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

Re: Road Fascism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.