|
fishmech posted:Suburbanization started well before the interstates were even close to complete, by 1960 for instance, only 10,000 miles of the original ~43,000 miles of interstates were completed, and most of that was composed of adopting-in already completed roads from the past, and stretches out in rural areas which cost significantly less to get built. Yeah, as long as there is some commute available, you can suburbanize (Hence streetcar and train suburbs). It's just that freeways are about the least efficient method when it comes to costs. I don't think I said it was the sole cause of suburbanization. "Once they could afford to leave the cities, they immediately left" Uh, I think it's important to be a little more precise here. Land around the edges of the city where there was no infrastructure was always cheap and the CBD (Where people needed to be), though gritty at times, was pretty expensive. As the supply of land that is commutable to the CBD increased through large infrastructure investment (in whatever form), it made land in the city cheaper and land outside more desirable (expensive too). No city that depends on property taxes should sacrifice the well-being of its land in favor of places outside of it. ToxicSlurpee posted:A lot of surburbanization also happened due to white flight. White professionals that could afford the commute ran from the densely packed cities full of apartments and mixed-use buildings and those people to live in their perfectly manicured little surburan paradises full of manufactured homes. Manufactured housing was also a big contributor; not only was the road system, cars in general, and whatever just plain better but it became just plain cheaper to buy a house in the suburbs thanks to economies of scale. The interstate makes it much more feasible for people to create the bubble, though, is the point. You can't just create Whiteville, USA in the middle of nowhere without any access to the economy. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 10, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's good if you're wealthy, and it's good if you feel like the poors are lazy and deserve lovely treatment. Keeping that in mind helps to explain US conservative outrage over all proposed changes to the healthcare system and why they so desperately want to go back to the pre-Obamacare days. Lol. I sincerely do NOT think that wealthy conservatives believe that the poors are lazy. They just think they're lesser at this point and use old rhetoric of laziness to justify lovely opinions. Also, any SYSTEMATIC analysis of the U.S.'s healthcare system would deem it poo poo. Conservatives who are against the socialization of healthcare aren't against 'the undeserving' getting treatment, they're against the poors getting their money. (I mean in reality we're saying nearly the same thing. I'm just saying that they're aren't any good "standardized" measures that say U.S. healthcare is good.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Lol. I sincerely do NOT think that wealthy conservatives believe that the poors are lazy. They just think they're lesser at this point and use old rhetoric of laziness to justify lovely opinions. No, conservatives believe the poor are lazy. If not lazy then immoral. They rely heavily on the prosperity gospel; as in, if you're poor God decided that you should be. The poor are being punished with poverty for being shiftless, lazy poo poo nuggets. The rich, on the other hand, work like 5,000 hours a week and still manage to go to church every Sunday (ignore the existence of super rich atheists, please) and are rewarded for their good behavior with wealth and comfort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The first large-scale highway projects actually started in the 1930s, when the Works Progress Administration built several hundred thousand miles of roads, a massive giveaway to cars that public transit received no equivalent of. Furthermore, early-era surburbia was much different from post-1960s suburbia. Lots were much smaller, typically around 1/8th of an acre, and mixed-use still prevailed, with light commercial like corner stores still relatively common. Assuming a healthy ratio of land use (50% public spaces/infrastructure), early suburbia had a practical population density of between 5,000 and 7,500 people per square mile (depending on whether the 50% of space occupied by actual buildings was either all residential or only mostly). So, basically, old-school suburbia looks like Portland, which to the city's detriment, is mostly zoned for older small-lot suburbia. Or put another way, old suburbia is between two and three times as dense as my hometown, where the majority of residential zoning has a minimum lot size of a fifth of an acre. They built a bunch of roads, but they were almost entirely surface roads - quite often they were just upgrading from dirt or gravel to pavement. Additionally why would we have given money to "public transit", which at that time was primarily high cost private operators? People forget that the whole idea we have of public transit as a public service simply didn't exist until after the private companies started to collapse. You don't really see cities proper starting to buy out and fund mass transit directly until the later 