4 ms·

> Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book. Tangent maybe, but talking about whe

> Even if you drive over roads that were built because of government programs, you’re a hypocritical profiteer in my book. Tangent maybe, but talking about where the rubber literally meets the road gets pretty interesting. Because government programs focus on politically important places, those places that are not politically important tend to have worse roads. Lots of people in those places do not care much, because they have big trucks with big tires. But once politically unimportant people are paying for bigger tires for decades, and getting hit with inflation on those tires, and still paying for other roads in other places that don't benefit them.. they get fed up eventually and this leads to the rise of angry populism and the desire to tear down road-building institutions. Doing this seems like it can't make anything worse, and will only help them be able to pay for their next flat tire, and they know that the flat is going to happen regardless of whether city-dwellers get to enjoy a new turnpike. This is an oversimplification, but on the other hand, it really is pretty simple. Labeling anyone as a hypocritical profiteer since they "benefit" from crappy roads that were actually paid for in full many years ago and neglected since then is one way to think about this I guess. But you could also say that it's natural for rural people to object strongly to that part of the wealth pump that actually affects them, and it really is more likely to be a function of government itself rather than corporatism. (This is because they have no disposable income to throw at corporations when there's not enough left after taxes.) Whereas urban people are just more likely to object to the part of the wealth pump that affects them, and that's less about government and more about corporatism. The rural/urban divide will only be cured when everyone agrees that all wealth pumps are unsustainable, instead of spending all their energy fighting about how to get on the most of profitable side of the pumps. I'm not saying the rural people in this scenario are not misguided.. but if you're completely baffled by support for things like MAGA and DOGE, then it's probably worthwhile to reflect on this.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
This must be the most USA -centric (meant in a bad way) vision on infrastructure I have ever seen. You guys really don’t go out much.
- photonthug 2y ago
  Well the acronyms I mentioned are definitely US-centric. But if you don't see the rise of populism world wide, and you don't see the right/left dialectic being driven in large part by rural vs urban tension.. then I'm afraid you don't get out much either.
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    I’m convinced at least in Europe populism has peaked. With Trump as an example, the counter campaigns write themselves. It’s democracy vs fascism now, not woke vs coke.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      The headlines about French or Dutch farmers dumping loads of manure at the front door of their own institutions have probably peaked. But these things are cyclic and fascism masquerading as populism is just part of the standard playbook. For related reading I suggest Turchin[1], who tries to strike a balance between US-centric commentary and looking at international trends. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62926960-end-times https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62926960-end-times EDIT: Near the top of BBC-world today is a related article about villagers in Romania, highlighting once again that this is very much an ongoing thing, and that populism, fascism, and decline in quality of rural life are so entangled that it probably makes no sense to speak of them separately https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g7w3v5vw7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g7w3v5vw7o
watwut 2y ago
It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded own infrastructure. Then they got angry about crumbling infrastructure they were not willing to pay for. Frankly, the economics is just an excuse here. Republicans never voted for better roads, never asked better roads. They don't want that. They will punish politicians trying to improve infrastructure. They have available free vaccines, but they don't want them. Instead, they actively go around villifying them trying to carve more legal ways to avoid vaccinations. They don't want to improve healthcare or make it cheaper, they actively rejected any such attempts for years. They don't want better school system, they want women to stay home and homeschool. They will actively work on trying to make schools worst. Making up rationalizing motivations when those people actions are consistently and clearly saying "I don't care" is loosing proposition. Yes, it makes them sound better, but no, you are not closer to understanding them.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  In other words, they lack empathy. And they’re unable to grasp that if someone benefits from something, that it doesn’t mean it automatically disadvantages them.
- 9dev 2y ago
  For a long time I’ve tried to not give in to the thought that republicans, at large, are actually that short-sighted. It’s the literal guy sitting on a tree gleefully sawing off the branch they sit on. It felt like I was missing something, a change of perspective, but no. I’ve come to accept they really can’t look further than their own noses length, or at least won’t vote for more capable representatives.
- photonthug 2y ago
  > It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. [..] They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded own infrastructure. You cut what you can when you're strapped, and Kansas and Louisiana can't control their federal tax obligations, or federal contributions to things like the Big Dig or the post-collapse Baltimore bridge building projects. They just hope that when the tornadoes / hurricanes come and the levee breaks that the rest of the country will be keen to pay for something that benefits them. This doesn't always pan out though. As an example.. it doesn't get more federal than the army corps of engineers, but they argued for sovereign immunity. We'll see whether the LA wildfires get handled better or worse than climate catastrophes in the flyover states or the south east, but naturally California will probably do better and get more help than a politically unimportant place would. Without getting way into the weeds on details, perhaps we can agree that the optics of this stuff just aren't great. Without "rationalizing motivations" or "making people sound better".. basically you can choose to either double down on the other'ing or you can at least try to listen and empathize.

