Bowman's explanation for why street votes would succeed at bringing about new housing development is that existing landowners in a particular block would see the value of their land rise when the block upgrades its construction rules. A block is a negligible part of a city so the increased supply when one block is densified has a negligible effect on the housing price. Upgrading the block is cleary in the interest of its owners.
However, it's less clear that introducing the possibility of conducting street votes in a particular city is in the interest of landowners because the effect on house prices is no longer negligible if many blocks decide to upgrade.
Thanks for sharing your ideas! These might be some ways to start and provide proof of concept and evidence.
On your second point: Do you think teachers or districts would be allowed to adopt a new currciulum someone offered them? In Germany, where I am from, that would hardly be possible.
Yes, it would be good if these contents could be taught in a way that makes them relevant to actual societal questions to make sure people use these concepts outisde the classroom.
The farmer and the engineer don't only farm and engineer but also vote, consume and discuss their views with others. They should know about consequentialism and deontology to be able to think more clearly about political problems and arguments.
In fact, the optimal spending rate is not constant but starts growing (approximately and asymptotically precisely) linearly once funds exceed a certain threshold. The solid lines in the hand-drawn phase diagram you are refering to are the points where the growth rate of funds (b_dot) is the same. The optimal spending policy is the one starting at the threshold b_hat approaching the line where the growth rate of the budget is constant (at (r-rho)/r). Although I do not prove that this is the optimal policy, what I do prove is that the time trajectory of the spending rate is asymptotically linear. I edited the post to make this more clear.
In case this led to confusion: By spending rate, I am not referring to a proportion of available funds but to the rate of change of how much money has been spent at a given point in time. Since the model is in continuous rather than discrete time, I talk about a spending rate at a certain point in time rather than spending in a certain time period.
Bowman's explanation for why street votes would succeed at bringing about new housing development is that existing landowners in a particular block would see the value of their land rise when the block upgrades its construction rules. A block is a negligible part of a city so the increased supply when one block is densified has a negligible effect on the housing price. Upgrading the block is cleary in the interest of its owners.
However, it's less clear that introducing the possibility of conducting street votes in a particular city is in the interest of landowners because the effect on house prices is no longer negligible if many blocks decide to upgrade.
Thanks for sharing your ideas! These might be some ways to start and provide proof of concept and evidence.
On your second point: Do you think teachers or districts would be allowed to adopt a new currciulum someone offered them? In Germany, where I am from, that would hardly be possible.
Yes, it would be good if these contents could be taught in a way that makes them relevant to actual societal questions to make sure people use these concepts outisde the classroom.
The farmer and the engineer don't only farm and engineer but also vote, consume and discuss their views with others. They should know about consequentialism and deontology to be able to think more clearly about political problems and arguments.
Thanks. Actually, I know the paper, but maybe I could have referenced it in my thesis...
In fact, the optimal spending rate is not constant but starts growing (approximately and asymptotically precisely) linearly once funds exceed a certain threshold. The solid lines in the hand-drawn phase diagram you are refering to are the points where the growth rate of funds (b_dot) is the same. The optimal spending policy is the one starting at the threshold b_hat approaching the line where the growth rate of the budget is constant (at (r-rho)/r). Although I do not prove that this is the optimal policy, what I do prove is that the time trajectory of the spending rate is asymptotically linear. I edited the post to make this more clear.
In case this led to confusion: By spending rate, I am not referring to a proportion of available funds but to the rate of change of how much money has been spent at a given point in time. Since the model is in continuous rather than discrete time, I talk about a spending rate at a certain point in time rather than spending in a certain time period.