Jump to content

Urban Cores


TheBostonian

Recommended Posts

What I meant was that gasoline is cheaper now than in the early 80s, when inflation is considered.  All the SUVs on the road is clear evidence of this fact.

As for economic choices, people always choose the cheapest, all things being equal.  So as long as gas is cheaper than alternative fuels, gas is king.

As for the true price of gas, there are many expenses that are not accounted for in the price at the pump, but those don't matter to anyone buying at the time.  Loss of human lives, and the externalities of pollution, are not accounted for.

And what does child labor or slavery have to do with any of this?  My view of child labor is that, if a developing country has to use child labor at this point in their development to finally become wealthy enough to not, than fine.  The US used child labor, and look at where we are today!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you make good contributioons..bright comments...if we accounted for the negative externalities of gasoline usage in the price at the pump, it would be unaffordable. and i agree with what you said about child labor, but unfortunately i dont think the country's who use it will ever advance to the point when they dont have to unless they receive fairer policies from WTO, world bank and IMF...organizations which screw the developing world to our benefit. even though these are all "world" organizations, what the U.S. says goes, as with just about everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You want to hear something sickening?  There are companies out there right now that want to build private toll highways, for wealthier folks unhappy with the traffic and condition of the regular public roads we all have to put up with.  Can you imagine using more land, dollars, etc for this?!?!?  But it's apparently going to happen in some places.  Do you know more about this Recchia?

- Garris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

they have private high ways in mexico right now, owned by corporations instead of the state, but anyone can use them, you just have to pay lots...i dont know much about them, but if i remember correclty, they are a pain in the A$$ and havent been working that well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want to hear something sickening?  There are companies out there right now that want to build private toll highways, for wealthier folks unhappy with the traffic and condition of the regular public roads we all have to put up with.  Can you imagine using more land, dollars, etc for this?!?!?  But it's apparently going to happen in some places.  Do you know more about this Recchia?

- Garris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:sick: I thought I heard something ridiculous like this wanting to be built down south. I don't even wanna get started on this one, it makes me sick. You cannot build your way out of congestion, and that's a fact (triple convergence people, read "Stuck in Traffic" by Anthony Downs!), even if you built a totally separate highway....how much would you have to charge to keep enough people off it to keep in uncongested??? Ridiculous.... Plus where in the hell would there be room to build private highways, assuming they would have to be right next to or close to existing highways? Mow down more neighborhoods or open space? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Where did you hear about this? I'd love to know so I can complain some more :thumbsup: The last thing we need in this country, is more infrastructure for cars....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that gasoline is cheaper now than in the early 80s, when inflation is considered.  All the SUVs on the road is clear evidence of this fact.

As for economic choices, people always choose the cheapest, all things being equal.  So as long as gas is cheaper than alternative fuels, gas is king.

As for the true price of gas, there are many expenses that are not accounted for in the price at the pump, but those don't matter to anyone buying at the time.  Loss of human lives, and the externalities of pollution, are not accounted for.

And what does child labor or slavery have to do with any of this?  My view of child labor is that, if a developing country has to use child labor at this point in their development to finally become wealthy enough to not, than fine.  The US used child labor, and look at where we are today!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have some faith in the market system, there. :)

"All things being equal" is the great excuse of totally inapplicable economics. If everything were equal, oil companies wouldn't be recording record profits while we pay out the ass. Nothing is equal. Car manufacturers and oil companies have political control, and so who knows if gas is cheaper than alternative fuels -- or if it still would be if enough attention was given to the science of alt. fuels. The conspiracy theorists have some credibility on this issue. Who wouldn't believe that the government would block alternative fuel development? Lobbyists wield the power in Washington and the oil industry's are as big as they come.

Also, because they weren't available before, the SUVs on the road don't really signify anything about whether gas is cheaper now than in the 1980s -- though, certainly it is. They signify a trend -- a willingness to pay more than your neighbor to drive the same distance, regardless of what the cost per gallon is. The more relevant cost is the cost per mile, not the cost per gallon, and someone who chooses to drive an SUV is someone who chooses to pay more per mile driven.

