3 ms·

Please be more specific. I can think of an example off of the top of my head using the Interstate Highway System to support my argument. The end points of I-8

by lupatus 14y ago

Please be more specific. I can think of an example off of the top of my head using the Interstate Highway System to support my argument. The end points of I-80 are New York City and San Francisco. Both cities predate the Interstate system by a good margin. Both started off as Trading Posts that gradually became more successful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Early_History, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Francisco_de_As%C3%ADs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Francisco_de_As%C3%...). I-80 connects the two cities because that is where the people were. The people were there because of successful entrepreneurship. Furthermore, through tolls and fuel taxes, the people in those areas continue to subsidize the maintenance of the nearby sections of I-80. *Edited for spelling & grammar.

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Both cities predate the Interstate system by a good margin." And public infrastructure predates them both. > "You have the cause and effect reversed. The successful entrepreneurs don't exist because of subsidized infrastructure. Subsidized infrastructure exists because of successful entrepreneurs." This is a false dichotomy. Successful entrepreneurs and subsidized infrastructure exist because of each other. Without economic activity infrastructure would be unaffordable and unjustifiable. Without a baseline level of infrastructure new economic activity cannot develop. This is also why bootstrapping a city is the hardest thing ever, and all of these planned cities never work out. They either build a bunch of infrastructure nobody needs and it ends up rotting, or they shove a lot of aspiring businesses into a place without the necessary infrastructure and economic base and watch it all collapse.
- lupatus 14y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that in our equation of the relatedness of entrepreneurship and subsidized infrastructure, entrepreneurship is the independent variable and subsidized infrastructure is the dependent variable. I won't argue that follow-on entrpreneurs don't use subsidized infrastructure. But, subsidized infrastructure cannot exist without the presence of successful entrepreneurs while entrepreneurial activities can exist without subsidized infrastructure. For example, take the village of Egavik, Alaska (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vallaura/3039481881/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/vallaura/3039481881/). It has no subsidized infrastructure because no one lives there on a year-round full-time basis. But, it is used as a base for private fishing operations, which is an entrepreneurial activity. Now, I imagine that you'll tell me that those fishermen come from somewhere else and use subsidized infrastructure in the process. But, if you go all the way down to the bottom turtle, you have a caveman ancestor of fishermen who made a spear out of a pointy stick and a hollowed tree as a canoe. He is the independent successful entrepreneur who subsidized infrastructure that later fishermen used.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Yeah, I'll buy this concept that there was the Ur-entrepreneur from which all subsequent economic activity sprouted, the one who started the cycle of economy -> infrastructure -> economy. ... So what? It's academic trivia that tickles to the brain to think about, but it has no bearing on society today. The origin of this thread is someone (unsurprisingly, given that this community is biased towards me-first people who think they're better than the plebes) decrying the "moochers" and acting like they are entirely self-made. I think we both agree that train of thought is a load of bull. This whole argument, every time it comes up, is really just moralizing and brow-beating in the guise of economics. Worse, it's moralizing and brow-beating by the gross and unsubstantiable assumption that the bulk of the world are lazy no-goodniks.
    - lupatus 14y ago
      I'll concur that talk of moochers and me-firsters is bullpucky. But, the danger I'm concerned with (and the reason for me going on and on about the relationship of entrepreneurship and subsidized infrastructure) is that the "you didn't build that" rhetoric, even though it falsely characterizes the relationship, is being used to justify the confiscation of my personal treasure for their infrastructure projects. That rhetoric is telling me that I need their infrastructure for business success while in reality their infrastructure needs me in order to exist. An alternative to subsidized infrastructure is private infrastructure. For example, my great-grandfather was a self-taught engineer who built a small Pennsylvanian town's first sewer and water system. He literally designed and built the water pumps and clay pipe molds and other technologies himself and he and his employees laid the lines and hooked-up customers themselves. The town council later bought him out and turned it into a public utility they fund to this day through taxes. (I imagine it was an easy sell. "Guten tag! We have water inside the house now. Do you want that too?" "Yes! How much will you charge me?" "Not much, but I will need to bury some pipes through your yard.") Note: And when I say self-taught I am being quite literal. His parents were immigrants from Germany and he learned to read from the Bible at home. He bought books on advanced mathematics and engineering principles from his savings as a farm-hand on his uncle's cattle farm. I have a few of them that were passed-down. One of his inch-thick pocket books on engineering from 1890 covers the same material that about half of my college courses did. I wish I had gotten it before University because it makes me highly suspicious of the quality and necessity of modern education. But, that's another topic.
- chimi 14y ago
  There are actually quite a lot of successful planned communities, including Washington, D.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community Many of them were started by entrepreneurs.

