4 ms·

Why should we be subsidizing rural communities with free services that are terrible for the environment? If people want the benefits of modern civilization like

Why should we be subsidizing rural communities with free services that are terrible for the environment? If people want the benefits of modern civilization like air travel and grocery stores, they should move to cities. We are doing enough harm to the world in cities, we don't need to encourage sprawl even more.

const_throwaway 7y ago
Now do gentrification.
elihu 7y ago
We need to have at least some people living in small towns and sparsely populated areas to produce food and manage natural resources that cities depend on.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Then the government can pay the people in rural areas enough cash to fly in food, or enough to pay for prices high enough to make it worthwhile to open a grocery store. Costs should be as transparent as possible. If there is low supply and high demand, you can increase supply by moving the prices up. Alternatively, people in rural areas have to charge far more money for what they sell.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Everything you say sounds good in theory, until you spend a bit of time studying the history of economic policies. It's...really fucking complicated, which is why nobody really knows what they're doing (I mean how many people can predict when the stock market will crash?). But what you're proposing is the sort of thing that works with a small group of people, but then as you scale more and more you realize there are so many complicating factors you never thoughts of - not just resources but political alliances! Oftentimes there are military reasons for these justifications. One of the reasons high-fructose corn syrup is subsidized in the United States is so the US would not be dependent upon Cuba for its sugar supply back when Cuba was a communist country. One of the main motivations of the international freeway system is emergency runways for military planes. And while many subsidies are controversial, such as corn and soy, nobody can deny that we have all the corn and soy we need and it's all affordable - which was always the goal. The truth about subsidies is simple: they're too fucking complicated to make meaningful generalizations. Each case really is unique enough it needs its own context, analysis, and decision for what's best. I agree with your sentiment, but I encourage you to really dive into the details of any economic subsidy and realize how many confounding factors there are. There's the old economics joke "it works in practice, but not in theory" for a reason.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > I mean how many people can predict when the stock market will crash? I agree with the spirit of the post - subsidies should be implemented for non-economic reasons and are therefore justified with arguments that say there are other good reasons to pay the price. But this specific example isn't the best example because the stock market is a competitive human-driven environment where if a signal is predictive people will make money off it until it stops being predictive. That is quite different from real-world processes where the laws of physics tend to remain in effect no matter how many what people figure out. Eg, resource depletion behaves differently to the loss of signal in a stock market.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        Fair point, I could've chosen a better example. I was trying to point out an obvious shortcoming of economists anyone could understand, rather than keep the example in line with the rest of the comment.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
core-questions 7y ago
Have you ever, like, left the city, man? Do you really think everyone can just live in the city without anyone out in the rural areas, you know, growing your fucking food?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- late2part 7y ago
  Can't they use the Essential_Air_Service and then fly back home to needleville SFO? (j/k)
- Retric 7y ago
  Everyone hates government spending, until they want another handout. We already massively subsidize rural living costs, stop that and the free market would raise wages to compensate without the need for government intervention. Subsidized, farms, roads, healthcare, telecoms, deliveries, airports, etc etc it’s just wasteful.
  - chimi 7y ago
    The "free market" is a myth. Do you have a mortgage? Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet? Do you eat food? Do you spend money? Go to national parks? Drink water? You are the recipient of govt subsidies. We are a society and as such, some things are more valuable than people are willing to pay for them, but yet still essential to keeping society functioning.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Sure we’re a society, but we’re not a post scarcity society and wasteful programs divert money from things that are more important. When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. (Who often aren’t exactly poor, because of the massive subsidies we pay for agriculture.)
aezakmi 7y ago
This is peak "Hacker" "News".

const_throwaway 7y ago

Now do gentrification.

elihu 7y ago

We need to have at least some people living in small towns and sparsely populated areas to produce food and manage natural resources that cities depend on.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Then the government can pay the people in rural areas enough cash to fly in food, or enough to pay for prices high enough to make it worthwhile to open a grocery store. Costs should be as transparent as possible. If there is low supply and high demand, you can increase supply by moving the prices up. Alternatively, people in rural areas have to charge far more money for what they sell.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  Everything you say sounds good in theory, until you spend a bit of time studying the history of economic policies. It's...really fucking complicated, which is why nobody really knows what they're doing (I mean how many people can predict when the stock market will crash?). But what you're proposing is the sort of thing that works with a small group of people, but then as you scale more and more you realize there are so many complicating factors you never thoughts of - not just resources but political alliances! Oftentimes there are military reasons for these justifications. One of the reasons high-fructose corn syrup is subsidized in the United States is so the US would not be dependent upon Cuba for its sugar supply back when Cuba was a communist country. One of the main motivations of the international freeway system is emergency runways for military planes. And while many subsidies are controversial, such as corn and soy, nobody can deny that we have all the corn and soy we need and it's all affordable - which was always the goal. The truth about subsidies is simple: they're too fucking complicated to make meaningful generalizations. Each case really is unique enough it needs its own context, analysis, and decision for what's best. I agree with your sentiment, but I encourage you to really dive into the details of any economic subsidy and realize how many confounding factors there are. There's the old economics joke "it works in practice, but not in theory" for a reason.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > I mean how many people can predict when the stock market will crash? I agree with the spirit of the post - subsidies should be implemented for non-economic reasons and are therefore justified with arguments that say there are other good reasons to pay the price. But this specific example isn't the best example because the stock market is a competitive human-driven environment where if a signal is predictive people will make money off it until it stops being predictive. That is quite different from real-world processes where the laws of physics tend to remain in effect no matter how many what people figure out. Eg, resource depletion behaves differently to the loss of signal in a stock market.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Fair point, I could've chosen a better example. I was trying to point out an obvious shortcoming of economists anyone could understand, rather than keep the example in line with the rest of the comment.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

core-questions 7y ago

Have you ever, like, left the city, man? Do you really think everyone can just live in the city without anyone out in the rural areas, you know, growing your fucking food?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
late2part 7y ago
Can't they use the Essential_Air_Service and then fly back home to needleville SFO? (j/k)
Retric 7y ago
Everyone hates government spending, until they want another handout. We already massively subsidize rural living costs, stop that and the free market would raise wages to compensate without the need for government intervention. Subsidized, farms, roads, healthcare, telecoms, deliveries, airports, etc etc it’s just wasteful.
- chimi 7y ago
  The "free market" is a myth. Do you have a mortgage? Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet? Do you eat food? Do you spend money? Go to national parks? Drink water? You are the recipient of govt subsidies. We are a society and as such, some things are more valuable than people are willing to pay for them, but yet still essential to keeping society functioning.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Sure we’re a society, but we’re not a post scarcity society and wasteful programs divert money from things that are more important. When we have guaranteed lunches for every school student, then we can talk about subsidizing services for people in rural areas. (Who often aren’t exactly poor, because of the massive subsidies we pay for agriculture.)

aezakmi 7y ago

This is peak "Hacker" "News".