30s for the most part, and regional/state level transit doesn't get government funding in a serious way until the 60s and 70s, because it was still expected to be borne by the private sector (which couldn't!). Eskaton posted:Yeah, as long as there is some commute available, you can suburbanize (Hence streetcar and train suburbs). It's just that freeways are about the least efficient method when it comes to costs. The thing is there was always going to be some form of commuting. The freeways primarily served to reduce transport times and costs for intercity travel, particularly freight that couldn't travel by rail. And no, freeways really aren't the least efficent thing, they're very efficient for a lot of things. Don't be misled by how some people think they're hitler. It has nothing to do with land being cheap. The peak population times in most cities conforms to 1930-1950 for a very good reason - rural life was quickly becoming impossible to sustain for millions, then you get the depression ruining that even further, and being followed up by needing to stay close in to handle war time work with war time transport restrictions. The suburban areas were plenty commutable starting in the 1920s, but so many people weren't working in the cities in the first place, and then the 30s and 40s temporarily made it hard to do for people who'd had to move to the city areas. Without those circumstances, the narrative wouldn't have been "oh the suburbs killed the cities" because the cities simply wouldn't have become so big int he first place - the rural folks would instead have moved directly to the suburbs. The interstate does not make it "much more feasible to escape the bubble" though. That poo poo happened when the freeways/interstates were patchy as hell and you'd still need to spend quite a lot of time on slow surface roads. The tail end of white flight happened once that stuff was finally taken care of, but the majority had happened before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No, conservatives believe the poor are lazy. If not lazy then immoral. They rely heavily on the prosperity gospel; as in, if you're poor God decided that you should be. The poor are being punished with poverty for being shiftless, lazy poo poo nuggets. The rich, on the other hand, work like 5,000 hours a week and still manage to go to church every Sunday (ignore the existence of super rich atheists, please) and are rewarded for their good behavior with wealth and comfort. Oh man, Protestant prosperity gospel. Perhaps the most destructive thing to come out of Protestantism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Okay, fishmech, you're right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Okay, fishmech, you're right. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh man, Protestant prosperity gospel. Perhaps the most destructive thing to come out of Protestantism. The worst thing to come out of Protestantism may be the repression of Liberation Ideology once it became established, but yeah. I think the problem is that people are not even allowed to question their texts or interpret them for themselves. Jesus was a proto-socialist
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They built a bunch of roads, but they were almost entirely surface roads - quite often they were just upgrading from dirt or gravel to pavement. Additionally why would we have given money to "public transit", which at that time was primarily high cost private operators? People forget that the whole idea we have of public transit as a public service simply didn't exist until after the private companies started to collapse. You don't really see cities proper starting to buy out and fund mass transit directly until the later 30s for the most part, and regional/state level transit doesn't get government funding in a serious way until the 60s and 70s, because it was still expected to be borne by the private sector (which couldn't!). My original wording was "a massive investment in cars that rail saw no equivalent of", which I probably should've gone with. And my terminology is irrelevant anyways—the investment was made. The pooch was screwed, regardless of who owned it. I've linked this before and I'll link it again: post-1970s suburban development is literally not financially sustainable. There is demand for suburbs and they will always exist, yes. But the shape and appearance of the suburbs would be utterly unlike what we today associate with "suburbia". And if you want to talk about ahistorical stuff, then before the 1930s the federal government directly paying for local projects wasn't really a thing—and the contemporary vision of "suburbia" is only possible with these sorts of infrastructure investments, alongside other massive subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
