Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama's Vision Deficit
After 100 days, the new president has revealed himself as an effective salesman of exhausted ideas.
So here we are, 100 days into the great eight-year triumph of Hope over Change, a new Era of Really Good Feelings in which only one thing has become increasingly, even irrefutably, clear: President Barack Obama is about as visionary as the guy who invented Dippin' Dots, Ice Cream of the Future. Far from sketching out a truly forward-looking set of policies for the 21st century, as his supporters had hoped, Obama is instead serving up cryogenically tasteless and headache-inducing morsels from years gone by.
On issue after issue, Obama has made it clear that instead of blasting past "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long," (as he promised in his inaugural address), he's moving full speed ahead toward policy prescriptions that already had less fizz than a case of Billy Beer back when Jimmy Carter was urging us all to wear sweaters and turn down our thermostats. Instead of thinking outside the box, Obama is nailing it shut from the inside.
Consider the president's recent "major" speech about transportation, yet another Castro-like exhortation in which Obama boldly rejected the failed policies of the past in favor of the failed policies of the future.
"Our highways are clogged with traffic," he noted, before unveiling his big fix: Shiny new trains that go almost twice as fast as cars. Forget that, as urban historian Joel Garreau has long documented, our country has been decentralizing its living and working patterns for decades now, migrating from virtually all urban centers (except maybe for booming Washington, D.C.) to relatively low-density suburbs. In a big, spread-out country where individualized service at the coffee stand, on cable TV, and in your computer is the new normal, our chief visionary officer is talking about a one-size-fits-all solution that will surely bomb even bigger than NBC's Supertrain.
"Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America," said the president, while ignoring more obvious and forward-looking fixes such as modernizing air traffic control systems, deregulating airports, and unleashing private capital to build and improve roads. Instead of any genuinely interesting or remotely promising initiative, Obama offered a measly $13 billion in funds, to be directed by Vice President Joe Biden—another visitor from the future who prefers the oh-so-modern conveyance of Amtrak to the unreliable horseless carriage.
In nearly every key area of policy concern, from industrial bailouts to massive deficits, from Afghanistan to the Middle East, from education to energy, the president's standard operating or reach back into the Carter playbook for ideas that didn't work back then, either. All while rhetorically valuing "good ideas ahead of old ideological battles."
On the economy, and specifically on the economic crisis, Obama came to office promising a sharp break from the past. Instead, he has added so much fuel to the fires that George W. Bush ignited—exploding already swollen deficits, using TARP monies (which were statutorily provided for banks) not just for auto companies but minor auto parts manufacturers, and giving the federal government more power to seize private companies than even Henry Paulson dreamed of wielding. Such has been the extent of Obama's me-tooism that he's taken to defending his record by pointing out that, hey, Bush started it!
The latter was actually a rare moment of transparency; Obama's typical M.O. is to proclaim a new era of responsibility while ushering in a new era of irresponsible debt, promise to close the revolving door of lobbyists and government while keeping it open, and vow to post all bills online for five days without doing anything of the sort. He says the bailout is "not about helping banks—it's about helping people," then gives more of the people's money to banks. He says he doesn't want to run General Motors, then fires its CEO, guarantees its warranties, and wags his finger about the company's surplus of brands. He says he's taking a battle-axe to the budget, then offers to shave $100 million off a $3.4 trillion tab. At his gee-whiz, interactive, online town hall meeting, he laughed off the most popular question asked by web viewers—should marijuana be legalized—with a lame joke before embracing the status quo like Jimmy Carter hugging a Third World dictator.
On traditional domestic programs, too, Obama came to office with vague yet high-minded promises to rise above, for example, "the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves." When it came to improving rotten schools, Candidate Obama vowed we would no longer be paralyzed by "Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more reform."
Since then, Democrats (versus Republicans) have killed Washington, D.C.'s proven-effective voucher program (versus the status quo), and showered more federal money on schools and teachers (versus more reform). All while having the gall to maintain, as Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, that they aim to "close the achievement gap by pursuing what works best for kids, regardless of ideology."
For those Americans who voted for Obama, a question: Is this the change you had in mind?
If surveys are to believed, it is. So far, Obama has positively Reaganesque approval ratings and most polls show increases in the percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction, even if no one is certain of the economy.
Obama has had the great good fortune to follow one of the least popular and least effective presidents in U.S. history. However, in the next 100 days, Obama will be trying to ram through the biggest alternative energy central planning scheme since Jimmy Carter unleashed the then-ballyhooed, since-forgotten boondoggle of "synfuels" onto the body politic. He will be hauling out a centralized health care scheme the likes of which haven't been discussed since the disastrous early days of Bill Clinton's presidency. He will be plumping for (Ted) Kennedyesque national service and Dubyaesque education spending.
In each of these, he will not much resemble that bold campaign visionary supposeldy with two feet firmly in the future. Rather, he will reveal himself to be that least inspiring of all political characters: a leader beholden first and foremost to special interests and ultra-conventional voting blocs. This at a time when the electorate is becoming increasingly unaffiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals.
According to the Harris Poll, which has been tracking party affiliation and political philosophy of adult Americans for 40 years, between 2007 and 2008, the most recent year for which there is data, independents were the only bloc of voters to expand—from 23 percent to 31 percent. Similarly, political moderates outnumber both liberals and conservatives. All of which suggests that Obama's honeymoon, like all vacations from reality, will soon come to an end.
Matt Welch is the editor in chief of Reason magazine and Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com.
Kyle Jordan|4.29.09 @ 7:36AM|#
I still have a mortgage and the credit card companies are
becoming more and more annoying by insisting that I, ME, be the one
to pay them.
Chocolate Jesus has failed me utterly.
ed|4.29.09 @ 8:34AM|#
Dear Leader is having another scripted news conference* tonight.
I'll be watching baseball.
*Is it a "conference" if only one person is speaking?
JohnD|4.29.09 @ 8:43AM|#
I was amazed at the number of foolish people that voted for this
incompetent clown.
I am more amazed that he still has high approval ratings. This says
a lot about the typical American voter..... none of it good.
creech|4.29.09 @ 9:06AM|#
Hype and chains!
The Specter switcheroo had the Democrat Party leader in Phila.
swooning this morning, as he reminded Republicans to "get over" the
fact that now both Senate and House can get on with the Obama
program without having to placate Republican views. So much for
Obama's pledge to get rid of the divisive politics that plague
Washington and seek bi-partisan solutions.
|4.29.09 @ 9:16AM|#
I watched as much as I could stomach of the three way
backslapfest, this morning.
Who could possibly believe that droning cadaver Spectre is the
single best life form to fill any position, much less sit in the U
S Senate? That guy is a walking, talking plea for term
limits.
Pennsyltucky voters, I'm looking at you...
Xeones|4.29.09 @ 9:23AM|#
Instead of thinking outside the box, Obama is nailing it
shut from the inside.
Nice. Too bad we're all stuck in that box with him.
|4.29.09 @ 9:28AM|#
Biden and Spectre were yukking it up about their glorious train
rides back and forth from Washington.
No mention of how much it costs us per mile to lug their worthless
carcasses to and fro.
Telly|4.29.09 @ 9:42AM|#
I'd rather get that damn pig flu and have it coming from both ends, than watch or listen to that lying, crooked, hateful bastard for just one minute.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 9:55AM|#
Ahhh, suburbs. Another classic example of the prisoner's dilemma
wreaking havoc upon the world. Yes, many people like to live in
suburbs. However, suburbs become massive, unsightly, inefficient,
unhealthy, and uneffective if almost everyone else makes the same
choice...which they do. Ideally, I would live in a nice little
suburb while everyone except a few farmers crowded into the urban
core. This would result in a nice downtown, efficient public
transportation, etc but leave me with a big old yard.
But of course, what actually happens is that everyone and his
mother moves to the suburbs, the downtown dies, and we are left
with strip malls, clogged roads, and endless McMansions.
|4.29.09 @ 9:57AM|#
I was amazed at the number of foolish people who
professed to hold beliefs that were diametrically opposed to
Obama's that voted for this incompetent clown.
|4.29.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Actually, that works, but what I intended was:
I was amazed at the number of foolish people who
professed to hold beliefs that were diametrically opposed to
Obama's that voted for this incompetent clown.
