Market Urbanism
It’s certainly one of the more ridiculous blogs I’ve stumbled across in the past thirty days — a proud member blog of the Streetsblog Network — but it was good for some early morning guffaws.
Not trying to be mean, but not trying too hard to avoid it, either.
When I stumble upon Ron Paul/Ayn Rand-speak, it just always cracks me up — I can’t help it. It’s like entering the twilight zone. It’s always like, “Oh no - here we go again.” 
If you want to read about the ‘failure to essentialize,’ then head on over. If you’re interested in markets, places, marketplaces, and markets of markets - like the stock exchange market, then head on over.
If, on the other hand, you’re into things a bit more useful to society than the obscure principles of Austrian School economics, then join us over here on the Dark Side - we have lots of work to do.
Oh yeah - Down with the Federal Reserve!
Leave comment (9)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
December 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Well, I guess a critical review is better than no review at all…. Thanks for visiting.
Austrian or whatever (I don’t subscribe a particular brand), Urban Economics is “useful to society” and society’s understanding of sprawl and other urban/environmental issues. (Even if you disagree with the capitalist point of view….)
December 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
1. That “markets of markets” bit was by a commenter, not an author or contributer. It seems a bit unfair to criticize a blog for something one of its commenters says.
2. Besides the fact that you don’t like the overall political slant of the blog (libertarian), is there anything more specifically that you disagree with? Any entry or idea in particular that you find “ridiculous”? Or are you just viscerally offended by the idea that someone would advocate for free markets, so you don’t feel the need to critique the actual content?
3. The “failure to essentialize” post was actually a response to an article that I posted on the blog. It’s more like a “letter to the editor” than a regular article.
4. I don’t believe the author has ever said anything about Austrian economics or the Federal Reserve – and why would he? After all, the blog is about land use policy, not monetary policy.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Rationalitate,
1. That “markets of markets†bit was by a commenter, not an author or contributer. It seems a bit unfair to criticize a blog for something one of its commenters says.
I think the author was participating in several ways, including responding with a ‘market within markets’ comment. Not a big deal, though.
2. Besides the fact that you don’t like the overall political slant of the blog (libertarian), is there anything more specifically that you disagree with? Any entry or idea in particular that you find “ridiculous� Or are you just viscerally offended by the idea that someone would advocate for free markets, so you don’t feel the need to critique the actual content?
Kind of all of the above. The Chicago Parking post, I thought, was misguided, if not offensive, but it seemed like it could really be no other way since the blog talks about viewing things from a Libertarian angle - whatever that means. Many of the other posts seemed offensive, and the blog has given space to racists like Charles Johnson.
3. The “failure to essentialize†post was actually a response to an article that I posted on the blog. It’s more like a “letter to the editor†than a regular article.
again - it’s not a big deal, as far as it goes. the phrase is just very similar to the endless parsing of ‘isms’ that seems so prevalent on those right-wing hate sites.
4. I don’t believe the author has ever said anything about Austrian economics or the Federal Reserve – and why would he? After all, the blog is about land use policy, not monetary policy.
modern-day American Libertarianism is all about Mises, Rockwell, etc. that means Austrian School, Federal Reserve, etc. the most popular proponent today is Ron Paul, the non-stop anti-Fed campaigner. if the blog doesn’t talk about these things, i’d be very surprised. the only way to avoid them would be to not know about them, or not care to know about them. and if the blog is strictly about land use policy, then someone forgot to tell the author.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Kind of all of the above. The Chicago Parking post, I thought, was misguided, if not offensive
offensive? Could you please expand on that? I certainly did not intend to offend.
modern-day American Libertarianism is all about Mises, Rockwell, etc. that means Austrian School, Federal Reserve, etc. the most popular proponent today is Ron Paul, the non-stop anti-Fed campaigner. if the blog doesn’t talk about these things, i’d be very surprised. the only way to avoid them would be to not know about them, or not care to know about them. and if the blog is strictly about land use policy, then someone forgot to tell the author.
I prefer to remain friendly, but I find it offensive that, in your ignorance, you have blindly lumped me in with one faction of a broad subject matter. Your reasoning brings you to think that since I am in favor of free markets, that my blog on Urbanism speaks of the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul, etc.. That is just sloppy, ignorant, and irresponsible journalism.
