I think high-density housing is OK-if you have reasonable people. I DON’T want to live next to people who make noise every hour of the day. living in the 'burbs is nice-you get to have distance from the neighbors. Ever notice how one run-down house on the block can spoil the whole neighborhood? That 9in essence0 is the issue with 1930’s-style cities.
Well…I can’t see examples of where the market (when it’s free from political interference) has failed wrt this discussion. Could you give me some examples?
For instance, what I was talking about in this thread. The market is ALREADY starting to toss up alternatives. I was reading yesterday that Toyota is planning a new line of plug in hybrids using LI batteries, and are already developing a new battery technology that will be cheaper, lighter and hold more charge. They expect to be producing 1 million new hybrids a year by 2010. GM and Honda were also mentioned as doing similar things (they predict around 500k new hybrids per company per year in the same time frame) as well as several others.
Why? Is the government making them do so? No. People WANT them because of the current price conditions…i.e. The Market (which is really just a fancy way of saying you, me and everyone else coupled with the companies who provide goods and services) is demanding them, and so The Market is making those products available in growing numbers as demand increases.
Same with housing. If people WANT to move back into the city centers (for economic, social or other reasons) then they WILL. You don’t need to force them for their own good…they will (by and large) do what they want to do, which will just so happen to coincide with what they NEED.
I’m sorry that my way of describing this turns people off to Capitalism or is perhaps incomprehensible…IANAE nor do I play one on TV.
Well, that is because The Market (i.e. you and me and everyone else) hasn’t decided yet what is the best new alternative yet…to be honest we are only just starting (as a collective) to come to grips that we NEED an alternative. Before the last year or so gas was relatively cheap (in the US)…so The Market wanted products and services that reflected that cheap price, coupled with other needs (safety, large capacity, status…myriad demands and requirements). It’s only as gas started to rise (say since 2006) that people have begun slowly to look at alternatives.
And what has the market done? Well, the first thing is that hybrids went from a low volume status symbol to being in demand…and manufacturers went from producing a few for a niche market (or not producing any at all) to ramping up production to meet demand. Now every car manufacturer I can think of has a line of either high mileage vehicles and/or hybrids in it’s stable…and production is ramping up in all of them to get as many to market as they can in the next few years.
Why? Is the government holding a gun to the collective heads of car manufacturers? Again, no. People (a.k.a. The Market) are DEMANDING these cars, and because car manufacturers want to make a profit they are MAKING them to meet that demand.
If gas prices continue to go up then new technologies will be in demand as people look for new alternatives to bring the cost of personal transport down. If the price of gas stabilizes then some of the pressure will come off and people will move to available alternatives in the interim (such as all those million hybrids a year Toyota is counting on selling after 2010).
I don’t see why people don’t believe this will happen when they could look around and see it happening today. Car manufacturers are pouring billions into R&D for everything from fuel cells to new battery technology to alternative fuels to hybrid technology. Which one will eventually supplant the current ICE? Who knows…people will try out alternatives until one or two emerge as the new standard. The alternative to letting The Market (a.k.a. us) decide what we want is to have the government decide what is best…by fiat…and then force us to it. I’m not sanguine about the probable result of such intervention myself.
-XT
Maybe I missed a post somewhere, but who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
Sure. I don’t want to hijack this thread into a debate about global warming, but let’s assume that it’s real and that it’s caused by humans. If that’s the case, then the market has failed to internalize the cost of CO2, which is why people are talking about carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems.
But really, our whole transportation infrastructure is a classic market-failure problem. If you want to build a freeway or an oil pipeline, you have to negotiate with hundreds, maybe thousands of property owners. If anyone of the property owners refuses to sell-that is, if he holds out–you don’t get to build the pipeline or the freeway. That’s why we use government eminent domain powers to get those things built. Our transportation infrastructure is the result of an overcoming of a market failure by the government. But note that in doing this, we used the government to favor certain types of transportation over others. We could have done the same thing with public transport, and in some areas of the country we have, but largely we chose not to. The fact that we’re so heavily dependent on cars is because we choose to use government power to create the system for cars while neglecting to set up a similar system for public transport. If we had treated them equally, some people who currently drive cars would instead opt for public transport.
Maybe. But we do give a tax break for hybrids and some states have started to allow hybrids to use carpool lanes even if the car is singly occupied. That is, again, a government distortion of the market which changes the relative value of the hybrid to the non-hybrid. Again, you’re simply ignoring the market as it’s currently structured.
Here’s what I mean by bad economic arguments. I agree with spoke-: I don’t see anyone in this thread advocating that people be forced to move into city centers. I’ve pointed out that we distort the market to incentivize sprawl and disincentivize denser living. If I were to use your terminology, then we would be “forcing” people towards sprawl. Whether it’s for their own good or not, I leave up to you.