Hey, they don't call it RC'z Law for nothing.
|4.29.09 @ 9:59AM|#
However, suburbs become massive, unsightly, inefficient,
unhealthy, and uneffective if almost everyone else makes the same
choice
[citation needed]
Xeones|4.29.09 @ 10:02AM|#
I can summarize Obama's first 100 days in four words: Straight
Up Bullshit, Yo.
Ok, four more: Makes Bush Look Competent.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 10:11AM|#
R C Dean | April 29, 2009, 9:59am | #
However, suburbs become massive, unsightly, inefficient, unhealthy,
and uneffective if almost everyone else makes the same choice
[citation needed]
Journal of Looking Out Your Window, R.C. Dean, et al, Vol 1, Page
1, 2009.
|4.29.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Makes Bush Look Competent.
See!
And you people doubt the miraculous powers of the Ascended One.
|4.29.09 @ 10:14AM|#
This would result in a nice downtown, efficient public
transportation
Excepted from the Journal of Faith Based Urban Planning?
|4.29.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Chad, You crack me up.
The fact that our "country has been decentralizing its living and
working patterns for decades" certainly doesn't mean we should
continue to do so, but the opposite isn't true either. There are
two things I'd like to know:
1) what percentage of Americans live in a city where they can
easily get to a downtown train station? It takes me 25 minutes to
get to the airport. It will take me over an hour to drive to
Raleigh, find parking and walk to Obama's soul train.
2) If the power from the wind and sun is enough to cover America's
power needs (including cars) why is Obama killing the electric
car?
|4.29.09 @ 10:26AM|#
Now that I think about it. If Obama is so pumped up about saving the car industry, why is he creating more competition for them with increased rail travel?
|4.29.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Journal of Looking Out Your Window, R.C. Dean, et al, Vol 1,
Page 1, 2009.
Ah, the old "everybody knows". Oddly, when I have driven through or
lived in suburbs, I generally see pleasant places to live, although
I could do with fewer strip malls.
However, suburbs cities become
massive, unsightly, inefficient, unhealthy, and uneffective if
almost everyone else makes the same choice
Ibid
|4.29.09 @ 10:53AM|#
I love the suburbs. And I've lived in both the suburbs and the urbs. I've even spent significant time in the ruralurbs.
spambot|4.29.09 @ 11:02AM|#
[citation needed]
Journal of Looking Out Your Window, R.C. Dean, et al, Vol 1, Page
1, 2009.
Citation FAIL!
Matt Welch|4.29.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Journal of Looking Out Your Window, R.C. Dean, et al, Vol 1,
Page 1, 2009.
That's pretty damned funny.
Though when I look out my window I see density, glorious
density!
|4.29.09 @ 11:07AM|#
People left the cities because the cities were beautiful, healthy and effective Democrat-run utopias. That sure was dumb of them. If only they were as smart as the sort of people who would like to dictate how everyone else should live, this would be a better world. And if those people who have all the right answers were to become our rulers leaders, we'd all be as happy as pigs in shit. One can only dream.
|4.29.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Perhaps Asimov's Cities are what would make Chad happy? Mass concentration of people, with the people conditioned to hate the outside. Which has the added benefit of saving Gaea from humanity!
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I am more amazed that he still has high approval ratings. This says a lot about the typical American voter..... none of it good.
Obusha's approval ratings are lower than Dubya's were at this point
in his administration.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 11:46AM|#
bigbigslacker | April 29, 2009, 11:07am | #
People left the cities because the cities were beautiful,
healthy and effective Democrat-run utopias. That sure was dumb of
them. If only they were as smart as the sort of people who would
like to dictate how everyone else should live, this would be a
better world. And if those people who have all the right answers
were to become our rulers leaders, we'd all be as happy as pigs in
shit. One can only dream.
People left the cities for the suburbs because it was best for them
to do so. The problem is that, like in all prisoner's dilemmas,
these peoples' choices were not best for society as a whole. When
most people (especially those with money) left the cities, it
gutted them, leaving gaping pits surrounded by endless suburbs.
This isn't what anybody wanted.
I find it funny how easy it is to refute the entire core of
libertarian market-based ideology with one simple lesson in game
theory.
http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/introduction-to-game-theory
It is really easy to demonstrate that many situations exist where
rational people making rational choices for their own well-being do
NOT lead to the optimal situation for everyone involved. The
invisible hand works well in certain limited contexts, but
critically fails in others.
|4.29.09 @ 12:09PM|#
It is really easy to demonstrate that many situations exist
where rational people making rational choices for their own
well-being do NOT lead to the optimal situation for everyone
involved.
If you define "optimal solution" as "what I prefer", that is.
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 12:15PM|#
The problem is that, like in all prisoner's dilemmas, these peoples' choices were not best for society as a whole. When most people (especially those with money) left the cities, it gutted them, leaving gaping pits surrounded by endless suburbs. This isn't what anybody wanted.
[citation needed]
|4.29.09 @ 12:21PM|#
It is really easy to demonstrate that many situations exist
where rational people making rational choices for their own
well-being do NOT lead to the optimal situation for everyone
involved.
It is even easier to demonstrate that history demonstrates over and
over ad nauseum that giving the power to one group to make
decisions for everyone never leads to the optimal situation to
everyone.
Oddly, though, our experience does seem to indicate that, on the
whole, the more control people have over the own lives, the better
things turn out. Its not "optimal", but in the long run it beats
the hell out of the results achieved by top down control.
MattXIV|4.29.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Chad,
You find it easy since you're begging the question.
Let's actually do the model here.
A/B Moves Stays
Moves 0/0 +1/-2
Stays +1/-2 -1/-1
If the game looks like the above, then moving to the suburbs is
both the the dominant solution and the optimal solution when you
include binding negotiation.
A/B Moves Stays
Moves -1/-1 +1/-2
Stays +1/-2 0/0
If the game looks like the above, then you do have the classic
prisioner's scenario where a binding agreement to stay would
improve the outcome for both parties.
A/B Moves Stays
Moves -1/-1 +4/-3
Stays +4/-3 -2/-2
If the game looks like the above, net utility is optimized when one
party moves but both parties moving is dominant and would
happen.
Your point relies on the parties being better off if they both live
in the city rather than they both live it the suburbs as shown in
the second scenario, and doesn't hold in the 1st or 3rd. You've
provided absolutely no data to support your assertion that the game
looks like the second example and not the first or third and have
been called out on it already. You're simply assuming people have
the set of preferences that makes you right, which is unpersuasive,
regardless of how high your opinion of yourself is.
|4.29.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Allow me to alter a classic H&R comment.
When Jennifer Chad has children,
she he will stop espousing this
libertarian big city nonsense and see the
attractions of government intervention the
suburbs.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Matt, you forgot a 4th possible matrix, which is actually the
one I find most plausible:
A/B Moves Stays
Moves -1/-1 +4/-3
Stays +4/-3 0/0
But in any case, it can be seen that in most of the matrixes, the
rational actors do not reach the optimal state. In the case of
urban vs suburban, each person who choses to move from urban to
suburban areas likely makes both areas worse off. The urban areas
begin to lose the high density that allows the things that make
these areas special. The suburban areas lose the low density that
make them special. Both wind up being half-way in between,
resulting in an endless sprawl of McMansions and strip malls.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 12:58PM|#
When Jennifer Chad has children, she he will stop espousing this
libertarian big city nonsense and see the attractions of government
intervention the suburbs.
I never said it was always irrational or undesirable for some
people to live in the suburbs. I am simply stating that it is
likely that too many people live in the suburbs. If people had to
pay anything approximating the true cost of living in such
arrangements, you can be sure far fewer would choose such an
option.
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 1:04PM|#
The urban areas begin to lose the high density that allows the things that make these areas special. The suburban areas lose the low density that make them special. Both wind up being half-way in between, resulting in an endless sprawl of McMansions and strip malls.
Hey, look at me! I can beg the question too. I don't value
McMansions and strip malls, so surely nobody else does either,
right? And any policy I don't like just makes things less special.
Forget defining what that actually means or citing any supporting
evidence.
|4.29.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently wrote in the Wall
Street Journal, that they aim to "close the achievement gap by
pursuing what works best for kids, regardless of
ideology."
Whew! Thank god! I thought they were going to leave those
Republican and Constitutional Party kids out to dry.
