In Singapore, a poster child of modern capitalism, the vast majority of residents live in government-built apartment buildings. In many cases the tenants own their apartment and can resell at market rate after a certain period, but the land (if not the apartment itself) is generally on a 50-year or 99-year lease from the government.
Government regulation isn't binary. Conservatives and liberals in America are blinded by their own prejudices, most of which are shared prejudices :(
So says Benioff (the above quote), the man with the largest building downtown. The man who wants to use the City Gov to tax other business out of SF (see Stripe, Prop C).
Yea, he wants government to further entrench his position (like Wall Street, etc). Not surprised. What we need is more capitalism, less government intrusion into things like taxation, zoning.
Look, there's a place for capitalism. There's a place for socialism.
But there's also a time to look in the mirror and realize the policies that are 'destroying the city', if you believe that narrative, are from people like Benioff (the neoleft). For decades.
And the nerve to think doubling down on these failed policies, along with more taxation to fund it, is the way out? Like paying people's rent for life via subsidized housing? Give me a break.
Make it legal to build in the city. There was some stat iirc which said it's illegal to build on 80% of the city. Change that. It's a failed government policy that makes it hard or impossible for non-tech workers to work here.
But as an aside, the patronizing tone of this article disgusts me. I'm tired of it. They paint this black and white picture which stifles community. It divides. And it's usually someone who doesn't live here. But some drive by New Yorker (writer lives in Philadelphia) looking to hate. Has Karen Heller ever been to Lucca before it closed? Or Borderlands coffee? Doubtful. Look, Lucca was on its way out. The owner was super old and personally the product were subpar. And as someone pointed out in the Wapo comments, Michael Feno, the owner of Lucca owned the building. So the writer's being facetious as well. I'm actually a bit bummed out by Borderlands, but they could've been more.
Exactly. I've heard it referred to as 'socialism for the rich'. Or really imo my reading of practical communism. Basically if you 'know a guy in the party' you're good. But it has the veneer of sounding good. This is my take on Benioff and people like him.
Because there are substantial numbers of people on HN who downvote comments because they express opinions with which they disagree, or to which they are ideologically opposed, rather than because the comment isn't a constructive contribution to the discussion.
Comments
"This is unregulated capitalism, unbridled capitalism, capitalism run amok."
Um, what? California, and specifically San Francisco, has some of the most regulated and restricted development on the planet. This is not unregulated capitalism.
Seriously. It is hard to imagine a much less capitalistic housing market than SF without every building being owned by a government entity.
Who can live on $15 an hour in this city transformed by innovation?
It's a city transformed by bad zoning policy, not "innovation:" https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing
In Singapore, a poster child of modern capitalism, the vast majority of residents live in government-built apartment buildings. In many cases the tenants own their apartment and can resell at market rate after a certain period, but the land (if not the apartment itself) is generally on a 50-year or 99-year lease from the government.
Government regulation isn't binary. Conservatives and liberals in America are blinded by their own prejudices, most of which are shared prejudices :(
Singapore is the poster child for benevolent/effective authoritarianism.
So says Benioff (the above quote), the man with the largest building downtown. The man who wants to use the City Gov to tax other business out of SF (see Stripe, Prop C).
Yea, he wants government to further entrench his position (like Wall Street, etc). Not surprised. What we need is more capitalism, less government intrusion into things like taxation, zoning.
Look, there's a place for capitalism. There's a place for socialism.
But there's also a time to look in the mirror and realize the policies that are 'destroying the city', if you believe that narrative, are from people like Benioff (the neoleft). For decades.
And the nerve to think doubling down on these failed policies, along with more taxation to fund it, is the way out? Like paying people's rent for life via subsidized housing? Give me a break.
Make it legal to build in the city. There was some stat iirc which said it's illegal to build on 80% of the city. Change that. It's a failed government policy that makes it hard or impossible for non-tech workers to work here.
But as an aside, the patronizing tone of this article disgusts me. I'm tired of it. They paint this black and white picture which stifles community. It divides. And it's usually someone who doesn't live here. But some drive by New Yorker (writer lives in Philadelphia) looking to hate. Has Karen Heller ever been to Lucca before it closed? Or Borderlands coffee? Doubtful. Look, Lucca was on its way out. The owner was super old and personally the product were subpar. And as someone pointed out in the Wapo comments, Michael Feno, the owner of Lucca owned the building. So the writer's being facetious as well. I'm actually a bit bummed out by Borderlands, but they could've been more.
Yes...that's also not capitalism. That's cronyism.
Exactly. I've heard it referred to as 'socialism for the rich'. Or really imo my reading of practical communism. Basically if you 'know a guy in the party' you're good. But it has the veneer of sounding good. This is my take on Benioff and people like him.
This is being downvoted, without replies. Could someone chime in on why?
Because there are substantial numbers of people on HN who downvote comments because they express opinions with which they disagree, or to which they are ideologically opposed, rather than because the comment isn't a constructive contribution to the discussion.