spiderfarmer 2y ago

This must be the most USA -centric (meant in a bad way) vision on infrastructure I have ever seen. You guys really don’t go out much.

photonthug 2y ago
Well the acronyms I mentioned are definitely US-centric. But if you don't see the rise of populism world wide, and you don't see the right/left dialectic being driven in large part by rural vs urban tension.. then I'm afraid you don't get out much either.
- spiderfarmer 2y ago
  I’m convinced at least in Europe populism has peaked. With Trump as an example, the counter campaigns write themselves. It’s democracy vs fascism now, not woke vs coke.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    The headlines about French or Dutch farmers dumping loads of manure at the front door of their own institutions have probably peaked. But these things are cyclic and fascism masquerading as populism is just part of the standard playbook. For related reading I suggest Turchin[1], who tries to strike a balance between US-centric commentary and looking at international trends. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62926960-end-times https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62926960-end-times EDIT: Near the top of BBC-world today is a related article about villagers in Romania, highlighting once again that this is very much an ongoing thing, and that populism, fascism, and decline in quality of rural life are so entangled that it probably makes no sense to speak of them separately https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g7w3v5vw7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g7w3v5vw7o

watwut 2y ago

It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded own infrastructure. Then they got angry about crumbling infrastructure they were not willing to pay for. Frankly, the economics is just an excuse here. Republicans never voted for better roads, never asked better roads. They don't want that. They will punish politicians trying to improve infrastructure. They have available free vaccines, but they don't want them. Instead, they actively go around villifying them trying to carve more legal ways to avoid vaccinations. They don't want to improve healthcare or make it cheaper, they actively rejected any such attempts for years. They don't want better school system, they want women to stay home and homeschool. They will actively work on trying to make schools worst. Making up rationalizing motivations when those people actions are consistently and clearly saying "I don't care" is loosing proposition. Yes, it makes them sound better, but no, you are not closer to understanding them.

spiderfarmer 2y ago
In other words, they lack empathy. And they’re unable to grasp that if someone benefits from something, that it doesn’t mean it automatically disadvantages them.
9dev 2y ago
For a long time I’ve tried to not give in to the thought that republicans, at large, are actually that short-sighted. It’s the literal guy sitting on a tree gleefully sawing off the branch they sit on. It felt like I was missing something, a change of perspective, but no. I’ve come to accept they really can’t look further than their own noses length, or at least won’t vote for more capable representatives.
photonthug 2y ago
> It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. [..] They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded own infrastructure. You cut what you can when you're strapped, and Kansas and Louisiana can't control their federal tax obligations, or federal contributions to things like the Big Dig or the post-collapse Baltimore bridge building projects. They just hope that when the tornadoes / hurricanes come and the levee breaks that the rest of the country will be keen to pay for something that benefits them. This doesn't always pan out though. As an example.. it doesn't get more federal than the army corps of engineers, but they argued for sovereign immunity. We'll see whether the LA wildfires get handled better or worse than climate catastrophes in the flyover states or the south east, but naturally California will probably do better and get more help than a politically unimportant place would. Without getting way into the weeds on details, perhaps we can agree that the optics of this stuff just aren't great. Without "rationalizing motivations" or "making people sound better".. basically you can choose to either double down on the other'ing or you can at least try to listen and empathize.