Xanthippas|4.29.09 @ 1:10PM|#
"For those Americans who voted for Obama, a question: Is
this the change you had in mind?"
Pretty much. Thanks for asking though.
Xanthippas|4.29.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Now that I think about it. If Obama is so pumped up about
saving the car industry, why is he creating more competition for
them with increased rail travel?
If more thinking prompted that question, you should stop while
you're ahead.
Tom|4.29.09 @ 1:25PM|#
> It is really easy to demonstrate that many
> situations exist where rational people making
> rational choices for their own well-being do
> NOT lead to the optimal situation for everyone
> involved.
It is also really easy to demonstrate that I do not have enough
information about everyone involved to make a choice that is
"optimal" for everyone, nor would it be possible for me to obtain
the necessary information. Furthermore, history has shown us that
no one in any type of government can collect, much less assimilate,
enough information about everyone involved to make the "optimal"
choice.
The fallacy is that you think it is possible to comprehend and
control a chaotic dynamic system of, for all practical purposes,
infinite dimensions. Such arrogance, where have I seen that
recently?
Humbly yours,
Tom H.
JD|4.29.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Am I the only one who's ticked off by his focus on trains? "We
can have trains that go from a stop only steps from your house
right to work and shopping!" All over America? Really? We don't
even have that in New York City, and that's one of
the most densely populated, most public-transit-heavy places in
America.
And what's with the fascination with trains anyway? I like trains
too, but they require a huge up-front investment (building rails
and stations) and once built, they're not very flexible (kind of
hard to move rails). Buses are not as sexy, but most places in
America are already served by roads, and they're easy to reroute if
needs change.
|4.29.09 @ 1:47PM|#
"...endless sprawl of McMansions and strip
malls."
Please explain why the sprawl of McMansions and strip malls is
worse than an endless sprawl of row houses and multi-storied
apartments.
|4.29.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Chad | April 29, 2009, 11:46am | #
People left the cities for the suburbs because it was best for them
to do so. The problem is that, like in all prisoner's dilemmas,
these peoples' choices were not best for society as a whole. When
most people (especially those with money) left the cities, it
gutted them, leaving gaping pits surrounded by endless suburbs.
This isn't what anybody wanted.
----
Isn't this blaming the effect and not the cause? If we fixed the
cities would people move back?
|4.29.09 @ 2:39PM|#
People My family left the cities
country for the suburbs because it was best for them to do
so.
My family never did live in the city, unless one considers Hawley,
MN or Tighnabruich, Scotland to be cities.
|4.29.09 @ 2:54PM|#
And what's with the fascination with trains
anyway?
I think the O-Man has seen Risky Business one too many
times.
|4.29.09 @ 2:55PM|#
The fallacy is that you think it is possible to comprehend
and control a chaotic dynamic system of, for all practical
purposes, infinite dimensions. Such arrogance, where have I seen
that recently?
Well said!
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Chad,
I've lived in 4 incredibly distinct areas...
1. Rural Nebraska
2. New York City, NY
3. Vancouver, WA (suburb of Portland)
4. Hollywood, CA
Now... out of curiosity - given the varied density levels of each
and the different things each place has to offer, which
should I live in? According to you I mean... since
obviously, you know more about what proportion of individuals
should live in which places than those individuals themselves
do.
Should I stay where I am at medium density? There aren't any good
trains nearby and I drive everywhere.
Should I move back to New York? Plenty of trains, kinda
crowded.
Maybe I should go back to Nebraska... I drove all the time there
too but it didn't take anytime to get anywhere, and there weren't
that many strip malls compared to LA.
I'm curious.... Really... Which of these places is best Chad?
What's the magic "optimal" distribution?
And could it be... that I have reasons for living and moving in
places beyond your comprehension........? Maybe?
Chad|4.29.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Please explain why the sprawl of McMansions and strip malls
is worse than an endless sprawl of row houses and multi-storied
apartments.
Let's see...McMansion sprawl consumes significantly more resources,
making it unsustainable. Americans consume over 50% more resources
than most other developed nations yet aren't any happier.
Additionally, McMansion sprawl makes walking and biking difficult
and largely useless. This all but forces everyone to own car(s) at
great expense, and then grow fat because of all the extra time we
spend on our butts.
McMansion sprawn is expensive, unhealthy, unsustainable and largely
exists due only to the massive government subsidies of home
ownership, automobile transport, and energy. At the very least, we
should drop the subsidies. That alone would hammer this phenomenon.
Yet merely dropping the subsidies would not account for the
negative externalities that likely result from sprawl.
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Additionally, McMansion sprawl makes walking and biking difficult and largely useless. This all but forces everyone to own car(s) at great expense, and then grow fat because of all the extra time we spend on our butts.
And yet again, your argument depends upon projecting Chad's values
onto everyone else.
|4.29.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Let's see...McMansion sprawl consumes significantly more
resources, making it unsustainable.
[citation needed]
Americans consume over 50% more resources than most other
developed nations yet aren't any happier.
[citation needed]
Additionally, McMansion sprawl makes walking and biking
difficult and largely useless. This all but forces everyone to own
car(s) at great expense, and then grow fat because of all the extra
time we spend on our butts.
I prefer to believe that everyone who lives in suburbia knows about
the need for cars, and so the opted in to that lifestyle, rather
than being forced into it. I also am pretty sure that anyone in
suburbia who wants to exercise can still do so.
At the very least, we should drop the subsidies.
If you mean all the subsidies, including subsidies city living like
rail and mass transit, then we can talk. Otherwise, this is all
just special pleading for a lifestyle that you have a subjective
preference for.
|4.29.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Americans consume over 50% more resources than most other
developed nations yet aren't any happier.
(!)
Impeccably incontrovertible.
|4.29.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Obama seems to think like someone who has spent their entire
life in a large metropolitan area. Not every city has a train
system like Chicago has. I could take a train to work but it would
take me 2 hours each way with only a few minutes of it for the
train ride. If I wanted to take the bus to the train station, add
another hour and a half. Seven hours of commuting isn't my idea of
anything worthwhile.
1. Walk up the street to bus stop and wait for bus.
2. Get off first bus and wait for second bus on the route that goes
to CalTrain station.
3. Wait for train at originating station.
4. Train ride to work town, probably 20 minutes.
5. Wait for bus to office park.
6. Take bus to office park with several stops along the way.
In the meantime I could have driven back and forth to work three
times.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 3:29PM|#
R C Dean | April 29, 2009, 3:11pm | #
Let's see...McMansion sprawl consumes significantly more resources,
making it unsustainable.
[citation needed]
If you can't figure out why a 2200 sq ft detached home requires
more resources than as 1400 sq ft row house or a 1000 sq ft
apartment, there is little I can do to help you. Of course, you
could just google it, but apparently that's too challenging for
you. If you learned how to use it, you could find all sorts of
information concerning resource consumption. You will consistently
find that Americans are at or near the top in just about every
resource category (energy, water, wood, land for food production,
minerals, etc), usually by a wide margin over anyone else but the
Australians and Canadians, who look a lot like us. There is plenty
of data out there about happiness, which largely boils down to the
finding that once people have the basics, more money really doesn't
make them much happier...but having more than their neighbor does.
Americans do fine in various happiness rankings, but a lot of
nations match or beat us while consuming far less.
If you mean all the subsidies, including subsidies city living
like rail and mass transit, then we can talk. Otherwise, this is
all just special pleading for a lifestyle that you have a
subjective preference for.
Those subsidies are a pittance compared to what road travel
receives. Even if we were to drop all subsidies tomorrow, the
entrenched advantage that roads would have from all their previous
subsidies would lock them in indefinitely. I suppose you know that
the world's best train system - Japan's - runs using minimal
subsidies. You can't say that about road systems anywhere.
|4.29.09 @ 3:30PM|#
>Let's see...McMansion sprawl consumes significantly more
resources, making it unsustainable. Americans consume over 50% more
resources than most other developed nations yet aren't any
happier.
And where is the data supporting this assertion? How does a
neighborhood of McMansions consume more energy, food, produce more
waste, have better air quality than, say, downtown Manhattan?
Oh, wait. It doesn't.
>Additionally, McMansion sprawl makes walking and biking
difficult and largely useless. This all but forces everyone to own
car(s) at great expense, and then grow fat because of all the extra
time we spend on our butts.