The irony about any discussion of cities and the history of suburbs is that we're kind of living in a golden age of urbanism. The United States has been pretty hostile to cities for most of its existence, but the last couple decades has seen a growing movement of people who view dense, urban cities as  The Future. Urbanism itself is a recent aberration.And it's not just a few activists, either. Multiple surveys have shown that about a third of homebuyers want dense, walkable communities with decent transit while only about 40% or so of Americans explicitly desire car-centric large-lot single-family housing. (There is also, implicitly, between a fifth and a third of Americans who don't have particularly strong preferences.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:My original wording was "a massive investment in cars that rail saw no equivalent of", which I probably should've gone with. And my terminology is irrelevant anyways—the investment was made. The pooch was screwed, regardless of who owned it. Rail got tons of investment, the rail companies weren't just sitting there with their thumbs up their asses. But of course it wasn't going to get any from the federal government in the same timeframe roads were - it simply was majority privately owned (as it still is today). You also need to remember that, for instance, streetcars and such largely died off because they were considered pretty lovely in comparison to things like buses, which were cheaper to run and more flexible in service - they didn't get their current stigma until much later and indeed it was often streetcars and so on that were stigmatized then. Also no, the suburbs are very financially sustainable. That's why they're still there 60 years on. The idea that they are "unsustainable" is useless hyperbole. And to think that suburbia requires "infrastructure investment" is laughable a great deal of it, especially latter-day stuff, involves doing the absolute minimum of investment by anyone before the developers move on. Infrastructure-heavy suburbia is primarily a feature of older and mature suburbia. Curvature of Earth posted:The United States has been pretty hostile to cities for most of its existence... No it really hasn't. But this little thing called reality made it quite difficult to not be a primarily agricultural society for about half the existence of the country! And when you're a primarily agricultural society, everyone living in cities is inherently impractical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Just a reminder that you are now able to add to your ignore list again. There are times, sometimes, when sticking your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU is a valid debate tactic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Also no, the suburbs are very financially sustainable. That's why they're still there 60 years on. The idea that they are "unsustainable" is useless hyperbole. And to think that suburbia requires "infrastructure investment" is laughable a great deal of it, especially latter-day stuff, involves doing the absolute minimum of investment by anyone before the developers move on. Infrastructure-heavy suburbia is primarily a feature of older and mature suburbia. You know that piece was written by a guy who is an actual civil engineer that knows the cash flow and funding sources of that stuff, right..? I know that's an argument from authority, but you're just standing there saying "Well it lasted 60 years (one whole generation)!".
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:You know that piece was written by a guy who is an actual civil engineer that knows the cash flow and funding sources of that stuff, right..? I know that's an argument from authority, but you're just standing there saying "Well it lasted 60 years (one whole generation)!". 60 years is three generations. You're confusing lifetimes with generations, kinda. Further, it doesn't actually "prove" they're unsustainable, just that it requires a kind of spending priority he doesn't like. You could use the same kind of logic to claim any system is "unsustainable", which is why it's a generally useless term to throw around. fishmech fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:60 years is three generations. You're confusing lifetimes with generations, kinda. I'm talking about in terms of infrastructure, not people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:I'm talking about in terms of infrastructure, not people. No, infrastructure generally lasts a lot shorter than that, or a lot longer. I repeat: he's not showing that it's unsustainable, he's showing that sustaining it requires spending priorities he doesn't agree with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:No it really hasn't. But this little thing called reality made it quite difficult to not be a primarily agricultural society for about half the existence of the country! And when you're a primarily agricultural society, everyone living in cities is inherently impractical. No. [/quote] That really doesn't say what you claim it's saying. You're also not countering the fact that a predominantly urban population was completely impossible before technology advanced enough to handle reliable, cheap, long distance food shipment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That really doesn't say what you claim it's saying. You're also not countering the fact that a predominantly urban population was completely impossible before technology advanced enough to handle reliable, cheap, long distance food shipment. Your argument appears to be "people had legitimate reasons for not liking cities before industrialization!" which is not incompatible with my point "America has had an anti-urban bias for most of its existence".
