6 ms·

However it is important to note that our overall interlinked and financiarized economy needs a lot more progress to transform itself into a more decentralized a

However it is important to note that our overall interlinked and financiarized economy needs a lot more progress to transform itself into a more decentralized and resilient system: that's where local culture, organic food, mixed cultures, and others enter into the picture! Yes. I agree. Moving away from old mistakes (e.g. suburbia and car culture) is not a departure from modernity. No one is going to ban cars, but it turns out that spending 80 minutes per day in one really sucks, and if we can build a society where people live closer together and can ride a train to work, that's progress. In any case, the old regime is going to die. It's unsustainable, and it's already showing its cracks. This is why I don't invest in the stock market. It was a great idea between 1930 and 2000, as American corporations managed to become increasingly dominant in modern life, but as that trend reverses, I expect the share of our economy held by the top 500 corporations (that's essentially what the S&P is) to contract.

plesn 17y ago
My bet is we are transitioning from a society of cheep energy to a society of cheap information: we'll be consuming less and interacting more. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily imply less powerful corporations: they're already fighting for the control of what we are allowed to create, how we can interact (privacy), what we can do with our stuff, which crops we will eat, etc. I'm an optimist though: I hope they won't eventually succeed.
anamax 17y ago
Summary: there is no "one size fits all". > No one is going to ban cars, but it turns out that spending 80 minutes per day in one really sucks, You're assuming that everyone in suburbia spends 80 minutes commuting. Some do, some don't. You're also assuming that commute times are uniform and that minimizing them is the only goal. In my household, commute time is 10 minutes by one person and 60 by the other. Moving closer to the 60 would move us farther from other things that are important to us. > and if we can build a society where people live closer together and can ride a train to work, that's progress. You're assuming that people value living closer together. Some don't. They'll gladly pay extra commute time to avoid it. I write "extra" because that time on the train/bus is also commute time, and it isn't necessarily better time than car time. Yes, some people do prefer train time to driving, but not everyone thinks that 30 minutes on a train (or bus) is better than 80 minutes in a car. (If you need to run errands or do something, the car wins.) And even fewer like the train/bus if it's the same or more time. I think that people who don't like suburbia's tradeoffs shouldn't live there. The same is true of cities.... Not everyone is a DINK couple. Some people even drive because that makes it possible for them to quickly get to their kids in an emergency. (Parents value such things.)
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  I don't have a problem with driving. I like driving, but I wouldn't enjoy having to do it for an hour every day. It's car dependence that sucks about suburbia. When everyone drives because everyone has to do so, you get a mess: traffic, sprawl, loss of community, ugly places not worth caring about.
  - hugh3 17y ago
    In which case the solution is just better suburb design. Make sure there's an area zoned commercial within twenty minutes' walk of nearly every house. Big enough to support at least a small supermarket plus a few cafes and restaurants, and ideally an elementary school as well. It's bad if you have to drive just to get milk and eggs or to take your kids to school. I grew up in suburban Sydney and was always confused by why Americans derided suburbs so much; but then I saw American suburbs. All they need is better planning. Throw in some more commercial districts, and prevent the building of zillions of identical houses by discouraging a single builder from building hundreds of houses; instead sell individual lots to individuals who can then contract with their own builders.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      The discussion of urbanism in this country has been falsely polarized. The anti-burbs imagine suburbs as necessarily this sprawling mess of wide boulevards and rows of gigantic, identical houses, while the anti-urban imagine city living as necessarily a soulless forest of skyscrapers. There is a happy middle here that isn't talked about very much, even though it is by far the most cost effective and pleasant solution. Slightly OT, but if anyone here ever wants to witness a textbook example of suburbia run amok, creating a wasteland of little value to humanity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga
      - anamax 17y ago
        > The anti-burbs imagine suburbs as necessarily this sprawling mess of wide boulevards and rows of gigantic, identical houses while the anti-urban imagine city living as necessarily a soulless forest of skyscrapers. You're forgetting that many of the suburbians see cities every day because that's where they work.... What fraction of the urban crowd have a comparable experience? ("I grew up in a suburb and hated it" doesn't count.)
anamax 17y ago
> It was a great idea between 1930 and 2000, as American corporations managed to become increasingly dominant in modern life, but as that trend reverses, I expect the share of our economy held by the top 500 corporations (that's essentially what the S&P is) to contract. It's quite possible for the dominance of corporations to remain the same or even increase even as the share of the economy held by the S&P 500 goes down. I'm betting that corps will continue to be as dominant, if not more so.
timwiseman 17y ago
but as that trend reverses, I expect the share of our economy held by the top 500 corporations (that's essentially what the S&P is) to contract. I agree with this statement, but not with the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it. It is quite likely that the share of the world economy held by the top 500 US based corporations (S&P 500 only includes companies that are actively traded in the US...) will decline. The world economy is becoming more diverse as other nations rise to prominence, wealth and technology slowly and finally start to spread and more and more startups are created even within the US. So, yes the S&P 500 is likely to represent an ever smaller percentage of the total market. However, you seem to be assuming that means the S&P 500 itself will contract. You must remember that the world economy is not a zero sum game. It is quite plausible (I will not speculate on probabily here, but very plausible) that the S&P 500 in particular and the US share of the world economy shrinks in relation to the total, while still growing in an absolute sense. Even if you really believe the actual value of the S&P 500 in particular and the US economy in general will decrease in absolute value (not just relative share), then the answer is not to refuse to invest, but to diversify and include more foreign stocks.
HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
it turns out that spending 80 minutes per day in one really sucks, and if we can build a society where people live closer together and can ride a train to work, that's progress That's fine as long as you realize that it's your definition of progress. I spend between 70-90 minutes commuting by car each day and I have no problem with it: it's normally quite relaxing. There's essentially no traffic for me to deal with since I live out in the country and commute to a suburban job. And one of the reasons we moved out here is because we don't want to live next to everyone else. I really wish people would quit with the assumption that everyone else wants what they want!

