Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Road Fascism

Expand Messages
  • David
    ... Of course I m charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I pay gasoline tax,
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 7, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
      >
      > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
      > > before. Please explain that to me!
      >
      > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
      >
      > And no one is charged to use them.
      >

      Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
      car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I
      pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.


      >
      > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
      > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
      > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
      > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
      > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
      > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
      > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
      > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
      > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
      > time American families spred from their homes.

      So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and I
      drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be able
      to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
      the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot in
      the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees? Would
      you keep me from getting home to my wife?

      >
      > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
      > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
      > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
      > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
      > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
      > pattern that cannot be sustained.

      Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
      suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
      serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
      better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?
    • Mike Doran
      ... heard ... I ... You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes. But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree that
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
        > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
        > >
        > > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never
        heard
        > > > before. Please explain that to me!
        > >
        > > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
        > >
        > > And no one is charged to use them.
        > >
        >
        > Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
        > car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and
        I
        > pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.
        >
        >

        You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes.
        But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree
        that the more you drive the more gas tax you pay, if you break it
        down the cents you pay for gas is insignificant compared to how large
        the subsidy is for using a government asset for free.


        > >
        > > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
        > > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census
        data.
        > > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now.
        Recent
        > > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
        > > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
        > > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove
        less.
        > > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
        > > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
        > > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater
        amount of
        > > time American families spred from their homes.
        >
        > So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and
        I
        > drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be
        able
        > to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
        > the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot
        in
        > the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees?

        Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
        live where you live. You know, I was studying a rare tornado that
        occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999 and looking at first why tornadoes
        were rare there and why one occurred. Turns out that there are
        mountains and the Great Salt Lake, which may have some EMF
        characteristics that inhibits tornadoes. In any event, what I
        learned is that south of the City are 20 small towns--that today have
        sprawed into a seemless web of suburbia. It is like that across the
        US.


        Would
        > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
        >

        That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
        answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?


        > >
        > > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities
        and
        > > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like
        education
        > > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new
        burbs,
        > > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal
        with
        > > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
        > > pattern that cannot be sustained.
        >
        > Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
        > suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
        > serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
        > better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?

        Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
        for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
        sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
        had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
        activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
        road fascism.

        BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes. Sure it
        would discourage driving, but do you honestly think it makes any
        sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
        Really?
      • David
        ... And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done that, couldn t afford the t-shirt. ... Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
          > live where you live.

          And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done
          that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.


          > Would
          > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
          > >
          >
          > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
          > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?
          >

          Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?


          > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
          > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
          > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
          > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
          > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
          > road fascism.

          Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
          isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
          example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
          Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here. In
          fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
          (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
          towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
          way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
          the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
          assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
          isn't always the case.
          >
          > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.

          Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also eliminate
          people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.

          >but do you honestly think it makes any
          > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
          > Really?

          No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument there.
        • Mike Doran
          ... and ... done ... Sadly, as Hubbert s peak digs in to this economy based on cheap fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on that
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
            >
            > > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have
            and
            > > live where you live.
            >
            > And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there,
            done
            > that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.
            >

            Sadly, as Hubbert's peak digs in to this economy based on cheap
            fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on
            that cheap fuel, I don't think you or I understand the meaning of
            unemployment.

            >
            > > Would
            > > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
            > > >
            > >
            > > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
            > > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good
            idea?
            > >
            >
            > Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?
            >

            The free food socialism--or subsidy based farming, did not work.
            Lines for food were long (gridlock) and soon the food was gone. A
            black market evolved (pols on the dole from big oil like Bush for
            wars for oil, more roads, etc). A lack of market leads to
            corruption.

            >
            > > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it
            worse
            > > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
            > > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we
            haven't
            > > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from
            our
            > > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
            > > road fascism.
            >
            > Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
            > isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
            > example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
            > Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here.
            In
            > fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
            > (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
            > towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
            > way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
            > the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
            > assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
            > isn't always the case.

            Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
            We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
            from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
            Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
            them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
            food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
            the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
            you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
            black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
            false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
            are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
            like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare. The suburbs
            are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
            point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
            assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
            frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
            shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
            political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
            oil, it could get even worse.


            > >
            > > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.
            >
            > Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also
            eliminate
            > people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.
            >

            See above. The question isn't whether this is a hard choice, but
            whether to make the choice with planning and with time so that its
            impace isn't devistating. Sometimes false market problems are solved
            with more false markets. EG subsidizing the heck out of renewables.
            But for the suburban power in governemnt to take the position that
            they are the power that is against false markets, against the
            government involved in their lives is a LIE--just like his daddy,
            read my lips. Big lie. Effective lie, really. The roads ARE
            government, its largest part. To not regulate them, incorporate them
            in a regulated market economy is short sighted and wrong.

            > >but do you honestly think it makes any
            > > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
            > > Really?
            >
            > No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument
            there.

            Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
            all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
            this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
            as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
            administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
            big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

            BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
          • David
            ... Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies, how about the
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
              > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
              > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
              > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
              > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
              > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
              > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
              > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
              > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
              > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
              > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
              > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.

              Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of
              them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
              how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
              order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!

              > The suburbs
              > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
              > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
              > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
              > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
              > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
              > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
              > oil, it could get even worse.

              I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
              in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
              gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
              either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
              sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-sufficient
              on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
              got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
              import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.

              > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
              > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
              > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
              > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
              > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
              > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

              I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands of
              dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
              effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
              alone anything else??

              >
              > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.

              Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
            • Mike Doran
              The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS Inauguration Day Now Change Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly

                BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                Inauguration Day Now Change
                Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                or indirectly through population density and the investment in roads.
                The problem is we are reaching the point where even on cheap fuel the
                economy can have sustained growth.

                I am one who thinks our addiction to cheap oil with tolls over time
                would NOT hurt the economy as much as you think but concentrate it
                and change its character to infact make us LESS dependant on a
                foriegn resource. A false market leads to a number of problems, the
                least of which, as we discuss here, is changes to biological
                feedbacks.

                Speaking of which--check out this link:


                http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html

                The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike activity
                is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.

                Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the Gaia
                conditions and the positive SOI . . .
                --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                >
                > > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now
                slowing.
                > > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth
                transfers
                > > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the
                Soviet
                > > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford
                food. To
                > > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow
                the
                > > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But
                with
                > > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up
                and
                > > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and
                a
                > > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for
                a
                > > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that
                suburbs
                > > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns
                have,
                > > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.
                >
                > Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many
                of
                > them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                > how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                > order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!
                >
                > > The suburbs
                > > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                > > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                > > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                > > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that
                faces
                > > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind
                of
                > > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations
                of
                > > oil, it could get even worse.
                >
                > I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                > in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                > gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                > either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                > sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-
                sufficient
                > on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                > got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                > import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.
                >
                > > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't
                eliminate
                > > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will
                prevent
                > > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and
                market
                > > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                > > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests
                of
                > > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.
                >
                > I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands
                of
                > dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                > effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                > alone anything else??
                >
                > >
                > > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                >
                > Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
              • David
                ... And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full stride when Bush took
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                  > The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly
                  >
                  > BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                  > Inauguration Day Now Change
                  > Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                  > Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                  > Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                  > Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                  And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The
                  recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full
                  stride when Bush took office. The "surplus" never existed anywhere
                  except on paper, and it was based on sustaining a certain economic
                  growth rate. Again, another wonderful Clinton/Gore trick.

                  > http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html
                  >
                  > The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                  > as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike
                  activity
                  > is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.
                  >
                  > Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the
                  Gaia
                  > conditions and the positive SOI . . .

                  If you mean by "strikes" severe weather, we sure got it. According
                  to CNN, more than 50 tornados touched down throughout the east. 35
                  killed, and a bunch more unaccounted for. Nasty.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.