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
What's any of this have to do with libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Your argument appears to be "people had legitimate reasons for not liking cities before industrialization!" which is not incompatible with my point "America has had an anti-urban bias for most of its existence". It's not about "not liking cities" it's that modern cities were fundamentally impossible to build and live in, or to be sustained by the economy. So you can't say that most of American history people were "hostile" to cities. Anti-city hostility only really pops up once huge cities become possible, and that's quite late in terms of American history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's any of this have to do with libertarianism? Because obviously privately-run cities are the future. (Now featuring seasteader groups!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Your argument appears to be "people had legitimate reasons for not liking cities before industrialization!" which is not incompatible with my point "America has had an anti-urban bias for most of its existence". That's like saying that a crippled man doesn't want to walk: a wildly inaccurate generalization. Americans liked cities just fine, most just didn't have the ability to live in one. Over time these opportunities became more common and city populations exploded as a result. America has some drat old, quite large cities that directly contradict your claim of an "anti-urban bias"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
I think CoE is just trying to phrase that America was very traumatized by the industrial cities of the turn of the century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
I think that the suburbia discussion is getting off topic and probably going to get the thread locked. I foolishly contributed to an off-topic jag in a gaming thread and the mod closed the thread without warning and has had the thread locked for nearly two days, because apparently a quick post saying "Let's get this back on topic, goons" was too much work. Point being, I don't think that these divergence is going to do anyone any good. Caros posted:My girlfriend (who caught the cold from me) also had to take a few days off but her work insisted she get a doctors note. Caros, I could swear that you've said in this very thread that you are a married man. All I'm saying is, if you're having an affair, this may not be the best place to talk about it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Caros, I could swear that you've said in this very thread that you are a married man. he was
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Caros, I could swear that you've said in this very thread that you are a married man. All I'm saying is, if you're having an affair, this may not be the best place to talk about it. Got divorced back in February around the last time jrod went off reservation and got his rear end banned. I am now dating a beautiful and vivacious woman nine years my junior and gently caress you if you think I'm having a midlife crisis because I'm totally not you rear end in a top hat! We now return you to fishmech being autistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I think that the suburbia discussion is getting off topic and probably going to get the thread locked. I foolishly contributed to an off-topic jag in a gaming thread and the mod closed the thread without warning and has had the thread locked for nearly two days, because apparently a quick post saying "Let's get this back on topic, goons" was too much work. That's right! It's Sunday! That means it's time to post a weekly update on Mises bullshit! It’s the Fourth of July! Why Am I Sad? Man cannot be free until he can poo poo in a poorly-designed, disease-harboring toilet posted:At the beginning of every major sporting event, Americans pay lip service to “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” but everywhere they are in economic chains. Last year total government spending was $6.4 trillion. That is $6.4 trillion with a t. That number amounts to over 36 percent of GDP. The Federal budget deficit the past fiscal year was $438 billion. Over the past eight years, our government debt has skyrocketed. By the end of this fiscal year, gross Federal government debt is expected to be over $19 trillion. That will be 106 precent of GDP. The Right Government Policy Toward Entrepreneurship Businessmen are literally magic posted:Wadhwa is using the term "entrepreneurship" to mean startups, but the statement applies also to Mises's more general concept of entrepreneurship as action under uncertainty. Elizabeth Warren Turns a Blind Eye to the Central Bank tl;dr The housing bubble and the 2008 financial crisis are all central banking's fault so won't Elizabeth Warren please stop oppressing privately-owned banks and focus on the real villains  Why Hillary Clinton Wasn't Indicted Hillary Clinton wasn't indicted because she didn't commit the crime she was being investigated for. Next question. Was Mises a Cynic? Coercion totally doesn't count posted:What about coercion? Obviously, we can be coerced to do something — which means that we would not do something voluntarily. For example, when somebody threatens us with a knife. But however brutal this might sound, it is still we who decide what to do — either we do what the aggressor wants us to do or we risk being killed. Insofar as we act, we prefer the action that is being performed to another that is not. What we do at a given moment, we choose to do in order to replace a less satisfactory