As for your claim that people will do what they “NEED,” again this is bad economic reasoning. There are a lot of reasons that people don’t buy what they need (say, because of information assymetry problems). Assuming that just because people buy something, that’s what they wanted, isn’t really economically valid.
Again, I don’t know how many times I have to state this, but we distort the market to favor certain types of products. For example, we’ve been giving a pretty sizable tax break to a number of SUV owners. That hides the true cost of SUV ownership, making the SUV cheaper than it otherwise would be. Had we not been doing that (and all the other myriad subsidies we give to gas), people might have started to change over to more fuel efficient vehicles earlier.
Again, tax breaks and government benefits for hybrid ownership distort the market. The government may not be holding a gun to anyone’s head, but its certainly pushing them in certain directions.
There’s so much wrong here, I don’t know where to start to unpack it. This is one possible scenario. But it’s not a necessary scenario. If we structured our tax breaks so they were aimed at fuel efficiency (say, you get a bigger tax break the more fuel efficient your car is), then it would be more plausible. But when you hand out big tax breaks for SUVs, which takes off some of the cost of ownership from the owner and puts it on all of us, then you don’t guarantee such a scenario.
And even if we were in an ideal market, there’s no guarantee that this scenario would come to pass. I’ve read discussion that there are practical limits to fuel efficiency because of safety requirements. Now, I’m not a mechanical engineer, so I can’t really evaluate that, but let’s say that there is a practical limit. And let’s say fuel prices keep increasing at the current rate. Then, we’re pretty much stuck in a boat where the benefits of hybrids become rather inconsequential. Would this happen? I don’t know. But there’s no particular reason the scenario you paint has to happen either. At least if we structured the market to spur competition towards fuel efficiency, we’d have a better shot of your scenario panning out, but we don’t, so we make it less likely that it will happen.
I’m starting to think you don’t read my posts. Let’s talk about fuel cells. A conversion to hydrogen fuel requires an infrastructure buildout, and just like for the seawater cars, there are plenty of scenarios under which such a buildout won’t make sense economically. Again, it depends on the marginal cost of the buildout, and we’ll have to use eminent domain powers to build the infrastructure. We’d probably also have to subsidize it in a number of ways, just like we do gasoline.
I’m not particularly against using government to structure markets. But I do question why we should structure them towards sprawl and individual transport, and why we should penalize people for denser living.
On a second read, I feel that my previous post may be coming off snippy. It’s not my intention. Please disregard portions that you feel are rude. Sorry.
I don’t want to hijack the thread either BrightNShiny. I’ll limit myself to a few brief responses and leave it to you if you want to continue to hijack the thread or do this again in another thread sometime.
You see it as a market failure that something that is still being debated and is unresolved by the public at large hasn’t been ‘fixed’ yet by the market? Do you understand what the market is?
The fact that the market is starting to address this as the public becomes aware of the possible effects of CO2 pretty much shows that the market is indeed addressing this problem. As the PUBLIC debate on the subject is far from settled yet (i.e. as the public has not yet accepted that A) there is a problem and B) we should do something about it) the market is only starting to put out the first alternatives to it.
It seems to me that you want the market to anticipate POSSIBLE problems that you (or other individuals) THINK should be addressed. You are right about one thing though…the market certainly doesn’t work that way.
So you say…but to me your arguments are unconvincing. We didn’t suddenly wake up and decide to favor individual transport over mass transit. Mass transit actually had a pretty hefty head start. While I agree that individual transport stemmed (somewhat) out of the government creating the initial infrastructure (for military purposes in many cases), it was the people driving the system…not the system driving the people by fiat.
You seem to be under the impression that here in the US the government decided that personal transport was best for everyone and so favored it over mass transport…and that really isn’t the case. It’s more a case of the people WANTING personal transport (and making their desires known both through the market by purchasing cars and trucks and through government by electing officials who pushed through the policies to build the infrastructure they desired).
IOW, if people WANTED mass transit over personal transport then that would have been what they would have voted for and the direction we as a nation would have gone. Instead, even before the road infrastructure was in place folks were buying Fords and driving them on rutted roads across country. The car/truck is what people wanted over the subway/railroad…and so they push both the market and government to meet their needs. Instead, as you seem to be suggesting, the government or the market pushing the people where they didn’t want to go instead of to mass transport.
IMHO, giving people a tax break for buying hybrids is like giving people money for drinking beer or buying porn. It’s a waste. The market was already primed to move toward hybrids without government incentives. Take those government incentives away tomorrow and do you think the market for hybrids will magically collapse considering current gas prices??
