Do ghettos exist outside of cities, or do they exist because cities take wealth from financially productive run-down areas and use it to attract newer but relatively unproductive big-box stores in middle-class neighborhoods?
If the latter, it would appear that breaking up cities as if they were monopolies would prevent the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich and thereby prevent ghettos from forming.
My refrigerator needs to maintain a consistent temperature to prevent spoilage.
It needs to be between 32F and 40F (0C and 4.4C). The ideal temperature is 35F (1.7C). So the idea is that you would set it for 35 and if there's an electricity price spike, the setpoint would temporarily change to 40 to save you money.
There's a neighborhood "liveability" metric called the Popsicle Test: can a kid get to a store on her own, buy a popsicle, and get home again before it melts?
Today, unlike before WWII, most residential neighborhoods in the USA probably won't pass this liveability test. What's worse is we simply aren't allowed to build neighborhoods like that anymore because small neighborhood corner stores violate single-use zoning laws, and because we've decided that moving auto traffic quickly is more important than pedestrian safety. (In fact, they removed roadside trees because motorists kept hitting them. Now motorists hit pedestrians instead. How's that for progress?) So we've legislated our own independence away.
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."
Every commercial airport in the USA pays its own way...
Does any airport pay property taxes on land used for airport operations? In fact, did any airport pay for the land it sits on? Has an airline ever built an airport?
multiple studies have shown it will neither be economically viable
Those studies were funded by people who hope it won't be economically viable, so their findings aren't surprising.
nor a practical solution for its intended purpose of getting people off the highways
That's true. Creating an alternative to driving won't necessarily reduce driving. The real purpose of HSR is to be a vastly cheaper way of moving people around than highways and airports. For example, spending $68.4 billion on HSR will fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion for 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion for 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways.
de-industralization good? it is killing old people in Europe who can't afford the 'green' energy at three times the price
An adjustment period is to be expected when transitioning from an unustainable economy back to a sustainable one as people learn to wear sweaters indoors again, and to take in boarders to help share the bills as they did a century ago, etc. Unfortunately, people who are set in their ways are the most difficult to retrain, and that's likely why they are dying.
Many roads benefit taxpayers whether they use them or not
I don't think anybody doubts that. But the important question is whether each road is a net benefit. (A "net" benefit is when the benefit exceeds the cost.)
When we pay for roads with user fees, it's a simple thing to determine whether they are worth the cost (simply calculate revenue minus costs to the supplier), but it's almost impossible to tell when we pay for them with non-user taxes.
The other problem that occurs when we don't ask people to pay for things in proportion to the benefit each person receives from them is that people will overconsume that resource, and then we all pay more in the end.
And because no road pays for itself in gas taxes and user fees, you could argue that if the direct users aren't willing to pay for the roads we have without asking for subsidies, we have too many roads.
Ah, you're one of those people...using the wrong tape (such as the tape meat to mark an Express package on something you're shipping Priority or First Class)...
This is why smart people avoid rework by packing their stuff at the post office.
You're supposed to have everything packed up and ready to go before you walk in the door.
I guess you just can't please everyone all of the time.
HOAs are just an affront to your personal liberties and a money pit. Their enforced conformity preserves nothing and gives you nothing (except some light fascism).
Republicans believe in the free market not communism.
Then maybe you can list some Republicans who object to the currently widespread practice of cities forcing businesses and developers to provide more parking than the market wants and is willing to pay for of its own accord? Are there any true laissez-faire Republicans in Congress?
No, Republicans quickly turn into socialists whenever it benefits Big Oil.
For example, I would bet dollars to donuts that the Sci-Fi channel didn't make any money for years.
And that's because people who wanted SyFy didn't pay more for it as they would have if it were unbundled. So to keep the channel attractive to cable companies, SyFy was forced to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get viewers.
The thing about airlines is that they unbundle things that almost everyone wants. Food, drinks, legroom, checked baggage.
If it's something people don't all want equally, what the airlines are doing makes perfect sense. Unless you arrived at the airport hungry, thirsty, tall, or bringing a lot of luggage--then you might disagree.
The shuttle, spaceplane aproach attempts to build something that is both a rocket and an airplane. The result may be both rocket and plane but it is neither a very good rocket nor a very good plane.
It's worse than that. It's a rocket, an airplane, and an orbital re-entry vehicle. A suborbital craft is much better at being both a rocket and an airplane.
Today's newest, most fuel-efficient jetliners achieve about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while electric bullet trains run at the equivalent of 300-500 passenger-miles per gallon. So air travel has a long way to go before it's as fuel-efficient as ground transportation.
Also, bullet trains are faster, curb-to-curb, for distances up to about 400-500 miles. And you can add intermediate stops at a cost of only a few minutes each.
