Podcasts about ash navabi

Send us a textIn this episode of the Real Estate Development Insights podcast, Edward Skira and Ash Navabi from Urban Toronto discuss the comprehensive data and trends in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) real estate market. The episode delves into the founding of Urban Toronto, the types of data they track, and the significant impact of policies on development. The conversation highlights current market trends, approval processes, the shift from condo to rental developments, and the surprising complexities of urban planning and policy implementation. Listeners are also guided on effectively using the Urban Toronto platform for real estate investment decisions.The Origins of Urban TorontoUrban Toronto's Data and Insights Clientele and Usage of UT Pro Impact of Policy on DevelopmentParking Policy Changes and Effects Provincial Policies and Their OutcomesMultiplexes and Minor VariancesUnderstanding the Complexity of the Housing CrisisBiggest Challenges in the Housing MarketEconomic Factors Affecting HousingToronto's Housing Market vs. Other CitiesNavigating the Development ProcessUsing Urban Toronto's Platform for DevelopmentTrends in Rental vs. Condo ProjectsThe Role of Developers and Public PerceptionThe Growth of Toronto's SkylineFor more information, please refer to RealEstateDevelopmentInsights.Com.

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop are joined by Ash Navabi, a Canadian economist. Ash breaks down the differences in culture and political traditions between the US and Canada, and offers his take on the clash between the Freedom Convoy protests and the Trudeau regime. Recommended Reading "Canada Nice No Longer: Trudeau's Totalitarian Response to Trucker Protests" by Mitch Nemeth: Mises.org/RR_70_A Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop are joined by Ash Navabi, a Canadian economist. Ash breaks down the differences in culture and political traditions between the US and Canada, and offers his take on the clash between the Freedom Convoy protests and the Trudeau regime. Recommended Reading "Canada Nice No Longer: Trudeau's Totalitarian Response to Trucker Protests" by Mitch Nemeth: Mises.org/RR_70_A Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop are joined by Ash Navabi, a Canadian economist. Ash breaks down the differences in culture and political traditions between the US and Canada, and offers his take on the clash between the Freedom Convoy protests and the Trudeau regime. Recommended Reading "Canada Nice No Longer: Trudeau's Totalitarian Response to Trucker Protests" by Mitch Nemeth: Mises.org/RR_70_A Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at Mises.org/RadioRothbard.

In this episode, Tho Bishop of the Mises Institute guest hosts A Neighbor's Choice. Tho comments on the real threat to DeSantis' Florida, Disney's influence on Florida politics, property rights vs civil rights in America, how Republicans are bought off by lobbyists, and more. Tho is joined by Ash Navabi, an economist from Canada, who talks about why Austrian economics trumps central planning, examples of decentralized innovation, lockdown tyranny in Canada, and more. Check out Ash Navabi's website at ashnavabi.com Visit A Neighbor's Choice at aneighborschoice.com

Housing in Toronto has reached crisis levels, with rents and house prices increasing every year and showing no signs of slowing down. In today’s episode, our guests discuss the ways that the City is trying to address the issue, and what more can or should be done to bring prices down.Ash Navabi is a senior Economist for Housing Matters, a Toronto not-for-profit which advocates for increasing the housing supply via the changing of zoning regulations, as well as a lecturer at Ryerson University.  Natasha Cheong is a PhD urban planning student at the University of Toronto, examining municipal scale responses to high-cost North American housing markets. Before attending graduate school, she worked in the non-profit housing sector and for the City of Vancouver’s Homelessness Services department providing community and housing supports to vulnerable populations on the Downtown Eastside.Jennifer Keesmaat is passionate about creating places where people flourish, and was named one of the “most powerful people in Canada” by Macleans, one of the “most influential” by Toronto Life, and one of the top Women of Influence in Canada. Jennifer is a Distinguished Visitor in Residence Emeritus at the University of Toronto, and continues to share her vision for cities of the future and her belief in the importance of public sector leadership through a variety of publications including The Guardian, Macleans, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and on her podcasts, Invisible City and Within Reach. Keesmaat serves on the Advisory Board of the Urban Land Institute, Toronto and the International Panel of Experts, Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority.Special thanks to Senior Producer Erin Anderson-Birmingham, Junior Producers Hongyu Xiao and Duncan Cooper, and Executive Director Vienna Vendittelli for producing this episode.Music Credits:1. ‘Marry Me Archie’ by Alvvays

