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

Re: Road Fascism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
    • 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 2 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
      • 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 3 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
        • 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 4 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
          • 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 5 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
            • 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.