3 ms·
Market forces would have correctly restricted the number of people living in inefficient places to live. Rural communities are massively more expensive to crea
by oatmeal1 4y ago
Market forces would have correctly restricted the number of people living in inefficient places to live. Rural communities are massively more expensive to create infrastructure for. Instead we have locked ourselves into supporting an abnormally large number of people away from where infrastructure can efficiently be provided.
- DangitBobby 4y agoAnd those people living in rural areas (which are required to sustain societies, unlike urban areas) would become poorer and less educated as time went on due to the economic inefficiencies of serving them well. You are arguing for the emergence of class stratification as if that's somehow the desired version of our society, which is just insanity. There is a _reason_ we share costs as a society! Free market thinking is shallow and should not be applied here, full stop.
- ghodith 4y agoOr some of them would would have moved, or not moved there in the first place, or increased the prices of their goods. Something so cynical about such low expectations. "If we weren't in charge, they would all devolve into savagery!"
- DangitBobby 4y agoNot sure I'm the cynical one here. Even so, bad things really do happen sometimes.