Communist Education?

[JohnT]

No, it is the result of the people driving their cars.

And define "too much" in terms other than "more than I'd like for them to."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT

I would have thought that you would have been better informed.

This happened in Los Angeles which then embarked on a massive road building program in 1947. This was the prototype for the New Jersey Garden Parkway and Turnpike and then the rest of the states up until Eisenhower started the National Highway program in 1956.

A consortium of automakers, tire manufacturers and other interested parties bought up the public streetcar system and tore up the tracks to replace them with buses. IIRC they did this elsewhere too.

You should look before you leap.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, you make a good point about socialism. If you define the meausrement of success the way you do, why of course socialism is a success.

The buggy-whip worker has his job and is making a good living. All is well in paradise.

I think it would be better to have trains and let the buggy-whip worker work in that industry, and just cut working hours down. How does that sound?

[JohnT]

In 1947.... 30+ years after the Model T was introduced. 35,000,000 cars on the road at that time and you think people were just going to switch to public transportation 'cause of a few LA trolleys?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
Yes, because we all know how many streetcars existed in the US (Yeah, I know Agathon isn't from around here... but you are) in 1910. Millions! Billions!

It's not my fault you are ignorant on this issue. Public transportation which was not dependent on gasoline was deliberately sabotaged by corporate interests.

Them's just the facts.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by JohnT
In 1947.... 30+ years after the Model T was introduced. 35,000,000 cars on the road at that time and you think people were just going to switch to public transportation 'cause of a few LA trolleys?

Don't be ridiculous. Efficient public transportation was destroyed and roads were built at the public expense. Rail was de-emphasized in favour of roads, with predictable results.

If you want to sound off like an ignorant **** that's fine with me, but you should read around first.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
No, it is the result of the people driving their cars.

People driving thier cars is the result of people driving their cars.

Originally posted by JohnT
And define "too much" in terms other than "more than I'd like for them to."

Why?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The point is that real benefit to society should be the measure of your system of production. You and Ned are arguing for the market, and Che and Gepap have given you a good argument against the market. So if your only response is to say that the market is needed to create jobs I suggest you try again.

Does not compute.

The real arguement is demand is ultimately the driver of production not supply. Regardless of inventory position etc. demand (market wants) ultimately fuels production Mr. Econ.

You may scoff at the frivolity of some product offerings (i.e. the demand) but hey you get to vote with your dollars, no?

The mere fact that frivoulous offerings actually provide employment and value to society beyond their insignificant worth is not worth discussing tho'.

And of course the mere existance of these frivolous products belittles all the worthwhile advances market economies actually provide.

Finaly, I also question the speed of innovation in such beautiful communist states. How many years did it take communist states to introduce air bags in their vehicles?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


What is your point?

Is it simply that marketing is wrong? That new market creation and appeal to consumers is inherently evil. That frivolous products should never be made?

I guess we should simply eliminate these frivoulous endevours and add to the jobless situation then no?

Aha, but you see the point- captalism is so productive that only by having resources spent on these things, as opposed to say, better health care for millions, you leave millions unemployed.

Which begins to expose the problems with capitalism. Notice that capitalism and the free market are not synonimous: after all, the market is old, and a trully free market would also undermine business- it must be regulated even if it comes to the very idea of copyright, which is, after all, a barrier to a trully FREE markets.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


It's not my fault you are ignorant on this issue. Public transportation which was not dependent on gasoline was deliberately sabotaged by corporate interests.

Them's just the facts.

Darn those corporations who brainwashed folks into thinking that the freedom to travel was something worthwhile.

Guess we shoulda just let all them crops rot in the fields. Whoops forgot. Them there tractors woulda been able to plant them crops. No problem.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The real arguement is demand is ultimately the driver of production not supply. Regardless of inventory position etc. demand (market wants) ultimately fuels production Mr. Econ.

Are you arguing that business doesn't create demand for their products? I think it's obvious that it does.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You may scoff at the frivolity of some product offerings (i.e. the demand) but hey you get to vote with your dollars, no?

Do you understand that just because a product benefits me personally that it doesn't necessarily benefit society?

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The mere fact that frivoulous offerings actually provide employment and value to society beyond their insignificant worth is not worth discussing tho'.

That's ridiculous. We don't need to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. If 'work' doesn't create anything beneficial to society then it shouldn't be done.

[Agathon]

From a quick Google search:

http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100/CarCult-Big3.htm

http://www.bilderberg.org/socal.htm

http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html

I'm sitting down now reading a Republican Conservative (Clyde Prestowitz) talk about it.

Some people disagree about the nature and depth of this little scheme, but it's not a whacked out conspiracy theory. It's a point of scholarly dispute if anything.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Are you arguing that business doesn't create demand for their products? I think it's obvious that it does.

I've never argued anything of the sort. I fully understand companies attempt to generate interest in their products. It is the responsibility of the individual to understand their own benefit. Or would you prefer to deny the individual this right?

Do you understand that just because a product benefits me personally that it doesn't necessarily benefit society?

One must question whether anything could help you.

That's ridiculous. We don't need to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. If 'work' doesn't create anything beneficial to society then it shouldn't be done.

This from the commie.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Aha, but you see the point- captalism is so productive that only by having resources spent on these things, as opposed to say, better health care for millions, you leave millions unemployed.

Which begins to expose the problems with capitalism. Notice that capitalism and the free market are not synonimous: after all, the market is old, and a trully free market would also undermine business- it must be regulated even if it comes to the very idea of copyright, which is, after all, a barrier to a trully FREE markets.

I'll not argue there are always better things to produce. The choice of production tho' IMHO belongs to the masses in the form of voting with money than in the hands of a much smaller committe.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Or would you prefer to deny the individual this right?

You take individual benefit to be the measure of a good economy. Economists use social benefit. And I don't have a response to the rest of your spam.