I agree that the government sticking it’s thumbs in distorts the market. Kind of the point actually.
shrug To me it was implicit in the OP…and also in the tone of your own post here. The tone of the OP to me was that people living in suburbs is bad…so they should move back to the city centers and live in higher population densities a la Europeans. If the OP and others don’t mean to MAKE people do so then I’m fine with it…if people choose to move back to higher population city centers then that’s fine by me.
I wouldn’t hold my breath though. YMMV of course.
It’s bad economic reasoning that people will buy what they think they need and want? Interesting. So…is it good economic reasoning to decide for them? People (individuals) don’t always make rational choices…I agree with that.
It’s interesting that you would bring up the CAFE standards. It was the government regulations that (unintentionally) distorted the market there. And guess what? I agree…it was stupid and it (and of course market forces like cheap gasoline and the public desire for SUV type multipurpose vehicles) lead to the virtual explosion of SUV’s in the US. I disagree this was a market failure if that is what you are trying to say.
What subsidies do we give to gas out of curiosity? The fact we don’t tax it high enough? Or do you mean subsidies for things like ethanol?
And you are under the impression that I approve of the government distorting the market by in essence encouraging people to buy what they already would?
Ah…I see. So, it’s ok to distort the market and have the government interfere as long as they do so in ways YOU want? Perhaps you should take a quick look at CAFE and then get back to me on this. Pay close attention to who was driving the train there and what they THOUGHT they were achieving. Then tell me all about how the manipulations you would like would not have any of those nasty unintended consequences to…
There is no particular reason it won’t happen, either. The Japanese are investing billions in fuel cell technology. The Europeans are investing billions in all electric technology. American companies are investing billions looking at both. People are looking into alternative fuels, bio-fuels, solar, etc. All of these folks aren’t delusional. Several of these technologies are on the cusp of being ready for production.
Sure, engineering challenges remain. If we go fuel cells, how will the hydrogen (or perhaps methane) be created or obtained? How will the infrastructure be built? How will the logistics and distribution be handled? No idea to be honest…but in the end it’s a matter of engineering and capital. And perhaps those limitations will mean that fuel cells AREN’T the alternative technology that takes over. Maybe we simply suck it up and accept global warming or climate change as the price for our civilization and just stay with the ICE burning hydrocarbons that will become slowly but increasingly more expensive…necessitating more fuel efficiency and hybrid technology. Maybe we go all electric and develop longer ranged, faster charging and lighter battery technology (several such technologies are being looked at and developed right now). Maybe solar hybrids are the way to go.
The point is that no one knows what will supersede our current technology. I seriously doubt, considering the potential profits we are talking about for whoever DOES develop a viable alternative, that nothing will be developed forcing people to abandon personal transport in the US and flee back to the cities.
And there is time. It’s not like the oil will run out tomorrow…or next year…or next decade. Probably not even next century. The market has only just begun to be prodded in the last year or so as gas prices in the US started to climb to a point where it got peoples notice. Assuming those gas prices continue a slow but steady rise (followed by periods where the price stabilizes before it advances again), people will begin clamoring for alternatives…and companies seeing that there is a market for those alternatives will develop and sell them.
Yeah…I figured that was the case. The short answer of course is we structure it that way because people in this country WANT it that way. Democracy and all that. If a majority of citizens decide they are yearning to breath the cramped air of their fellow man or ride the train and abandon the car then eventually that is what will happen. And the market will then shift so that we develop (or re-invent) a rail infrastructure to meet their needs and dense housing for them to live in.
Until they do though the market and the government will continue to ‘structure them towards sprawl and individual transport’…because you know, that’s what the majority of the people want.
Out of curiosity, how does the government penalize people for denser living exactly?
At any rate I’ve said my piece. I won’t hijack the thread anymore…now back to why we won’t go back to the '30s!
ETA:
I didn’t get that from you. You are passionate about your position…as am I. I didn’t mean mine to be ‘snippy’ or ‘rude’ either. I’m just passionate about this subject. I do apologize to the OP about the hijack though.
-XT
I’m all in favour of a return to the 1930s if it means there are flying boats, trams, and African Safaris on offer. 
Seriously though, I think we’re just going to see a shift towards electric or hydrogen vehicles, increased public transport (light rail/trams/LPG buses), and more expensive overseas flights.
I agree and I even think that the Federal gas tax should be significantly increased (with certain exemptions for basic transport needs–trucking food around, buses, police, etc.).
I felt the Fed. gas tax really needed to be hiked 20 years ago or so, but that was politically impossible thanks to the knuckle-draggers so the gas-guzzling subsidies continued. Now is the time for that shit to stop.