state of affairs with a more satisfactory one. Or, as in the case of coercion, we chose not to worsen our situation — in other words, to stay alive. Economics has a moral dimension that cannot be avoided. All theories about human beings, especially insofar as they suggest policies, are intertwined with ethics. Why Profitability Matters, and Market Forces Are Not Random This crackpot hates the efficient market hypothesis and also modern portfolio theory (i.e. an index of stocks is just as good as any handpicked set, often better) because it implies that entrepreneurs aren't loving magic wizards that create profits where there were none before. Social Darwinism and the Free Market Please don't smear libertarians as social darwinists. It's really mean They do too care about the poor!Abolish the FBI All government employees should live in poverty, just like in the free market posted:Like all employees of the FBI, James Comey lives off the sweat of the American taxpayer. His large salary, upon retirement, will be converted into a very generous pension. Like most federal employees in a high ranking position like his, Comey continues to look forward to decades of living at a standard of living far above what is experienced by ordinary people in the private sector. Here We Go Again: An August 2007 Redux Ask me about my hate-boner for central banks. It's huge posted:Nearly everywhere on the planet the giant financial bubbles created by the central banks during the last two decades are fracturing. Brexit Shows Why Central Planning Won't Work Brexit shows why you are wrong and I am right about everything posted:In the minds of interventionists... The cure for budget deficits is more spending. The cure for inflation and currency manipulation is to print more money. The way to get out of a deep hole is to increase the rate of one’s digging. Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:Got divorced back in February around the last time jrod went off reservation and got his rear end banned. You're the autistic one here, guy who can't seem to handle conversations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're the autistic one here, guy who can't seem to handle conversations. Hahn, yes fishmech you are rubber and I am in fact glue! ... Man I want a :caros: emoji now but I'm not nearly awful enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
HOE/suburbia chat is very relevant to libertarianism, it's why libertarians are so obsessed with property rights (aka because they want to keep out the negros)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're the autistic one here, guy who can't seem to handle conversations. "Conversations"? It's surprising that someone as pedantic as you doesn't know that a conversation is pleasant and enjoyable. Talking with you is more like having a root canal sans anesthesia and thus cannot be called a conversation by any reasonable definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
So, either suburbs were created by the divinely providential hand of the free market, or the diabolical influence of the state. But they're racist and allow frightened upper-middle class white people to keep out minorities since it's no longer acceptable to appear racist. So they're here to stay, just like everything else libertarians like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
You guys should read Bowling Alone. It talks about the isolating effects of the suburb pretty well and it's a classic sociological text so I guarantee that Libertarians hate it
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Conversations"? It's surprising that someone as pedantic as you doesn't know that a conversation is pleasant and enjoyable. Talking with you is more like having a root canal sans anesthesia and thus cannot be called a conversation by any reasonable definition. That's nice that you have issues, but it's not really relevant. QuarkJets posted:HOE/suburbia chat is very relevant to libertarianism, it's why libertarians are so obsessed with property rights (aka because they want to keep out the negros) Yes, it really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Infrastructure is important so you can travel to doctors and secure notes proving you were actually sick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Was Mises a Cynic? That coercion argument is straight out of Hobbes and I love that they're using it. If coerced action is still covered by the action axiom, then coercion by the government shouldn't be the death blow they pretend it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That coercion argument is straight out of Hobbes and I love that they're using it. If coerced action is still covered by the action axiom, then coercion by the government shouldn't be the death blow they pretend it is. I didn't read all of this until you quoted the link, and I originally thought he meant "Cynic" in the sense of Diogenes. Poor choice of words on his part, because he inadvertently makes a compelling Cynic/Stoic case against the libertarian definition of "coercion."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That coercion argument is straight out of Hobbes and I love that they're using it. If coerced action is still covered by the action axiom, then coercion by the government shouldn't be the death blow they pretend it is. You ever read this piece by Corey Robin? https://www.thenation.com/article/first-counter-revolutionary/
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
No it got really boring around halfway through. Sorry I failed you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 20:16
|
|