Ha! By "our," you mean "you." Don't confuse the two.
I manage to bike, walk and drive a car and not have a fat butt
because (gasp) I choose not to - it has nothing to do with
Malthusean calculations about sustainability, "optimal benefit for
all" or any other collectivist nonsense that is supposed to
substitute for individual responsibility.
Although sometimes I just wish there was somebody else to make
these kinds of individual choices for me so that I could relieve
myself of the responsibility for those decisions - somebody far off
in Washington and who "knows better" and has a keen grasp behind
his desk of "what's good for me."
>McMansion sprawn is expensive, unhealthy, unsustainable and
largely exists due only to the massive government subsidies of home
ownership, automobile transport, and energy.
Sounds like inner city Philadelphia if you ask me.
>At the very least, we should drop the subsidies. That alone
would hammer this phenomenon.
Once we drop the federal and state subsidies for public housing,
welfare and other government funding that rewards what is
essentially doing nothing, I'm right on board with ya.
>Yet merely dropping the subsidies would not account for the
negative externalities that likely result from sprawl.
Come on, chad. "Likely?" Either they do or they don't. Which is
it?
Mike Laursen|4.29.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Well, maybe if the other major party hadn't run their own incompetent clown with liver spots...
|4.29.09 @ 3:33PM|#
I personally like the idea of mass transit. I cant afford to
spend 3 or 4 dollars a gallon WHEN it gets back up to that point.
This is an investment into our future.
High speed rail will be cheaper, more efficient, and will consume
less energy than air or car travel. Electro magnetics are the
future. if we don't make significant investments into them now or
soon then we are going to be way behind dare I say France? (which
already has a train that goes almost 400mph which is close enough
to the cruising speed of a jet)
Innovation creates new markets and business models that enable our
economy to grow. Investing in technologies like electro magnetic
high speed trains will help exacerbate this.
Nobody became rich by not taking a risk in an investment. granted
this is a pretty big risk, but if you do your homework and stop
making this a blue or red issue, then you will actually see that is
not a bad idea.
|4.29.09 @ 3:36PM|#
No, the honeymoon will not end. The media is too invested and
will do what is necessary to shape the narrative to protect their
investment.
America as we know it is finished. Only extraordinary circumstances
have a prayer of setting her back on the right track and the
fallout from that, if it happens, will take decades itself. I feel
very sorry for the children today.
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Doesn't it feel like sometimes all the Reason comment board
antagonists are poster-children for:
"It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups."
?
It's funny to see Chad talking about reducing subsidies though...
If only he didn't mean to do that so that that money could be spent
on stuff he likes instead.
|4.29.09 @ 3:42PM|#
>High speed rail will be cheaper, more efficient, and will
consume less energy than air or car travel. Electro magnetics are
the future. if we don't make significant investments into them now
or soon then we are going to be way behind dare I say France?
(which already has a train that goes almost 400mph which is close
enough to the cruising speed of a jet)
How's the unemployment in France being helped by their superior
high-speed railway system?
>Innovation creates new markets and business models that enable
our economy to grow. Investing in technologies like electro
magnetic high speed trains will help exacerbate this.
Who, pray tell, will be doing the investing? If the market had a
demand for such a service, don't you think it would have been done
by now?
I mean, it might be a neat idea to invest in mag-lev
tractor-trailers and fit major highways with this super-awesome
technology, but for some reason, the other trucks are just too damn
economical and inexpensive by comparison. Damn capitalism - when
will we learn that spending exorbitant sums of money on unnecessary
public projects is the key to the joyous nation's salvation and
eternal success (coughBIGDIGcough)?
Or are you just suggesting that Joe Taxpayer cough more of his
money up for this fantasy?
>
Nobody became rich by not taking a risk in an investment.
True, but few people who are rich were FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to
make an investment which was risky.
>granted this is a pretty big risk, but if you do your homework
and stop making this a blue or red issue, then you will actually
see that is not a bad idea.
It's a wonderful idea - just like that floating skateboard from
Back to the Future. That's not the question. The question is what
percentage of your income are you ponying up for this latest
"American dream that we never knew we needed until we spent
trillions on it?"
|4.29.09 @ 3:47PM|#
WE HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT OURSELVES FOR ELECTING A PERSON SUCH AS THIS.THE SITUATION UNDERSCORES THE COMPLICITY OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN FOCUSING ON HYPE OVER SUBSTANCE.WE MUST HAVE A CALL TO ARMS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AMERICANS MUST BE PREPARED FOR THE 2010 MIDTERMS.WE BEGIN THE PROCESS OF THE ERADICATION OF BARRACK OBAMA AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OSF AMERICA!
Chad|4.29.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Social conservatives against sprawl
http://thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.04.17.001.pdart
Chad|4.29.09 @ 3:52PM|#
It's funny to see Chad talking about reducing subsidies though...
If only he didn't mean to do that so that that money could be spent
on stuff he likes instead.
Since subsidies are generally very difficult to undo, new
industries should be subsidized until the reach the point where
they can compete against the old, entrenched industries that are
currently locked in due to their old subsidies. Roads have
literally received trillions of dollars of subsidies. Even if we
dropped the subsidies today, this amounts to an insurmountable
lead. We should subsidize renewable energy for the same reason.
|4.29.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Evidently, Chad is repulsed by suburbs and likes to say "Mcmansion" a lot. I would propose that after we all satisfy his fervent desire to live in crowded, dirty, high crime, expensive core cities, then we should all be required to eat in communal cafeterias. After all, the negative externalities associated with allowing individuals to choose their own diet and prepare their own food (health issues from not eating what I think you should eat, not washing the dishes to my standards, no need for inefficient food storage and preparation areas and equipment in each domicile, etc.) demand it!
Colonel_Angus|4.29.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Chav...
I would love to live in a moderately dense area of a medium to
large city. What makes me avoid doing that is that just about every
great city I have visited is made undesirable by the policies of
"visionary" pricks like you trying to micromanage everything, and
populated by entitlement sucking morons.
Mike Laursen|4.29.09 @ 3:54PM|#
High speed rail will be cheaper, more efficient, and will
consume less energy than air or car travel.
Let's narrow the focus of your statement to the proposed high-speed
rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
First question I have for you. Why does it have to be high-speed?
Say that there were simply more conventional trains running between
the two cities on existing tracks. It would a lot less expensive,
no? How has it been determined that building a new high-speed rail
line justifies the expense of its construction?
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 4:01PM|#
one word: telecommuting
Actually yeah... given that we're looking at a government that
refuses to be fiscally/economically responsible, and that they
are going to spend trillions of dollars no matter
what, I wonder what the cost/benefit to using all the $$$ they
would spend on trains and other nonsense on beefing up the
internet.
Obviously it's not a fundamentally sane thing to do either, but it
seems like that would be a hell of a lot smarter than funneling
money to costly and inflexible projects like a big train. Plus, on
the scale of creating incentives for people to use less resources -
pushing for telecommuting seems like a win.
...graded on the curve that all "wins" are net losses in this case.
Ugh.
|4.29.09 @ 4:03PM|#
So Chad, who gets to pick where I live? You? Doubtful. Regardless of what you may think of the suburbs, the minute you tell me what I must do, I say stick it up your ass. Enjoy your own damned gentrified urban area.
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 4:04PM|#
"Since subsidies are generally very difficult to undo, new
industries should be subsidized until the reach the point where
they can compete against the old, entrenched industries that are
currently locked in due to their old subsidies."
= Since subsidies are generally difficult to undo (and they produce
industries that eventually have greater market share and artificial
power in competition against non-subsidized companies), the only
way to fix those problems is to...
...Subsidize more stuff???
You did read what you wrote, right?
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 4:06PM|#
...and suddenly my earlier quote brings it home for Chad
again.
Though it's interesting that he simultaneously recognizes the
secondary consequences of subsidies (behemoth companies and
industries that are hard to challenge and barriers to market entry)
and pretends they won't apply to the thing he
wants to subsidize...
Wtf Chad.
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Social conservatives against sprawl
Oh, well if social conservatives support it, then it must
be worthwhile. You seem confused.
|4.29.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Obama is a looter, plain and simple. He and the Democrats in
congress have just looted an extra 1.5 trillion dollars from the
American people, for purposes of providing unearned economic
benefits and goodies to the undeserving parasites that comprise the
constituency of the Democratic party and who helped elect this
latest band of looters.
