5 ms·
For the discerning reader: every single expert disagrees vociferously with this take. The economics simply do not work to make this sustainable. Let's not forg
by uoaei 2y ago
For the discerning reader: every single expert disagrees vociferously with this take.
The economics simply do not work to make this sustainable. Let's not forget how expensive basic infrastructure is just because it's normalized. Water/power/sewer/trash/roads/lighting is a massive expense that just keeps getting more expensive, not to mention that you have to factor in maintenance costs.
- beaglesss 2y ago[flagged]
- uoaei 2y agoNo one said anything about planning economies. I am only advocating a realistic understanding of markets. > Deregulate and totally privatize housing and roads and people will vote with their dollars Your lack of acknowledgment of the role corporations play in this (and the green username) makes this out to be a FUD-y and bad-faith take.
- beaglesss 2y agoPublic services are, generally, planned economies. I struggle to envision how they could not be, at least if publicly funded.
- uoaei 2y agoSeems like a bastardization of the concept of "planned". Obviously pricing and subsidies come into play but that doesn't prevent the result from still being a market-based approach. You will not find a single capitalist who doesn't do some market research to determine a price for their product. Utilities are largely the same.
- chgs 2y agoExternalities are never accounted for in those randian utopias. Either that or everything concentrates into a single mega corp ownership.
- throwaway22032 2y agoThis has never made sense to me because it is essentially arguing that, say, the fifty year period between 1960 and 2010 doesn't exist. I don't care if maintaining large roads and power and water is expensive. I'm happy to pay for the increased quality of life. I don't see how this is unsustainable at all. It might need higher taxes or some other way of ensuring that ongoing maintenance actually gets paid for. So what?
- uoaei 2y agoIf you've heard any hubbub about "infrastructure bills" in the past couple decades that's because a lot of the maintenance for the infrastructure we built then is coming due. Things age. But money today is not as cheap as it was in the good old days. So we bear heavier costs on more widespread failures. Our age of unbridled growth is coming to an end.
- cyberax 2y agoSo we must... spend even more on failing transit instead of wisely investing money? One mile of Manhattan subway now costs more than 1000 miles of new 6-lane freeway.
- cyberax 2y ago> For the discerning reader: every single expert disagrees vociferously with this take. They actually don't. Go on, try to find anything in my words that is factually incorrect. I'll wait. A simple verifiable fact of life: density increases do not result in cheaper housing prices. Scholarly literature is unambiguous on that point. The best positive result for new construction was a one-time 5-9% decrease in _rents_ immediately near the new construction. Experts, who made their career in pushing urbanism, try to dance around that point.