by lupatus 14y ago

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Both cities predate the Interstate system by a good margin." And public infrastructure predates them both. > "You have the cause and effect reversed. The successful entrepreneurs don't exist because of subsidized infrastructure. Subsidized infrastructure exists because of successful entrepreneurs." This is a false dichotomy. Successful entrepreneurs and subsidized infrastructure exist because of each other. Without economic activity infrastructure would be unaffordable and unjustifiable. Without a baseline level of infrastructure new economic activity cannot develop. This is also why bootstrapping a city is the hardest thing ever, and all of these planned cities never work out. They either build a bunch of infrastructure nobody needs and it ends up rotting, or they shove a lot of aspiring businesses into a place without the necessary infrastructure and economic base and watch it all collapse.

lupatus 14y ago
The point I'm trying to make is that in our equation of the relatedness of entrepreneurship and subsidized infrastructure, entrepreneurship is the independent variable and subsidized infrastructure is the dependent variable. I won't argue that follow-on entrpreneurs don't use subsidized infrastructure. But, subsidized infrastructure cannot exist without the presence of successful entrepreneurs while entrepreneurial activities can exist without subsidized infrastructure. For example, take the village of Egavik, Alaska (http://www.flickr.com/photos/vallaura/3039481881/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/vallaura/3039481881/). It has no subsidized infrastructure because no one lives there on a year-round full-time basis. But, it is used as a base for private fishing operations, which is an entrepreneurial activity. Now, I imagine that you'll tell me that those fishermen come from somewhere else and use subsidized infrastructure in the process. But, if you go all the way down to the bottom turtle, you have a caveman ancestor of fishermen who made a spear out of a pointy stick and a hollowed tree as a canoe. He is the independent successful entrepreneur who subsidized infrastructure that later fishermen used.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Yeah, I'll buy this concept that there was the Ur-entrepreneur from which all subsequent economic activity sprouted, the one who started the cycle of economy -> infrastructure -> economy. ... So what? It's academic trivia that tickles to the brain to think about, but it has no bearing on society today. The origin of this thread is someone (unsurprisingly, given that this community is biased towards me-first people who think they're better than the plebes) decrying the "moochers" and acting like they are entirely self-made. I think we both agree that train of thought is a load of bull. This whole argument, every time it comes up, is really just moralizing and brow-beating in the guise of economics. Worse, it's moralizing and brow-beating by the gross and unsubstantiable assumption that the bulk of the world are lazy no-goodniks.
  - lupatus 14y ago
    I'll concur that talk of moochers and me-firsters is bullpucky. But, the danger I'm concerned with (and the reason for me going on and on about the relationship of entrepreneurship and subsidized infrastructure) is that the "you didn't build that" rhetoric, even though it falsely characterizes the relationship, is being used to justify the confiscation of my personal treasure for their infrastructure projects. That rhetoric is telling me that I need their infrastructure for business success while in reality their infrastructure needs me in order to exist. An alternative to subsidized infrastructure is private infrastructure. For example, my great-grandfather was a self-taught engineer who built a small Pennsylvanian town's first sewer and water system. He literally designed and built the water pumps and clay pipe molds and other technologies himself and he and his employees laid the lines and hooked-up customers themselves. The town council later bought him out and turned it into a public utility they fund to this day through taxes. (I imagine it was an easy sell. "Guten tag! We have water inside the house now. Do you want that too?" "Yes! How much will you charge me?" "Not much, but I will need to bury some pipes through your yard.") Note: And when I say self-taught I am being quite literal. His parents were immigrants from Germany and he learned to read from the Bible at home. He bought books on advanced mathematics and engineering principles from his savings as a farm-hand on his uncle's cattle farm. I have a few of them that were passed-down. One of his inch-thick pocket books on engineering from 1890 covers the same material that about half of my college courses did. I wish I had gotten it before University because it makes me highly suspicious of the quality and necessity of modern education. But, that's another topic.
chimi 14y ago
There are actually quite a lot of successful planned communities, including Washington, D.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_community Many of them were started by entrepreneurs.