Obama is a career looter good only at practicing charity with other
people's money. Otherwise, he's a complete zero -- an utter waste
of a human being.
|4.29.09 @ 4:24PM|#
'one of the least popular and least effective presidents in
U.S. history'
That he became unpopular along with the relentless drumbeat of
negativity from the MSM is undeniable. But, I disagree entirely
that a man who kept us safe and freed over 60 million people from
despots and madmen was "ineffective".
|4.29.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Bart,
You mean kept us safe, except for the one time he didn't,
right?
You know, the largest terrorist attack on American soil ever?
Chad|4.29.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Here are some cute maps: Los Angeles vs Osaka. These cities are
of similar population.
http://metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdf
http://johomaps.com/as/japan/osaka/osakametro.html
If you are in LA, odds are either you are currently not near a
train station, or your destination isn't. If you are in Osaka, both
your current location and your destination are almost always within
15 minutes of a station. Hence, 60% do so in Osaka. Indeed, in
every large Japanese city I have been to, you can be fairly certain
that almost all places you are interested in are no more than a
mile from a station.
|4.29.09 @ 4:50PM|#
To my knowledge, the Obama administration has yet to devote
dollar one to exploration of flying carpets, broomsticks or any
number of methods of magical transportation. Magic is free and
non-polluting--safe to say, the only reason we aren't all
teleporting ourselves magically from place to work is that the
infrastructure doesn't exist, and we haven't shown the will as a
nation. Investing in magic will ensure that we will be able to
compete with nations like Denmark, where magical energy flows
freely to neighboring countries.*
*this works for any number of subsidized though unworkable or
unfeasible technologies
Chad|4.29.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Chuck | April 29, 2009, 3:53pm | #
Evidently, Chad is repulsed by suburbs and likes to say "Mcmansion"
a lot. I would propose that after we all satisfy his fervent desire
to live in crowded, dirty, high crime, expensive core cities, then
we should all be required to eat in communal cafeterias. After all,
the negative externalities associated with allowing individuals to
choose their own diet and prepare their own food (health issues
from not eating what I think you should eat, not washing the dishes
to my standards, no need for inefficient food storage and
preparation areas and equipment in each domicile, etc.) demand
it!
Don't worry, once we implement a carbon tax or cap&trade, meat
prices will go up significantly and the problem will get better. If
we additionally get stricter about water use and run-off issues and
drop the multitude of ag subsidies, meat will largely be reduced to
a treat rather than a main-stay...which it should have been in the
first place.
|4.29.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Let's see...McMansion sprawl consumes significantly more
resources, making it unsustainable. Americans consume over 50% more
resources than most other developed nations yet aren't any
happier.
But we can kick their fucking asses anytime we goddam feel like it.
That makes me happy.
Get over it Chad. People don't live their lives for an optimal
society, they live their lives for themselves and their
families.
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 4:55PM|#
That's cute Chad, but you still didn't answer my earlier
questions, or prove that simply being near a train station is A.
desirable for everyone (some people like the autonomy of driving
and being able to live a more decentralized existence and the
freedom associated with changing course on a whim) and B. actually
economically beneficial factoring in the *real* cost of building
and maintaining rail lines, trains, and managing the system all on
the taxpayer's dime.
Plus you will find it hard to compare different places' success
with different types of transit until you also understand things
like temperature, geology, weather, earthquake/natural disasters,
population density, etc. So comparing two maps of different places
is just silly.
I might also note that anything that can be done in a cost
efficient way tends to be done (or easily would/could be done)
privately anyway. See: Development of New York Subway system... you
know... back when it was profitable. And I'd bet you almost
anything that if the NY Subway system were private again, and
different lines were competing for business, it would look a bit
more like the PATH train, and a little less like a sewer.
Furthermore, I do live within 15-20 minutes of a train station in
Los Angeles, and yet I can't use it to get to work and I have no
desire to use it any other time.
So, again... What is the "optimal" population density Chad, and
what city should I be living in? Osaka?
|4.29.09 @ 5:13PM|#
>>Here are some cute maps: Los Angeles vs Osaka. These
cities are of similar population.
Population. To hell with population. How about a stat that really
tells the story...Chad.
California's size: 163,700 square miles
Japan's size: 145,600 square miles.
THAT is why Los Angeles doesn't look like Osaka: it didn't have to.
It was not constrained with a limited area for which to place its
respective population.
|4.29.09 @ 5:14PM|#
The day Obama took office the country was consumed with the real
threat of the failure of the entire banking system, Wall Street
facing total collapse, 10's of thousands of layoffs each week. In
short we were on the brink of a total failure of our economy.
Today that clear and present danger has for the most part gone
away. Yes the economy is still troubled but the bleeding has
stopped. President Obama does not have a magic wand nor can the
ills of this country be fixed in 100 days or maybe even 500.
What we do have is a serious and intelligent leader who appears
honest and committed to solving our problems without the rancor of
bitterness and arrogance that we had for the past 8 years.
I know John McCain could not have done a better job and those who
want to throw rocks are doing so out of frustration absent an
alternative path.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 5:16PM|#
actually economically beneficial factoring in the *real*
cost of building and maintaining rail lines, trains, and managing
the system all on the taxpayer's dime.
The Osaka subway system, like most rail systems in Japanese large
cities, is privately run and PROFITABLE. How many roads can say
that?
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_monorail005.htm
As I have noted many times: transportation systems scale
non-linearly. Their value, profitability, and ridership scale
faster than the number of lines and stations. Indeed, the scaling
factor is roughly the square of the number of stations. This is why
LA, with a half-dozen lines and a few dozen stations, gets nowhere,
while Osaka, with dozens of lines and a couple hundred stations,
prints money. 200^2 >>> 30^2.
|4.29.09 @ 5:16PM|#
People don't live their lives for an optimal society, they
live their lives for themselves and their families.
And the way society is structured has nothing to do with the
wellbeing of individual families?
Chad|4.29.09 @ 5:21PM|#
California's size: 163,700 square miles
Japan's size: 145,600 square miles.
THAT is why Los Angeles doesn't look like Osaka: it didn't have to.
It was not constrained with a limited area for which to place its
respective population.
First, this is not as relevant data as you think, as in both CA and
Japan, most people live along the coasts. The LA-San Diego area is
not terribly different than the Kansai area (Osaka/Kyoto/Kobe) in
terms of population density. If anything, the beautiful weather in
SoCal should encourage the use of public transport.
Chad|4.29.09 @ 5:24PM|#
Furthermore, I do live within 15-20 minutes of a train
station in Los Angeles, and yet I can't use it to get to work and I
have no desire to use it any other time.
In a Japanese city, a 15-20 minute walk would be considered a long
distance. 10 minutes is probably average. And of course, your work
would likely be about 10 minutes from a station, and most of the
interesting places in town would be AT a station.
|4.29.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Socialism? Dictators? Jimmy Carter? Over the top sarcasm?
Reason, your true colors are showing. And they look a lot like
Michelle Malkin's.
Sean W. Malone|4.29.09 @ 5:32PM|#
The Osaka subway system, like most rail systems in Japanese
large cities, is privately run and PROFITABLE.
Then GOOD!
It's all totally fine if private individuals want to risk their own
capital for a profitable endeavor that enriches the lives of
everyone who uses it and is in high demand.
Again, I have no qualms with that - what I have a problem with is
this idea that you go back to a rail system created by the
government - which are almost without fail not
profitably built, run or maintained.
If a train is wanted in Los Angeles (and I don't have any reason to
see why people here wouldn't be willing to use one if it actually
got to places they needed to go regularly) then a private company
*should* build it. This means getting government out of the
way, not subsidizing it - which only creates perverse
incentives and skews the actual demand.
I think, if you keep exploring this, it could push you over to the
"dark side" and turn you libertarian Chad. Getting government out
of the way may very well wind up with a world that looks exactly
like you want it to... C'mon dude... Take the risk ;)
alan|4.29.09 @ 5:35PM|#
geek | April 29, 2009, 5:14pm | #
The day Obama took office the country was consumed with the real
threat of the failure of the entire banking system, Wall Street
facing total collapse, 10's of thousands of layoffs each week. In
short we were on the brink of a total failure of our economy.