You obviously have no faith in the Invisible Hand!
It Knows All, It Sees All! It is the only known force greater than God!!!111
Just do what ever It says and you’ll be all right. It may lead to Swiftian Proposals and Soylent Green, but dig It!!! It’s all for the best!!!
Yay Invisible Hand!!!
XT, I’ll leave it to the OP to decide if he wants the thread to continue to go in this direction. ralph124c?
I think returning to some of the 1930’s living conditions would be even easier now. With the 21st century’s improved communications and efficient delivery services, personal transportation problems don’t matter as much.
Partly, but partly as a result of government policies (federal and local) having nothing to do with market demand. You can read the story in The Geography of Nowhere.
By “Efficient delivery services”, I’m guessing you mean stuff like Amazon sending your newly purchased widget out to you overnight by UPS, or similar. Delivering stuff currently involves a lot of planes, trucks and vans, using cheap oil. If oil gets more expensive, there goes your cheap delivery of stuff ordered online.
I would say start another thread on it Bright…you will likely get more interesting responses than mine in that case at any rate. Also, I’m gearing up for another overseas trip next week so I’ll only be popping in and out for a while. Hopefully my hotels internet connection won’t totally suck as I’ll be having to VPN back to another office in southern New Mexico…which is probably going to totally suck…no porn or 'dope for me most likely!
-XT
There are many efficiencies in modern delivery services and communications that do not increase the use of oil; in fact, they may decrease it. Computer routing, sorting, labelling, etc., means that a package gets to its destination the most efficient way. “Efficient” means the cheapest, and fuel is most definitely included in the equation.
When I was a kid, I used to order radio parts from Allied Radio in Chicago. It took about a month for a small (under 20 lbs) package to arrive, usually badly battered, via parcel post, to my house 300 miles from Chicago. Now I can get a similar package in relatively good condition in one day for less (in constant dollars) than 50 years ago. And the order was instantly placed online instead of mailed, a savings of time, money and human effort.
And some delivery services use no physical movement at all. Most software can be delivered thru the Internet in a matter of minutes. Don’t you think this is a more efficient use of resources than a 1930’s postman?
How did they deliver software in the 1930’s??
-XT
Yeah, I grant you that warehousing and dispatch would have come a long way since the 1930s. Does it matter how quickly they can process your order, box it and have it on the loading dock? It’s still got to be physically moved from the loading dock to your place, doesn’t it? Today that means trucks and planes and other trucks. This is all viable at the moment but would it remain so without affordable oil?
Yes, that sounds like a big improvement in efficiency. Hopefully we’d never go back to the earlier level of service, but that doesn’t mean we could maintain the current standard with increased transport costs. Some improvements we can keep, others may have to be surrendered due to higher transportation expenses.
This is good. I never meant to imply that technological advances hadn’t improved efficiency and the level of service. I’m just saying that most of the services we now take for granted are cheap oil dependant.
Sure…I don’t see why it wouldn’t. The price of oil isn’t going to skyrocket tomorrow to $20/gallon. It MIGHT to $4/gallon this year…perhaps even $5/gallon. This will simply make come items more expensive and encourage people to look into alternatives (my guess is initially by looking at using long haul rail more extensively, and using the truck for the shorter legs between train stops).
The thing is…European gas is quite a bit more expensive than ours is…and they don’t seem to be having troubles getting goods and services moved about. Our oil is not likely to reach the level of some European countries for years yet…so, we have time. And with time all manner of alternative are possible.
It doesn’t me we can’t maintain it either. Myself, I’d say the odds of us NOT being able to maintain something so critical to our society and civilization are vanishingly small…especially when you consider all the alternatives currently being developed and tested. Maybe in the future big rigs will run exclusively on bio-diesel. Perhaps they will run on solar hybrids…or even on an embedded electrical line in the road supplied by small pebble bed reactors. Maybe they will be hydrogen/solar hybrids, or methane fuel cells…or use coffee grounds in their Mr. Fusion device bolted on the side. Or maybe we go back to using rail traffic more extensively…there is a lot of coal out there after all, or perhaps hydrogen/solar…or one of the box cars is actually a nuclear reactor powering the train.
No one knows what it will be. But I’d bet it will be SOMETHING. Simply put we aren’t going to allow our entire logistics infrastructure to collapse because oil is to expensive and we can’t figure out anything to replace it. There is to much money at stake here…hundreds of billions, even trillions. Not to mention lives.
-XT
A minor, but significant, nitpick. Many modern conveniences are dependent upon ENERGY use, not necessarily OIL use. The world may run out of sweet crude oil at any price. But as long as the sun shines, it will never run out of energy.
Silly question – by horse and buggy, of course.