4 ms·

The main reason is because Americans are unbelievably wealthy and can afford large homes that require multiple cars for the family to get around. It’s a positiv

The main reason is because Americans are unbelievably wealthy and can afford large homes that require multiple cars for the family to get around. It’s a positive sign of American prosperity and the envy of the world hence the massive immigration demand and relative lack of expatriatism. If America gets to a point where that’s no longer possible and people have to live in smaller and more densely populated areas not by choice but by necessity then the country is truly in decline. Let the Germans cram themselves into smaller homes and trains. I truly hope Americans can continue to prosper and acquire comfortable homes with more utility and private transport powered by cheap energy for all.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
That’s a nice but false narrative. The Swiss are wealthier than the Americans and yet they use public transport extensively.
- lolc 2y ago
  Good public infra is wealth with much higher utility than private infra.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    Roads are public infra. I agree they should be kept in good order.
    - lolc 2y ago
      In general yes. In particular some roads provide negative utility and should be closed or not built.
occz 2y ago
This reads like satire, but I'm not sure that it is and it's frightening me a bit.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  What’s satirical about it? Why would people want a world where they are forced to live on top of each other in small places if they don’t have to due to plentiful energy and vast material wealth? If some new age Protestant needs to live worse to fulfill some spiritual hole then they can do it. But everyone else wants a large yard, comfortable home with many rooms, nice cars, and well maintained infrastructure to drive and park.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Because living further apart means more driving, which sucks? And it means less community, which sucks? And it means you'll be fatter and die earlier, which sucks? I'm not saying those are 100% true. I'm saying those are reasons and I can think of much, much more. There's pros and cons to everything.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

That’s a nice but false narrative. The Swiss are wealthier than the Americans and yet they use public transport extensively.

lolc 2y ago
Good public infra is wealth with much higher utility than private infra.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Roads are public infra. I agree they should be kept in good order.
  - lolc 2y ago
    In general yes. In particular some roads provide negative utility and should be closed or not built.

occz 2y ago

This reads like satire, but I'm not sure that it is and it's frightening me a bit.

nemo44x 2y ago
What’s satirical about it? Why would people want a world where they are forced to live on top of each other in small places if they don’t have to due to plentiful energy and vast material wealth? If some new age Protestant needs to live worse to fulfill some spiritual hole then they can do it. But everyone else wants a large yard, comfortable home with many rooms, nice cars, and well maintained infrastructure to drive and park.
- consteval 2y ago
  Because living further apart means more driving, which sucks? And it means less community, which sucks? And it means you'll be fatter and die earlier, which sucks? I'm not saying those are 100% true. I'm saying those are reasons and I can think of much, much more. There's pros and cons to everything.