Today that clear and present danger has for the most part gone
away. Yes the economy is still troubled but the bleeding has
stopped.
You buying the feel good pap in the media? Don't be an idiot. The
economy shrunk by 6 percent in the first quarter and there is
certainly not an end in sight. Obama's actions so far could not
have possibly been less effective, or counter productive.
DavidW|4.29.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Chad, if you were entrusted with the Ring of Power in LOTR, it would be the shortest epic in history.
|4.29.09 @ 5:38PM|#
>The Osaka subway system, like most rail systems in Japanese
large cities, is privately run and PROFITABLE. How many roads can
say that?
Amtrak is the most prominent artery throughout the northeast. It's
government subsidized - in fact, the government is the sole
investor. If you build your dreamed-of high speed rail, doesn't
that cut into Amtrak's already struggling business?
How is that fair to Amtrak?
Dilemmas, dilemmas.
|4.29.09 @ 5:46PM|#
Those subsidies are a pittance compared to what road travel
receives. Even if we were to drop all subsidies tomorrow, the
entrenched advantage that roads would have from all their previous
subsidies would lock them in indefinitely. I suppose you know that
the world's best train system - Japan's - runs using minimal
subsidies. You can't say that about road systems
anywhere.
That's just not the case, Chad. In fact, fuel taxes not only pay
for the roads, they're paying to subsidize those urban white
elephants known as "light rail."
If you want to live in the city, sonny, don't let me stop you. But
I prefer my lawn, my car and my placid suburban solitude and I
don't mind paying for them.
|4.29.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Now that I think about it. If Obama is so pumped up about
saving the car industry, why is he creating more competition for
them with increased rail travel?
It's almost as if the intent here is something other than what's
been stated by Chocolate Jesus...like assuming control of as much
of the nation's industrial, commercial, financial etc. sectors
before anyone catches on to what's happening.
Salvador Allende with a tan, I'd say.
|4.29.09 @ 5:54PM|#
And the way society is structured has nothing to do with the
wellbeing of individual families?
Left alone, society structures itself. I think you are confusing
society with government. A common enough blind spot with social
engineers on both the left and right. That's why I'm not on that
line. Hell, I'm not even on the same plane, I'm a
libertarian/minarchist.
alan|4.29.09 @ 6:01PM|#
It's almost as if the intent here is something other than
what's been stated by Chocolate Jesus..
Just a small quibble, the original Jesus from the text sounded like
he was a Chocolate Jesus with the dark whooly hair, though, even
the earliest paintings made him look like Sayid from Lost.
|4.29.09 @ 6:30PM|#
Apparently Reason has just discovered Bush was one of the least effective presidents in US history. So why were they applauding him for years? This guy is dominating the political landscape like no president I've seen since Kennedy and early Johnson. Gillespie and Welch then deliver a commentary that is basically juvenile and this is echoed with a lot of basically racist comments about chocolate Jesus, hate of one sort and another and misinformation about just about every subject under the sun. Meanwhile the GOP is imploding. Keep up the good work guys. The chocolate Jesus is running rings around you.
Jordan|4.29.09 @ 6:37PM|#
Apparently Reason has just discovered Bush was one of the least effective presidents in US history.
You made yourself look like a complete ass with your very first
sentence. Go look through the archives before you embarass yourself
any further. Remember, better to not see anything and be thought a
fool than...
alan|4.29.09 @ 6:40PM|#
Gillespie and Welch then deliver a commentary that is
basically juvenile and this is echoed with a lot of basically
racist comments about chocolate Jesus, hate of one sort and another
and misinformation about just about every subject under the sun.
Meanwhile the GOP is imploding. Keep up the good work guys. The
chocolate Jesus is running rings around you.
Even the temporary euphoria of victory and the ephemeral dream of a
permanent majority hasn't lightened up these guys.
I take it you are not John who regularly post under the name you
are using.
cuernimus|4.29.09 @ 6:43PM|#
Apparently John at 6:30pm has just discovered Reason. No sign of when he will discover the concept of libertarianism. And no he is not THE John, different emails.
alan|4.29.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Meanwhile the GOP is imploding.
Couldn't give a rat's patootie about the GOP beyond their use is
stopping you guys. I'm not worried, your ideology and its
implementation is your ultimate downfall. You should be concerned.
Obama is less cautious than either the Soviets or Mao in going
forth. Unfortunately for you, he is no Clinton with a moderating
cynical side to keep him from going off the deep end.
alan|4.29.09 @ 6:45PM|#
cuernimus | April 29, 2009, 6:43pm | #
Apparently John at 6:30pm has just discovered Reason. No sign of
when he will discover the concept of libertarianism. And no he is
not THE John, different emails.
Our John is usually pretty cool.
|4.29.09 @ 8:07PM|#
All of the commentary about suburbs vs. city, does mass transit
work, social engineering vs. individual choice get off track from
the substance of this piece...that BHO is in fact JCII, naive and
idealistic in his view: government solves all problems, absolves
all slights (be they past, present or future), resolves all
conflicts. He doesn't have even an ounce of the Clinton pragmatism,
and his talent for political doublespeak is virtually
unparalleled.
Why doesn't more of the MSM call him on his bullshit? How do you
reduce the deficit and simultaneously hatch the largest expansion
of federal spending...EVER? His smooth cadences, his calm, his
condescension all lull people into a false sense that "it will be
okay, if only we believe it hard enough."
We need more commentaries like this in the regular, broadly read
press to get the rest of the country off their depressed asses and
angry about their future!
|4.29.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Simply the best article I've read in a while. It made me wince several times at the raw, festering truth and made we wonder how many decades it will take to get our country back after the Obama debacle bankrupts our country in every way imaginable.
|4.29.09 @ 10:48PM|#
This unbelievably trite and shallow article just shows how deep the despair is in the do-nothing Republican party. How do you justify pushing ideas that clearly have not worked. The only people impressed with this commentary is the stupid.
|4.29.09 @ 10:58PM|#
Maybe not the right day for a Haiku, but here goes:
Obama tells us:
"It's not my fault, I only
Spread the wealth around"
-jcr
John C. Randolph|4.29.09 @ 11:01PM|#
Apparently Reason has just discovered Bush was one of the
least effective presidents in US history. So why were they
applauding him for years?
Say what?
If you think Reason was applauding Bush, you should talk
to your shrink about adjusting your meds.
-jcr
|4.30.09 @ 1:14AM|#
Neat reversal, accusing Obama of exhausted ideas. Won't fly,
though.
It's perfectly obvious that the Republicans are the ones shooting
blanks. Tax cuts for the rich and deregulating business have been
taken as far as they can go. Too far, in fact, considering the mess
they've left us in.
The Party of "No" also means the Party of No Ideas. America said
"No" to Conservatism pretty decisively, and hates and mistrusts its
acolytes.
Is this the change I had in mind? Yeah, you bet. Thank God. It's
the only way we'll dig our way out of the Conservative
Catastrophe.
shimano|4.30.09 @ 1:17AM|#
@Chad
"meat will largely be reduced to a treat rather than a
main-stay...which it should have been in the first place."
Hey, I'll give you some meat treat.
Ralph Melcher|4.30.09 @ 1:28AM|#
What I don't understand is why libertarians don't just call
themselves faux-Republicans and be done with it.
The solutions to America's situation, as far as I can tell from
your article, is to encourage more suburban sprawl and more
shopping malls.
Wow, that's imaginative.
Yes, this is the change I voted for. Not only this time but back
before the so-called Republican Revolution which set us all back
about 20 years.
shimano|4.30.09 @ 3:17AM|#
@Ralph Melcher
I don't understand why you don't call yourself a faux-socialist,
comrade. Please, tell me where to live, Ralph! I don't want to
contribute to suburban sprawl! Don't worry! Great leader will tell
us what to do! ::cough:::
Sean W. Malone|4.30.09 @ 3:34AM|#
I'm curious as to how we've wound up with seemingly dozens of
people on the boards today/yesterday who have clearly never heard
of or met a libertarian before.
Richard:
"This unbelievably trite and shallow article just shows how deep
the despair is in the do-nothing Republican party."
We're not Republicans, we aren't members of the Republican party
and the vast majority of us spent the last 8 years shouting at the
Republicans again and again and again...