So there's great potential to reduce air travel at no cost to our standard of living.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." --C. A. R. Hoare
Slashdot Mirror
Do ghettos exist outside of cities, or do they exist because cities take wealth from financially productive run-down areas and use it to attract newer but relatively unproductive big-box stores in middle-class neighborhoods?
If the latter, it would appear that breaking up cities as if they were monopolies would prevent the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich and thereby prevent ghettos from forming.
It needs to be between 32F and 40F (0C and 4.4C). The ideal temperature is 35F (1.7C). So the idea is that you would set it for 35 and if there's an electricity price spike, the setpoint would temporarily change to 40 to save you money.
There's a neighborhood "liveability" metric called the Popsicle Test: can a kid get to a store on her own, buy a popsicle, and get home again before it melts?
Today, unlike before WWII, most residential neighborhoods in the USA probably won't pass this liveability test. What's worse is we simply aren't allowed to build neighborhoods like that anymore because small neighborhood corner stores violate single-use zoning laws, and because we've decided that moving auto traffic quickly is more important than pedestrian safety. (In fact, they removed roadside trees because motorists kept hitting them. Now motorists hit pedestrians instead. How's that for progress?) So we've legislated our own independence away.
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."
Does any airport pay property taxes on land used for airport operations? In fact, did any airport pay for the land it sits on? Has an airline ever built an airport?
Those studies were funded by people who hope it won't be economically viable, so their findings aren't surprising.
That's true. Creating an alternative to driving won't necessarily reduce driving. The real purpose of HSR is to be a vastly cheaper way of moving people around than highways and airports. For example, spending $68.4 billion on HSR will fulfill the same transportation demand as spending $119.0 billion for 4,295 new lane-miles of highway plus $38.6 billion for 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways.
Toll payers. We're talking about toll roads, remember?
No, that's not a given.
False.
An adjustment period is to be expected when transitioning from an unustainable economy back to a sustainable one as people learn to wear sweaters indoors again, and to take in boarders to help share the bills as they did a century ago, etc. Unfortunately, people who are set in their ways are the most difficult to retrain, and that's likely why they are dying.
I don't think anybody doubts that. But the important question is whether each road is a net benefit. (A "net" benefit is when the benefit exceeds the cost.)
When we pay for roads with user fees, it's a simple thing to determine whether they are worth the cost (simply calculate revenue minus costs to the supplier), but it's almost impossible to tell when we pay for them with non-user taxes.
The other problem that occurs when we don't ask people to pay for things in proportion to the benefit each person receives from them is that people will overconsume that resource, and then we all pay more in the end.
Are you saying that broadband competition is a bad thing because Obama is a lame duck? Or is it just Obama's particular implementation that is bad?
And because no road pays for itself in gas taxes and user fees, you could argue that if the direct users aren't willing to pay for the roads we have without asking for subsidies, we have too many roads.
If you need help understanding the issues timothy raised, I suggest reading "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman.
This is why smart people avoid rework by packing their stuff at the post office.
I guess you just can't please everyone all of the time.
Ditto for cities.
So in other words, yes.
When has that ever prevented anyone from objecting to something?
Then maybe you can list some Republicans who object to the currently widespread practice of cities forcing businesses and developers to provide more parking than the market wants and is willing to pay for of its own accord? Are there any true laissez-faire Republicans in Congress?
No, Republicans quickly turn into socialists whenever it benefits Big Oil.
And that's because people who wanted SyFy didn't pay more for it as they would have if it were unbundled. So to keep the channel attractive to cable companies, SyFy was forced to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get viewers.
If it's something people don't all want equally, what the airlines are doing makes perfect sense. Unless you arrived at the airport hungry, thirsty, tall, or bringing a lot of luggage--then you might disagree.
It would be nice if legislators also tested their ideas for unintended consequences before making them permanent.
It's worse than that. It's a rocket, an airplane, and an orbital re-entry vehicle. A suborbital craft is much better at being both a rocket and an airplane.
"Defects are not free. Somebody makes them, and gets paid for making them." --W. Edwards Deming
Today's newest, most fuel-efficient jetliners achieve about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while electric bullet trains run at the equivalent of 300-500 passenger-miles per gallon. So air travel has a long way to go before it's as fuel-efficient as ground transportation.
Also, bullet trains are faster, curb-to-curb, for distances up to about 400-500 miles. And you can add intermediate stops at a cost of only a few minutes each.
So there's great potential to reduce air travel at no cost to our standard of living.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." --C. A. R. Hoare
All rear end collisions happen when someone is tailgating, breaking the Basic Speed Law, or otherwise driving aggressively.