What are your thoughts on Jane Jacobs? Is she an anti-fed campaigner by the nature of her writings criticizing planners? Does she offend you because of your unintelligent associations of unrelated ideas?
Can you point to a post which is not about land use or transportation policy, or are you so blinded by what you mistakenly consider to be “right-wing hate” chatter?
Grow up, shake off your ignorance, and learn some tolerance.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
There’s so much to say that I don’t even know where to begin (lol @ “if the blog doesn’t talk about these things, i’d be very surprised”). But I’d just like to address one thing here:
modern-day American Libertarianism is all about Mises, Rockwell, etc.
This is absolutely false by any measure. Libertarianism in America is much more commonly associated with Milton Friedman and the monetarists, definitely not Austrian economists, and with think-tanks like the Cato Institute and magazines like Reason, which are decidedly not Austrian in their outlook (though Reason plays the libertarian field).
December 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
By the way, one last thing: a simple Google search will tell you that the blog has nothing to do with Ron Paul, the Federal Reserve, or Austrian economics.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
offensive? Could you please expand on that? I certainly did not intend to offend.
i find your lack of understanding of the english language offensive.
I prefer to remain friendly, but I find it offensive that, in your ignorance, you have blindly lumped me in with one faction of a broad subject matter.
yes - you are correct - i only read 20 of your posts before concluding that it was all first-rate hackery.
What are your thoughts on Jane Jacobs?
my thoughts on jane jacobs are that if i bothered to get a damn degree in urban planning i would have bothered to read some jane jacobs along the way - those are my thoughts on jane jacobs.
Is she an anti-fed campaigner by the nature of her writings criticizing planners?
she was not an idiot - she wouldn’t try to paint the world in terms of ‘free market’ vs. ‘everything else’ and then explain it all based on ‘the invisible hand’.
Does she offend you because of your unintelligent associations of unrelated ideas?
my bad - i forgot to essentialize.
Can you point to a post which is not about land use or transportation policy
here.
Grow up, shake off your ignorance, and learn some tolerance.
my tolerance for bad ideas and ill-informed opinions is very low - call it a character flaw. my tolerance for belief in capitalism and free markets is even lower still.
Libertarianism in America is much more commonly associated with Milton Friedman and the monetarists, definitely not Austrian economists, and with think-tanks like the Cato Institute and magazines like Reason, which are decidedly not Austrian in their outlook (though Reason plays the libertarian field).
i guess i should have said ’serious libertarianism’ — we know that can’t be Cato. Mises (the man, not the institution), at least, was consistent. American libertarianism is not - it’s just straight-up corporatism. but guys like James Bovard at least are honest - they suscribe to the ‘common sense’ and ‘human rights’ view of the world that is so sorely lacking from the free marketeers. there’s room for libertarianism, there’s just not much of it out there.
all the nonsense i read on that blog is just the same old same old - let’s let the free market make us all free. or something. it’s below humanity dignity, and yes, it’s offensive in the extreme.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:14 am
You mean James Bovard, Associate Policy Analyst at, ehem, The Cato Institute?
Bovard’s page at Cato
Here are some related pieces by Bovard at great libertarian resources that may either disgust you or soften your intolerance:
Zoning: The New Tyranny
Property and Liberty
Nonetheless, if you are sympathetic to Bovard, I encourage you to read some of his work at Cato, FEE, and FFF. (although he’s also contributed many articles to the despised Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com) If you take the time to explore the varying libertarian resources and philosophies, I think you’ll be pleased to find that libertarianism is not about corporatism.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:04 am
Bovard may or may not be associated with Cato in some way anymore - he started to see Cato for what it was:
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/11/17/the-torturous-servility-of-washington-think-tanks/
i met Bovard at Cato during one of his book readings there, and have been following him for years. i suspect his ‘relationship’ with Cato is tenuous, at best — it’s probably more of a relationship ‘in name’ only. He and Cato are like-minded on lots of things, so no need to really go nuclear to sever the relationship completely and forever — but you’d have to ask him about that.