Today on the podcast, Ash Navabi returns to discuss his recent work on housing and rent control. Ash published an opinion piece entitled "Why low-income earners should actually welcome Ontario's reversal on rent control." In that article, Ash pushes back on the kneejerk reaction to the Ontario government's reversal of its rent control policy on new units: There's no question that there are problems with affordability and livability in certain areas of Ontario, but implementing rigid rent control measures is not the way to fix them. Economists agree: rent control reduces both the quantity and quality of housing available. In a 1988 survey of 443 Canadian economists, fully 95 per cent agreed (in full or with some provisos) with that statement. A more recent survey of 40 economists (including several Nobel laureates) yielded a similar result: only one respondent believed that rent control increased quantity and quality of the housing supply. The reason there is near unanimity on this question is simple: there is ample theory and data in support of the answer. The theory is simple enough. A maximum price policy (which is what rent control is) has two contradictory effects — namely, it increases the quantity demanded for the good, while also decreasing the quantity supplied. In other words, it creates a shortage. We discuss the policy change that prompted the article, and the backlash the article itself generated, as well as many things related to housing policy.

Ash Navabi is part of an advocacy group known as Housing Matters. As an economist by training he believes strongly in using economic principles to deal with the real and growing issue of housing affordability in Toronto. Find out what Ash has to say about rent control and why he is so big on the YIMBY movement. Click here for show notes. Andrew la Fleur / Sales Representative 416-371-2333 / andrew@truecondos.com http://www.truecondos.com http://www.twitter.com/andrewlafleur http://www.facebook.com/truecondos

Hello and welcome to the fiftieth episode special of Economics Detective Radio! Today we have Ash Navabi back on the program, but we’re flipping the script: Ash will be interviewing me about the show and about all the things I’ve learned while making it. In this episode, I alienate the political right by discussing the importance of labour mobility and the desirability of open borders. I also alienate the political left by expressing a lukewarm position on climate change. I also discuss my own research plans relating to law and economics. Finally, we discuss literature! Really, if you like Economics Detective Radio, you have to hear this episode.  

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 198. This is a discussion with Ash Navabi, an economics grad student at George Mason, who messaged me this question: Hi Stephan. I'm having a conceptual problem distinguishing IP and tangible property. In Against IP, you said that an IP right gives the IP owner "invariably transfer partial ownership of tangible property from its natural owner to innovators, inventors, and artists." But doesn't this apply to every property right? If I own a tract of land, why can't we say that if I ban you riding across it with your dirt bike, then I am claiming ownership over your dirt bike? I decided to just discuss this with him for the podcast. We ended up veering into a couple tangential issues like auctions for trade secrets in an IP-free world, and so on. Before we talked, I asked him to read: “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,”StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) Other materials mentioned during our discussion: Against Intellectual Property Roderick Long, Owning Ideas Means Owning People and The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights The video is streamed below.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 198. This is a discussion with Ash Navabi, an economics grad student at George Mason, who messaged me this question: Hi Stephan. I'm having a conceptual problem distinguishing IP and tangible property. In Against IP, you said that an IP right gives the IP owner "invariably transfer partial ownership of tangible property from its natural owner to innovators, inventors, and artists." But doesn't this apply to every property right? If I own a tract of land, why can't we say that if I ban you riding across it with your dirt bike, then I am claiming ownership over your dirt bike? I decided to just discuss this with him for the podcast. We ended up veering into a couple tangential issues like auctions for trade secrets in an IP-free world, and so on. Before we talked, I asked him to read: “The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights,” StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) “IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ,”StephanKinsella.com Blog (Jan. 22, 2010) Other materials mentioned during our discussion: Against Intellectual Property Roderick Long, Owning Ideas Means Owning People and The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights The video is streamed below.