Which brings me to:
Panskeptic:
"Neat reversal, accusing Obama of exhausted ideas. Won't fly,
though.
It's perfectly obvious that the Republicans are the ones shooting
blanks. Tax cuts for the rich and deregulating business have been
taken as far as they can go. Too far, in fact, considering the mess
they've left us in."
Except that... well... First off, tax cuts primarily affect the
rich because the rich bear the most burden of taxation, this isn't
rocket science - it's built into the progressive tax scheme.
However, most libertarians favor the complete elimination of the
income tax (for everyone) and other tariffs & taxes across the
board, however the difference is... we also support NOT SPENDING SO
MUCH FUCKING MONEY! We do not support government spending as
stimulus (it doesn't work... as you all knew it didn't back in 2003
when Bush tried) and we don't support costly and dangerously
aggressive foreign policy/wars, or counter-productive spending on
"social" programs at home either. Bush did both... Or perhaps
you've forgotten the prescription drug program or the expanded
Federal funding for schools?
The Republican party, and certainly the Bush administration spent 8
years spending us into oblivion. $500 Billion deficits virtually
every year. All the while they also pretended to cut
taxes. And now, Obama is not only not doing anything different,
he's actively doing vastly more of the same!
As for deregulation, perhaps you should learn your facts before you
post here. I will refer you to the following:
Bush's
Regulatory Kiss-off: Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd
president was the biggest regulator since Nixon. by Veronique
de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at GMU.
This is also not rocket science - Bush, you would probably admit or
recognize - expanded the roles & powers of government to an
unprecedented degree (something diametrically opposed to what
any libertarian would want) and you can't do that without
increasing regulations. So the bullshit of "deregulation" failing
is what's not going to fly.
In fact it is quite clearly regulations of various kinds (not all
from the Bush years however) which got us into this mess, combined
significantly with the actions of the Federal Reserve.
But for that you might actually have to understand economics and
specifically the Austrian School - which proudly boasts the only
group of people to accurately predict the economic crisis.
Links related to that here:
Peter Schiff
2006-2009
Austrians Can Explain the
Boom AND the Bust
or perhaps you might recall what Ron Paul had said during the
presidential debates, and was subsequently laughed at for.
AND FINALLY...
to Ralph:
No, Libertarians are *not* Republicans, we have actually a hell of
a lot less in common with any of them than you think, largely
because you are quite misinformed on the libertarian position.
Secondly, we aren't here to "encourage" anything. Malls,
suburban sprawl, cities, trains, jetpacks... it's not our (or your)
place to determine what the world should look like and
then impose that vision by force. You do not have the knowledge...
no one does.
I need to quit being an insomniac, but seriously... the financial
crisis has NOTHING to do with the non-existent
"free market" in the United States and nothing to do with the
non-existent "deregulation", and a hell of a lot to do with
incentives to create the housing bubble guided by
government, fueled by low interest rates, high leveraging and
massive amounts of created money by the Federal Reserve beginning
in 2003 (to "correct" for the earlier Fed-created tech bubble +
9/11).
The problem here is that the people who've shown up here lately
who've apparently never encountered libertarianism before is also
that while we were here paying attention and recording what is now
history, they were asleep and now buy into every ounce of rhetoric
spit out by the government and find it enough to just blame Bush.
And because they only listen to the rhetoric and don't bother to
look at what the actual actions of our
"leaders" have been, they think that Obama is change when he's
merely exacerbating what Bush started and adding his own twist to
it.
No Ralph, we aren't Republicans. And we aren't Democrats... it's
actually - and entirely *different* ideology. Learn about it.
Next up: US Dollar collapse, "Green" energy boom, massive
inflation... Good times.
Sean W. Malone|4.30.09 @ 3:42AM|#
Oh, and back on Panskeptic for one more second:
Yes, Obama is playing exhausted ideas. If you'd read the article or
gone to some of the links you'd understand what they meant by that
statement.
When you try things that haven't worked *ever*, and have actively
contributed to worse economic problems as your "solution" to the
consequences of doing lighter versions of those things... (that
make sense?)... you are playing exhausted ideas.
Unfortunately you actually have to understand more about economics
and specifically you have to dig a little deeper into the history
of how we got where we are now to understand all that.
Jim Treacher|4.30.09 @ 3:42AM|#
"Least popular," okay. But "least effective"? As in, least able
to get things done? That's just silly.
And you even mention Carter in the same article!
George K|4.30.09 @ 4:09AM|#
I'm at least glad these guys are getting paid to write this ( I
hope). I only wonder if they realize the push to low density
suburbs is what helped drive the bubble that crippled the world's
economy. Basically building houses that really didn't need to be
there, except to satisfy the psychological needs of a couple
generations of Americans.
Imagine the crops that could have been created on the land in the
US covered by strip malls! Hopefully the collapse of the
semi-imaginary financial sector of wealth creation will further the
globalization process and all countries' specialization, and
increase their relative wealth, leading to peace and prosperity for
us all. And for all fearing globalization, there is no need for a
one world government if each individual country plays a vital role
in the entire world's economy. The more important each country is
to us all, the less chance of conflict and the greater chance of
economic cooperation, and economic success. (All of this is
idealistic talk, but nonetheless good.)
Paul Gable|4.30.09 @ 5:03AM|#
Not many pundits can see it, but the tea party angst was and is all about a national wakeup to fraud. It hasn't taken 100 days for many of us to see it, but we're not far from a real majority that is alive and awake. More in "Not the Obama We Knew; Not the Government We Chose" at www.brushfires-of-freedom.com/not.html
|4.30.09 @ 6:35AM|#
You're way off the mark on thee trains, except for the
disappointing promised speeds. The skies are already overcrowded;
building more airports won't help. Building more roads won't do
much but encourage more traffic, and plunder the pockets of the
suburban commuters you love. That fact is we need all three modes
of transport, serving exurbs, suburbs, inside the city. The demand
is there. Moreover, trains pollute a lot less -- important for the
areas that suffer high auto and aircraft pollution like the NE
coast corridor and all of California -- where the central valley is
a dumping ground for air pollution from cars and jets. I thought
you guys would be interested in choice and clean air, rather than
the oligopoly of airlines who screw customers day in and day out at
will.
By the way, that suburban expansion you love (sound like David
Brooks) is over guys.
Chad|4.30.09 @ 7:55AM|#
Sean W. Malone | April 29, 2009, 5:32pm | #
If a train is wanted in Los Angeles (and I don't have any reason to
see why people here wouldn't be willing to use one if it actually
got to places they needed to go regularly) then a private company
*should* build it. This means getting government out of the way,
not subsidizing it - which only creates perverse incentives and
skews the actual demand.
It also means getting the government-subsidized competition out of
the way, or you do not have a level playing field. So would you
like to rip up the entire nation and start over again? Even if you
dropped all the road subsidies, roads are now deeply entrenched and
largely locked in. Their largest capital cost is already purchased
(the land itself), and our infrastructure is built to accomodate
the roads. The government has led us down the wrong path, and there
is no way out that doesn't involve government. Even to stay where
we are requires government. I know you hate this fact, but it is
simply true. Transportation will always be deeply entwined with
government, and you may as well get over it. The only question is
what kind of transportation systems do we need.
And btw, DOT brings in about $40 billion each year with the gas
tax, which is about what it spends on highway projects. However,
state gas taxes only bring in about a third of what they spend on
roads. And of course, bridges are a separate category. The fuel
subsidies are actually much larger than the direct road
subsidies.
Right now, we should be doing all planning with the assumption of
gas prices being $4.50 at minimum.
And you still don't understand what non-linear scaling implies.
ADDING ONE MORE LINE IN LOS ANGELES IS NOT PROFITABLE. Neither is
adding two. But if twenty more were added, the twenty-first WOULD
be profitable. If thirty were added, the SYSTEM would be
profitable. Below a certain size, the transportation systems have
little value, but as they increase in size, it increases rapidly.
AT SOME POINT, THE ADDITION OF ANOTHER LINE IS PROFITABLE, and AT
SOME POINT, THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS PROFITABLE.
What Japan did was use the government to achieve the critical mass
necessary to reach profitability, and then privatized the
government system. There is no way for this to be done by the
private sector, as the scope of the project is simply beyond the
means of any company on earth by more than an order of
magnitude.
