Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The population density in Europe is different in part because gas is more expensive and they have better public transportation.

Not really.

Europe was densly populated in comparison to the USA long before the existence of the automobile.

I'm sure it has some impact on an ongoing basis, but European cities are the way they are primarily because they were built and grew into major cities before the automobile, or even the steam engine.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
kid taking a more economically rational position than Arrian or Ogie. Now Ive seen EVERTHING!

I dispute that, sir!

Of course, you realize, this means war.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
If they "would be doing it anyway" there is no need for the subsidies. You said it yourself not two posts ago!

So joe runs a solar power plant efficiently, and makes money. Tom does so inefficiently, and loses money. We give money to Tom, but not to Jack? Good incentives there. A
or you establish detailed federal standards for what an efficient solar power plant looks like. Way to encourage innovation, huh?

If youre going to subsidize X, and do so efficiently, you need to subsidize all X, and equally. Otherwise you need an agency to process subsidy request, rank criteria, etc. Thats an inferior solution to taxing the stuff you want to discourage.

[Arrian]

What? That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'd give money to both Tom and Joe. And Bob, and Sarah...

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Re: public transport...

Let's not sit here and pretend that America = Europe. The population density is completely different.

More should be done, yes. But we're still going to have lots of cars & trucks. So making sure those cars & trucks are fuel efficient (and/or are using fuels other than gasoline) seems like a pretty good idea...

-Arrian

But you get that by making fuel more expensive. You give the consumer an incentive to buy a smaller or more fuel efficient vehicle.

But you leave him the choice, if maybe he prefers to respond to the price signal by buying a smaller vehicle OR taking the bus, OR combining trips, OR carpooling, OR being more efficient in his driving habits OR anything else. And he will balance the options based on the actual different impacts in gallons of what he does.


Look, the notion is that importing oil is something that imposes a cost on us all, its using a 'resource' in a sense. So the consumer should pay for it. We could, instead of charging the consumer for the steel that goes into his car, make steel free, but subsidize steel plants, place caps on how much steel goes into a car, etc. Everyone can see why that would be silly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
What? That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'd give money to both Tom and Joe. And Bob, and Sarah...

-Arrian

so you WOULD be subsidizing those who dont in fact need it. That might be a rational policy, but doesnt seem consistent with your disagree with Kid, unless you think ALL alternate fuels are unprofitible now, which is questionable. In fact its obviously false. I open my shades on cool days. Isnt that solar power? Are you going to subsidize me?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
If they "would be doing it anyway" there is no need for the subsidies. You said it yourself not two posts ago!

You missed my point obviously. Corporations do produce alternative energy. We want them to produce more. That's the issue, not whether they produce alternative energy or not.

If it was profitable now, there would be solar power plants now. But there are very few, producing an insignificant amount of power. Subsidies (and/or tax breaks, which are the same thing, really) would be aimed at making it more profitable so that companies would invest in the technology. The whole idea, of course, is that once they've worked out the kinks (whilst oil prices continue to rise), it becomes profitable or at least sustainable w/o the subsidies, which you can then remove.

-Arrian

You do realize that there is a very good chance that the kinks will not be worked out. Solar power will probably never work in rainy states for example. Corporate America has a good idea about what the chances are. What you want to do is give them more money to spend on it than they are willing to spend themselves. Do you see the waste?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not really.

Europe was densly populated in comparison to the USA long before the existence of the automobile.

I'm sure it has some impact on an ongoing basis, but European cities are the way they are primarily because they were built and grew into major cities before the automobile, or even the steam engine.

-Arrian

Cheap gas and lack of proper public transportation has created less population density. Do you deny that?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
What? That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'd give money to both Tom and Joe. And Bob, and Sarah...

-Arrian

So you give Tom money for doing something that he would do anyway without the money.

edit: oops, Joe, sorry

[lord of the mark]

the US was less densely populated than europe in 1900, due to our large empty areas, or lightly cultivated agricultural areas. AFAIK our largest metro areas were not significantly less dense than Europes. Public transit use is mainly driven by metro density, not national density. The steam engine did not have a huge impact on metro densities.

IIUC new development in Euro cities has been less dense in recent decades when the automobile has become more affordable thanks to rising incomes. Im not sure if its quite hit the lows that are found in US suburban developments.

And more importanly, density is not the only issue, as neotrad/neo urbanist designers have rightly pointed out. Its how you arrange the density. We have areas that are pitifully laid out in terms of being transit or pedestrian friendly, and could be much better at the same density. This undoubtedly owes SOMETHING to the low cost of operating an automobile.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Cheap gas and lack of proper public transportation has created less population density. Do you deny that?

Nope. That is true. I'm saying that, in comparing the US to Europe, it's actually a small part of why the two are so different.

It's quite important in development now and in the future, though, and is something we should tackle.

I was just trying to point out that pre-20th century that wasn't a factor. There are other reasons for the differences in pop density. And even if our cities got denser, there would still be vast tracks of land between them.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The eeeevil corporations can be useful, you know. If you co-opt them by convincing them that pursuit of alternative fuels could be profitable, then instead of fighting the gummint tooth and nail, they help. And, of course, make profits, which I know is terrible

-Arrian

Taxing would also lead to profits. If I make solar plants, and oil becomes more expensive due to taxes, I make more profit. This is not an arguement for subsidies.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So you give Tom money for doing something that he would do anyway without the money.

edit: oops, Joe, sorry

In this example, Joe makes out like a bandit, yeah. However, there aren't many Joes out there right now (like I said, solar power is a tiny itty bitty piece of our energy generation). The idea is to get more Joes.

Maybe Joe is profitable b/c he's in Arizona, and with present technology only solar plants out there can work. Perhaps subsidizing one in a less favorable local is dumb... I'm not sure, to be honest.

I'd also like to see more funding of R&D. Whether that's done via contests with the gummint offering the prizes, or directly by the EPA (ugh), I'm not sure either.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Nope. That is true. I'm saying that, in comparing the US to Europe, it's actually a small part of why the two are so different.

It's quite important in development now and in the future, though, and is something we should tackle.

I was just trying to point out that pre-20th century that wasn't a factor. There are other reasons for the differences in pop density. And even if our cities got denser, there would still be vast tracks of land between them.

-Arrian

1. What european neighborhood in 1895 was denser than the Lower East Side of Manhattan? None, I think.

2. Land between cities is only relevant to intercity transportation, which is relatively unimportant in terms of transit usage, here or in Europe.

[Barnabas]

Poorer countries with huge cities have well developed public transportation, because people dont own cars, usually you dont have to wait more than 10 minutes for trains and buses.