Ash Navabi returns to the podcast to discuss his essay, "Will Iceland's Sovereign Money Proposal End Economic Crises?" In April of 2015, Frosti Sigurjonsson, Member of the Parliament of Iceland and Chairman of the Committee for Economic Affairs and Trade, made a bold proposal to end fractional reserve banking and replace it with a system he calls "sovereign money." Fractional reserve banking is the system under which banks create money by lending out a portion of depositors' money, keeping only a fraction to pay out on demand. One problem with fractional reserve banking is that the mismatch between banks' assets and liabilities leaves them exposed to bank runs and financial panics. To solve this problem, the central banks of the world function as "lenders of last resort" to save insolvent banks from going under. However, the more insidious problem with fractional reserves is that the injection of new money directly into credit markets artificially lowers interest rates and incentivizes entrepreneurs to take on longer term projects than the real savings available in the economy can sustain. Having central banks intervene to keep the cheap credit flowing does nothing to address this problem, and in fact makes it worse. Under the Icelandic proposal, while there would be a 100% reserve requirement for private banks, the central bank would still be able to create money at will. Ash critiques this on the basis of the "Cantillon effect." The Cantillon effect is the phenomenon whereby the creation of new money transfers wealth to the early holders of that money. If a new dollar is created, the first holder of the dollar can use it to buy goods before prices have adjusted upwards. However, as people exchange the new dollar and use it to bid on various goods, the sellers of those goods will adjust their prices upwards to account for their consumers' greater willingness to pay. If you are the last to get hold of the new dollar, then you've been bidding against the holders of new money for a long time before seeing an increase in your income, thus making you poorer in real terms. By centralizing money creation in the central bank, Sigurjonsson's proposal would enrich those to whom the central bank lends. In particular, the proposal would allow the central bank to grant money directly to the government to pay for government spending. Thus, the Cantillon effect would enrich those who are paid directly by the government at expense of those who aren't. Ash argues that this would invite cronyism, since those with the right connections will be able to benefit from these Cantillon effects. In the end, it's not clear whether the sovereign money proposal would have been a net good or a net bad. It could have reduced credit expansion, but the cronyism inherent in the proposal could easily outweigh the positive effects.

In this episode, Ash Navabi discusses whether the Austrian School of Economics is a cult and the value of mathematics in economic theory. Ash is an economics student at Ryerson University. Ash wrote an article responding to recent criticisms of the Austrian school by Keynesian bloggers Noah Smith and Paul Krugman. Krugman approvingly referenced Smith's attacks on the “hermetic system that is Austrians.” Just a week later he made the following telling comment about the economics mainstream: "And modern academic economics is very much an interlocking set of old-boy networks; to some extent this has become even more true since the decline of the journals, with most discourse taking place via working papers long before formal publication. I used to refer to the international trade circuit as the floating crap game — the same 30 or 40 people meeting in conferences all over the world, reading and citing each others’ work; it’s the same in each sub-field. And to some extent it’s inevitable: there’s so much stuff out there, and you have to filter somehow, so you mainly read stuff by people you know and people they tell you are worth reading." Ash was quick to point out that, by the logic of the people who deride Austrian economists as "cultish" because they interact mainly with one another, each of the "old-boy networks" Paul Krugman refers to (that is, each sub-field of mainstream economics) must also be a cult. Gary Becker, another Nobel Laureate, referred to the Austrian school as a cult in a letter to Walter Block. Becker's definition of a cult was "a small number of dedicated followers who speak mainly to each other, and interact little with let us call them mainstream economists.” This definition is problematic, to say the least. When people hear the word "cult," they don't think of Becker's dry definition but of animal sacrifice and mass suicide. The word "cult" also implies unquestioning devotion to the cult leaders, but modern Austrians frequently criticize Mises and Hayek, in highly un-cultish fashion. Ash also wrote an article on mathematical economics versus so-called "literary" economics. John Cochrane recently referred to non-mathematical economics as "literary," a mild slur that goes back at least as far as the 1940s when Mises responded to it in Human Action. The Austrian method is not "literary" in the sense of using airy prose and fuzzy logic, rather it uses a highly rigorous form of verbal logic to derive causal chains from the basic axioms of human action. Mathematical economics forces economists to start their analyses from unrealistic assumptions in order to put all problems in mathematically tractable terms. However rigorous the mathematics itself is, the foundation is flawed so the conclusions are flawed. Austrians conceive of economic theory as a descriptive science rather than a predictive one. That is, pure theory cannot tell you how the future will turn out, nor is a theory tested by its empirical predictions. An entrepreneur can have a true theory of how the economy works, and yet he can still make wrong predictions if he misjudges the actual factors at play. Ash can be found online at the Mises Canada blog page.