Sean W. Malone|4.30.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Chad, I agree that government subsidized competition needs to be
out of the way - however, unless you haven't noticed, Amtrak is
heavily subsidized too.
But also, i don't really even think it matters... so long as
private companies are actually free to build rail lines, the moment
it becomes economically viable to do so, subsidies or not, they
will... Speaking as a resident of LA, I can tell you this, if I had
a way to get to work that was cheap, effective, hassle-free and
cost me less than driving I would.
The problem though, and something that you don't really want to
deal with, is that because LA is what it is, there will simply
never be enough trains to go where you want to go.
In Manhattan, you can get off of a train and walk for 10-15 minutes
maximum and arrive at your destination, and you pay $100ish (rates
just went up) a month to do it. Manhattan is geographically compact
however.
Los Angeles doesn't work that way - first off, it's far too spread
out to begin with to be able to put a train station within walking
distance of *everyone*. Secondly, we're all very dispersed, so I
doubt that enough people all go to the same locations that
it matters. More trains in and out of Santa Monica, Burbank,
Hollywood, Downtown and Studio City might be valuable - but I work
in Northridge for example and that's simply not a high demand
area.
You grossly underestimate the private sector however. What we need
is freedom Chad, not more subsidies.
Sean W. Malone|4.30.09 @ 10:17AM|#
I think you underestimate it because you make the mistake of
thinking that "economically viable" is only a function of nominal
cost valued in dollars, and it isn't.
There are many people in Los Angeles who absolutely *hate*
driving.
They do it though because in some cases it's the only way to get
where they need to go (your point) but also, again, because it
allows them to go somewhere else if necessary.
Your other problem here by the way - is that you're only
conceptualizing "trains" as the alternative here. That's one of the
other things that I don't get here... You don't know what kind of
alternative to cars there might be and which makes the most sense
for a city like LA. It will take entrepreneurs experimenting to
find out. But yes, by all means, remove the subsidies!
I guarantee you if gas was 3-4 dollars more, the incentive
structure changes immensely. Just let it play out, quit trying to
force your vision of what things "should" be on everyone else -
step back and relax as the market (millions of individuals) solve a
problem that planners (a small number of individuals) are unable to
handle.
|4.30.09 @ 11:25AM|#
"tax cuts for the rich and deregulating business have been taken
as far as they can go. Too far, in fact, considering the mess
they've left us in."
I continue to love this talking point, because anyone who uses it
always fails to explain the logical steps of how tax cuts turned
into asset bubbles. Its almost like, "we had a crisis, there were
tax cuts... ha it must be the tax cuts!"
And despite tons of logical arguments and data on the Fed keeping
interest rates far to low for far too long, Fannie and Freddie
leveraging to the hilt off its government implicit guarentee,
government mandates expanding affordable housing requirments,
government mandated oligopoly inr atings agencies, the fact that we
have NOT had any signifigant financial deregulation in recent years
that have anything to do with lending standards or funding... the
dems/ left continue reiterating their crap and just ignore the
arguments made. It's almost as if they are incapable of perceiving
relality outside thier preconceived mind bubbles.
I still challange anyone on this board (or elsewhere) to explain to
me how tax cuts led to a housing bubble and eventual popping - and
what deregultion in particular led to the bubble and how it did so.
Walk it through for me. Enlighten me.
Chad|4.30.09 @ 11:44AM|#
You grossly underestimate the private sector however. What
we need is freedom Chad, not more subsidies.
Trains provide vastly MORE freedom than cars. Not everyone can
drive. Little old ladies and ten-year-olds can use the trains. You
keep saying that public transportation wouldn't work in LA, even
though Osaka proves otherwise. LA is sprawled so heavily PRECISELY
BECAUSE it lacks good public transportation. The government has
created a mess, and there is no viable way for anyone but the
government to fix it.
I like how you point out how cheap public transportation is in New
York. It is a similar price in Osaka. How much more freedom do you
have when you are saving hundreds of dollars each month? A helluva
lot. How much more freedom do you have when your kids can take
themselves to practice and your dear old grandma can get to the
library on her own? A helluva lot. How much more freedom do you
have when you can get totally hammered and still pay only a $1.50
to get home? A helluva lot.
Chad|4.30.09 @ 11:48AM|#
I guarantee you if gas was 3-4 dollars more, the incentive
structure changes immensely. Just let it play out, quit trying to
force your vision of what things "should" be on everyone else -
step back and relax as the market (millions of individuals) solve a
problem that planners (a small number of individuals) are unable to
handle.
We should be doing all planning with the assumption of gas being $5
or more, because prices will go up once the recession is over and
more pollution costs are integrated into the price you pay. Also,
it is very possible that July 2008 was Peak Oil. Production had
been essentially flat for several years and is down now due to the
recession. It is not clear we can ever get back up to the level we
were at.
M. Simon|5.1.09 @ 1:52AM|#
I could do with fewer strip malls.
More strippers at strip malls is the answer.
M. Simon|5.1.09 @ 1:55AM|#
I like how you point out how cheap public transportation is
in New York.
And idf government paid for 100% instead of 50% of the cost it
would be cheaper still. Because stealing from non-riders is not a
real cost.
Chad|5.1.09 @ 7:31AM|#
M. Simon | May 1, 2009, 1:55am | #
I like how you point out how cheap public transportation is in New
York.
And idf government paid for 100% instead of 50% of the cost it
would be cheaper still. Because stealing from non-riders is not a
real cost.
Gas taxes only cover about 2/3 of road spending AND fuels are
subsidized in many other ways, most importantly free rights to
pollute.
Apparently you believe that stealing from non-drivers is just
peachy, right?
|5.1.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I just saw "Wicked" last night. During the Wizards solo performance about how wonderful he was the name Obama kept popping into my head. What we have here is all form, no substance. I am always going to be thinking of him as the Wiz.
Glen Raphael|5.1.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Regarding the "game theory" calculations above, all the payoff
matrices given had a common flaw: symmetry.
If we could reasonably assume people were interchangeable then it
actually would be plausible that government intervention could work
well, pretty much regardless of the actual payoff matrix. Consider
a small tribal society where everybody has the same simple needs,
wants, skills and possessions - the task of making the "best"
decision for the group becomes tractable. Top-down planning by an
outsider might work for such a group.
But the world we really live in is too complex to expect top-down
planning to work very well and one of the *ways* in which it is
complex is that different people have different skills, needs,
desires, and opportunity sets. So when A and B are considering
whether to move to the suburbs, the optimum outcome is likely to be
"A moves, B stays" but not the reverse, because A has reasons to
prefer the suburbs independent of what B does and B has reasons to
prefer the city independent of what A does.
Leave it up to the market and the people who are best off moving to
the suburbs will do so while the people who are best off staying in
or moving to the cities will do so. There is no one best outcome
for all people and no best outcome that is independent of the
characteristics of the people involved.
shimano|5.2.09 @ 12:19AM|#
Chad, I offered you meat treat, yet you still haven't responded. Am I to assume you were being insincere when you said meat should be a treat? Perhaps you're being shy or maybe you only do things when the government offers you incentives to do so, but, either way, I think you should respond to my offer of meat treat.
|5.3.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Obama is a classic democrat all hype and spin with a mix of lies and fantasy.Nothing new except his very strong push toward socialism for American society.
Other Matt|5.5.09 @ 1:14PM|#
his very strong push toward socialism
Whoa, isn't that like a fish in the middle of the ocean "pushing
toward" water? We just bought a car company, already bought a few
financial companies, are setting salaries, firing executives,
saying "oh well" to investors. What part about "toward" is
there?
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Nick Gillespie
- Remember the Veterans' Bodies, Nick Gillespie, November 11, 2009
- A Politically Charged Lightning Rod, Nick Gillespie, November 4, 2009
- Ready for Her Close-Up, Nick Gillespie, October 7, 2009
More Articles by Matt Welch
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- Briefly Noted: Commie Art, Matt Welch, November 3, 2009
- 'The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs', Matt Welch, October 28, 2009
Related Articles (Economics, Politics, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Treating Wall Street Like the Mafia, Anthony Randazzo, November 20, 2009
- Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel, November 19, 2009
- Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism, Steve Chapman, November 19, 2009
- Globalization With a Human Face, Shikha Dalmia, November 18, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245