Ok. She and her liberal cohorts in SF, in Sacramento, in DC, and on Sand Hill Road opened the floodgates to an ocean of money pouring into and through the city, got rich doing it, and ruined the city. The only thing to say in their favor is that it had not much to do with them being liberal
I dunno, but it's certainly higher than a bald assertion about something that is a factual matter. And move the goalposts? You made specific claims about Nanci Pelosi and the liberal establishment. Plus I think it's interesting that you claim liberals opened a spigot of money without mentioning the Federal Reserve's zero rate interest policy of more than a decades standing under both Obama and Trump appointed Fed Chairs. That might have had something to do with junky startups getting funding, and why the funding dried up and a lot of startups went south when the interest rates went up.
Why do you find it interesting that I didn't mention Trump? Do you somehow think I'm painting a target on Nancy's back because she's a Democrat, or a liberal? If you do then I find it interesting you overlooked the part where I said it hasn't got much to do with being a liberal.
Anyway, when you figure out what your rubric is for judging evidence so that you're able to say someone more than "I dunno" then that's when you'll get your citations, and not a minute before.
I asked why you didn't mention the effect of the zero rate interest policy which had bipartisan support as evidenced by appointment of Fed Governors who voted for that policy over a decade and I asserted that policy was the main driver for that investment. I didn't ask about Trump or Obama.
My rubric would be any evidence that Nancy Pelosi had a significant impact on investment in San Francisco. As gifted a politician as she is, I think there isn't any. Or if there was such an impact I think it was relatively small compared to the amounts of VC investment from say 2012 to 2022 in San Francisco based startups which were driven primarily by other factors.
> My rubric would be any evidence that Nancy Pelosi had a significant impact on investment in San Francisco
The word "significant" is your out here. Only you know what you mean by that. You're free to raise the stakes so that nothing I offer passes your test for significance. But, that's life. Anyone else who reads this thread is also free to make up their own mind. FWIW, things like this are what I had in mind:
> Plus I think it's interesting that you claim liberals opened a spigot of money without mentioning the Federal Reserve's zero rate interest policy of more than a decades standing under both Obama and Trump appointed Fed Chairs
Thanks for your answer. I'll look at the links. I'm not sure how asking about the impact of the Fed's zero interest rate policy is primarily about Trump or Obama, liberal or conservative, but you seem a little gunshy.
Let's try not to make this personal by saying how we seem to each other, shall we?
As for how asking about how the impact of the Fed's policy is primarily about Obama or Trump, liberal or conservative, maybe it isn't. You tell me since you brought it up. If it's not about Obama or Trump, liberal or conservative, then perhaps you brought it up to say that other people besides Pelosi contributed to the ocean of money that poured into SF. If that's why you brought it up, then I wonder why you want to make that point. After all, I never said Pelosi deserves all the blame. I never said she deserves the largest share of the blame. A challenge was made at the top of thread, if I recall, to make an argument as to why Pelosi deserves some of the blame, ANY of the blame. I took up that challenge as I saw it. If it's your objective to argue that she deserves none of the blame, then I'd like to see that argument.
My gut feeling is the reference to Pelosi was due to the name of the building. Or because she is from that area and represented it for so many years. Regardless, the irony is amusing to some of us.
Sorry; you are correct. Her title is, however, "Speaker Emerita" given her impending retirement from the House. I had seen mention of same earlier and that stuck in my head.
So is the Pope, who also does not set policy in the municipality of San Francisco. To reply to your question: the mayor and city council (which is a group of humans, a species which is famously given to disagreement between individual members) of San Francisco have some power to improve the situation, but even they have precious few examples of cities to have attracted and generated tremendous wealth without also having tremendous poverty and depravity, frequently sited literally across the street from said wealth. What US cities have done so humanely?
> but even they have precious few examples of cities to have attracted and generated tremendous wealth without also having tremendous poverty and depravity
Have you considered the possibility that the poverty is a consequence of the wealth?
