Individualism - expensive?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
The US is a very cheap place to live, especially in the places where little is communal, such as rural areas. Scarcity would only accentuate a move toward these places.

Um, that's because you aren't paying the full cost. If you need to pay for the full cost of petrol, road building, pipe and cable laying, etc., living in those areas is incredibly expensive.

Unless you live like a hermit, or at least an Amish.

[notyoueither]

Re: Individualism - expensive?

Originally posted by Dracon II
and katrina/rita...

You're joking, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's because city planning in the US, if there were such a thing, was completely borked. Cities were built in completely wasteful ways around the automobile instead of public transports and the bicycle.

Actually, they were built according to the circumstances, like all cities are.

Chinese and some other cities are even more borked due to the congested areas that concentrate pollutants over a smaller area with much higher population densities.

How could you ever have designed your cities without taking the auto into account? Barbarians!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I don't know, but I've often pondered this example:

When I was a kid, our family had one TV. We watched it together, fighting over what to watch, but that was that. One TV.

Some years back, I asked my students at the University of Pittsburgh how many of them had grown up with their own, individual TVs. In a class of 40, every single one of them had.

Similarly, my mother, who lives alone, now has one tv in every room she spends time in -- four tvs in all (bedroom, kitchen, sewing room, family room) for one person.

Appalling, right? Maybe, but here's the question: if you adjust the cost of a 1973 tv to 2005 dollars, how many tvs would it buy? I have no idea, but I'll bet it's several.

So what am I saying? I'm saying that I don't think Individualism is expensive; in fact, I think that gets the formula exactly backwards. I think consumption is cheap -- cheaper than ever -- and cheap consumables encourage atomization (NOT individualism), by discouraging sharing and communal ownership.

[DaShi]

Agreed, the most common complaint of Chinese cities is how poorly they are designed for traffic of any kind. It's not getting better as city planning is divided into separate departments that don't communicate with one another. I loathe my short commute to the hospital each morning.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, they were built according to the circumstances, like all cities are.

As I said, lack of city planning, and cheap petrol that doesn't begin to reflect the total cost, etc.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Chinese and some other cities are even more borked due to the congested areas that concentrate pollutants over a smaller area with much higher population densities.

Most of these pollutants are generated by cars.

Originally posted by notyoueither
How could you ever have designed your cities without taking the auto into account? Barbarians!

Own goal

[DanS]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Um, that's because you aren't paying the full cost. If you need to pay for the full cost of petrol, road building, pipe and cable laying, etc., living in those areas is incredibly expensive.

Unless you live like a hermit, or at least an Amish.

Even paying full cost on these things, most rural areas would be absurdly cheap. Those items aren't really that expensive, even if you charge full freight. For instance, Adam Smith has said that an extra 50 cents a gallon in gasoline taxes would more than cover the full cost of gasoline (pollutants, roads, etc.). For an average person (15,000 miles a year/30 mpg), that would mean an extra $250 a year.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


As I said, lack of city planning, and cheap petrol that doesn't begin to reflect the total cost, etc.

Think again. Many of these cities were laid out while horses were all the rage.

[notyoueither]

dp

[notyoueither]

Of course, now you can argue that oats were and will be again 'the basic commodity underpinning the growth of the world economy'.

After all, the Americas were always blessed with being able to grow more than enough fuel to run the economy on.

Dracon may have a point, but the Americas are centuries away from the sorts of population densities that would put a damper on individualism. I would think he would be familiar with the circumstances.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Most of these pollutants are generated by cars.

You mean that yellow cloud that often covers Hangzhou comes from cars in the coal plant nearby. What to they do, drive them in circles to generate electricity?

Own goal

Really. I've been critical of your argumental style before. But if this is all you've got, I've been complimenting you.

[MrFun]

Re: Individualism - expensive?

Originally posted by Dracon II
I've noticed that Bush has finally told Americans that they need to cut down on unnecessary petrol consumption.

Ok -- so let's have the Bush administration slap a luxury tax on SUVs.

[DanS]

One thing to keep in mind is that while cities might be cheaper in some situations, they are incredibly expensive in others. If you have a family of four, public transportation as priced in many places costs a lot more than using a car, for instance.

[:) Smiley]

Most trips by families are not done as a group; this is why many suburban or rural families wil have multiple cars.

I also find the 50 cent gas tax being sufficient to cover all externalities rather hard to believe.

[Dracon II]

I'm saying that I don't think Individualism is expensive; in fact, I think that gets the formula exactly backwards. I think consumption is cheap -- cheaper than ever -- and cheap consumables encourage atomization (NOT individualism), by discouraging sharing and communal ownership.

What are the factors making such things cheaper? Increased competition? Production in the 3rd world? Cheaper materials? Improved production processes?

Dracon may have a point, but the Americas are centuries away from the sorts of population densities that would put a damper on individualism. I would think he would be familiar with the circumstances.

Australia does have an incredibly low population density. But that's because 2/3rds of the country is arid/semi-arid. The fact is, Australia simply cannot sustain a high population density. We're already placing incredible strain on our ecosystem.