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

Re: Road Fascism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.