3 ms·
> that the free market demonstrably cannot achieve on its own Are you referring to the free market that caused suburbs to become a thing only "due to the subsi
by burntsushi 13y ago
> that the free market demonstrably cannot achieve on its own
Are you referring to the free market that caused suburbs to become a thing only "due to the subsidization of the automobile infrastructure"?[1]
So somehow, people are blaming sprawl on the subsidization of automobiles---which, let's not kid ourselves, is done only by government and corporations in bed with government---but you, you, are saying that this is really a demonstrable failure of a free market? (Which, of course, you proclaim because it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard that seems impossible to measure. Which apparently---and conveniently---seems to line up with what you happen to like as a way of life.)
Have I got that right? Or are you referencing some other failure?
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7208650
- wtallis 13y agoThe market failure to which I was referring is the ongoing situation where demand for housing does not lead to communities being built, only housing developments that force a car-only lifestyle with all its negative externalities. As I've said, suburbs can be done right, but that's not what's getting built. This should surprise nobody, because the housing market hits pretty much all of the exceptions under which free-market capitalism isn't even theoretically optimal. But yeah, in my area the cost of upgrading the road network is mostly not borne by the people moving to the area and necessitating the new and wider roads. That's one of the reasons our new housing developments are too big. > "Which apparently---and conveniently---seems to line up with what you happen to like as a way of life." This is not a coincidence, suspicious or otherwise. It is part of the definition of Pareto efficiency.