plesn 17y ago

My bet is we are transitioning from a society of cheep energy to a society of cheap information: we'll be consuming less and interacting more. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily imply less powerful corporations: they're already fighting for the control of what we are allowed to create, how we can interact (privacy), what we can do with our stuff, which crops we will eat, etc. I'm an optimist though: I hope they won't eventually succeed.

anamax 17y ago

Summary: there is no "one size fits all". > No one is going to ban cars, but it turns out that spending 80 minutes per day in one really sucks, You're assuming that everyone in suburbia spends 80 minutes commuting. Some do, some don't. You're also assuming that commute times are uniform and that minimizing them is the only goal. In my household, commute time is 10 minutes by one person and 60 by the other. Moving closer to the 60 would move us farther from other things that are important to us. > and if we can build a society where people live closer together and can ride a train to work, that's progress. You're assuming that people value living closer together. Some don't. They'll gladly pay extra commute time to avoid it. I write "extra" because that time on the train/bus is also commute time, and it isn't necessarily better time than car time. Yes, some people do prefer train time to driving, but not everyone thinks that 30 minutes on a train (or bus) is better than 80 minutes in a car. (If you need to run errands or do something, the car wins.) And even fewer like the train/bus if it's the same or more time. I think that people who don't like suburbia's tradeoffs shouldn't live there. The same is true of cities.... Not everyone is a DINK couple. Some people even drive because that makes it possible for them to quickly get to their kids in an emergency. (Parents value such things.)

pw0ncakes 17y ago
I don't have a problem with driving. I like driving, but I wouldn't enjoy having to do it for an hour every day. It's car dependence that sucks about suburbia. When everyone drives because everyone has to do so, you get a mess: traffic, sprawl, loss of community, ugly places not worth caring about.
- hugh3 17y ago
  In which case the solution is just better suburb design. Make sure there's an area zoned commercial within twenty minutes' walk of nearly every house. Big enough to support at least a small supermarket plus a few cafes and restaurants, and ideally an elementary school as well. It's bad if you have to drive just to get milk and eggs or to take your kids to school. I grew up in suburban Sydney and was always confused by why Americans derided suburbs so much; but then I saw American suburbs. All they need is better planning. Throw in some more commercial districts, and prevent the building of zillions of identical houses by discouraging a single builder from building hundreds of houses; instead sell individual lots to individuals who can then contract with their own builders.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    The discussion of urbanism in this country has been falsely polarized. The anti-burbs imagine suburbs as necessarily this sprawling mess of wide boulevards and rows of gigantic, identical houses, while the anti-urban imagine city living as necessarily a soulless forest of skyscrapers. There is a happy middle here that isn't talked about very much, even though it is by far the most cost effective and pleasant solution. Slightly OT, but if anyone here ever wants to witness a textbook example of suburbia run amok, creating a wasteland of little value to humanity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga
    - anamax 17y ago
      > The anti-burbs imagine suburbs as necessarily this sprawling mess of wide boulevards and rows of gigantic, identical houses while the anti-urban imagine city living as necessarily a soulless forest of skyscrapers. You're forgetting that many of the suburbians see cities every day because that's where they work.... What fraction of the urban crowd have a comparable experience? ("I grew up in a suburb and hated it" doesn't count.)

anamax 17y ago

> It was a great idea between 1930 and 2000, as American corporations managed to become increasingly dominant in modern life, but as that trend reverses, I expect the share of our economy held by the top 500 corporations (that's essentially what the S&P is) to contract. It's quite possible for the dominance of corporations to remain the same or even increase even as the share of the economy held by the S&P 500 goes down. I'm betting that corps will continue to be as dominant, if not more so.

timwiseman 17y ago

but as that trend reverses, I expect the share of our economy held by the top 500 corporations (that's essentially what the S&P is) to contract. I agree with this statement, but not with the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it. It is quite likely that the share of the world economy held by the top 500 US based corporations (S&P 500 only includes companies that are actively traded in the US...) will decline. The world economy is becoming more diverse as other nations rise to prominence, wealth and technology slowly and finally start to spread and more and more startups are created even within the US. So, yes the S&P 500 is likely to represent an ever smaller percentage of the total market. However, you seem to be assuming that means the S&P 500 itself will contract. You must remember that the world economy is not a zero sum game. It is quite plausible (I will not speculate on probabily here, but very plausible) that the S&P 500 in particular and the US share of the world economy shrinks in relation to the total, while still growing in an absolute sense. Even if you really believe the actual value of the S&P 500 in particular and the US economy in general will decrease in absolute value (not just relative share), then the answer is not to refuse to invest, but to diversify and include more foreign stocks.

HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago

it turns out that spending 80 minutes per day in one really sucks, and if we can build a society where people live closer together and can ride a train to work, that's progress That's fine as long as you realize that it's your definition of progress. I spend between 70-90 minutes commuting by car each day and I have no problem with it: it's normally quite relaxing. There's essentially no traffic for me to deal with since I live out in the country and commute to a suburban job. And one of the reasons we moved out here is because we don't want to live next to everyone else. I really wish people would quit with the assumption that everyone else wants what they want!