As for the unaccounted externalities... maybe that's why we should have a tax. Those exorbitant European gas taxes, after all, largely are intended to offset those externalities that don't get paid for in a free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. already has those private toll lanes, actually. I remember reading an article about it recently. It's revealed some interesting details about just how much people hate traffic, since it's created a way to quantify their hatred -- in money, of course. It ended up being totally ineffective because they underestimated how much people would pay, so the pay lanes ended up just as backed up as the regular ones. :lol: People apparently will do almost anything to avoid sitting in traffic. They started a sliding scale where people pay more depending on the time of day, but I think for rush hour the fee they decided on was something like $10 to drive the length of the lanes. That's in L.A., of course.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea, but more as a business than as a legitimate transportation solution. The only reason why not to build these lanes is if they are proposed as an alternative to improvements to mass transit or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. already has those private toll lanes, actually. I remember reading an article about it recently. It's revealed some interesting details about just how much people hate traffic, since it's created a way to quantify their hatred -- in money, of course. It ended up being totally ineffective because they underestimated how much people would pay, so the pay lanes ended up just as backed up as the regular ones. :lol: People apparently will do almost anything to avoid sitting in traffic. They started a sliding scale where people pay more depending on the time of day, but I think for rush hour the fee they decided on was something like $10 to drive the length of the lanes. That's in L.A., of course.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea, but more as a business than as a legitimate transportation solution. The only reason why not to build these lanes is if they are proposed as an alternative to improvements to mass transit or something like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds to me like you are a gov. hating/fearing libertarian.

After you cry on my shoulder about how corrupt the world is, buy some oil stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what does child labor or slavery have to do with any of this?  My view of child labor is that, if a developing country has to use child labor at this point in their development to finally become wealthy enough to not, than fine.  The US used child labor, and look at where we are today!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree about child labor. It is very similar to gas. Both are cheap things that can subsidize and help economies improve. But neither, in the abstract, are good things. My point was that, just as child labor disappeared over time, gas should too. We are at a point now where we no longer need child labor to subsidize our economy, and we will hopefully be at a point soon where we no longer need oil to subsidize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like you are a gov. hating/fearing libertarian.

After you cry on my shoulder about how corrupt the world is, buy some oil stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough. I veered into self-righteous terrain. My point was actually that people don't keep using gas because it's cheaper than other fuels, they keep using gas because it is the fuel that their cars run on, and because the fact of the matter is most people need cars to get around. Draw your own conclusions, but to say that people "choose" to use gas because it's cheaper than other fuels is totally misleading.

(It took me a minute to figure out what set that response off in my post about L.A. freeways. :blush: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except use mass transit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well... obviously! What do you think this is, Europe?! :angry::P

Actually, though, I thought it was kind of encouraging that people were willing to pay much more than the developers originally thought they would. Maybe it's a sign that people are closer than we think to the tipping point where mass transit becomes worth using. Or it could be that people just want to throw money at the problem from the driver's seat. Like that would be news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have some faith in the market system, there.  :)

"All things being equal" is the great excuse of totally inapplicable economics. If everything were equal, oil companies wouldn't be recording record profits while we pay out the ass. Nothing is equal. Car manufacturers and oil companies have political control, and so who knows if gas is cheaper than alternative fuels -- or if it still would be if enough attention was given to the science of alt. fuels. The conspiracy theorists have some credibility on this issue. Who wouldn't believe that the government would block alternative fuel development? Lobbyists wield the power in Washington and the oil industry's are as big as they come.

Also, because they weren't available before, the SUVs on the road don't really signify anything about whether gas is cheaper now than in the 1980s -- though, certainly it is. They signify a trend -- a willingness to pay more than your neighbor to drive the same distance, regardless of what the cost per gallon is. The more relevant cost is the cost per mile, not the cost per gallon, and someone who chooses to drive an SUV is someone who chooses to pay more per mile driven.

As for the unaccounted externalities... maybe that's why we should have a tax. Those exorbitant European gas taxes, after all, largely are intended to offset those externalities that don't get paid for in a free market.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

its not all things being equal....the phrase in latin is all other things being equal...meaning that there is an assumption that all other variables dont screw it up. "ceteris perebus" (my spelling is off probably)...and this is usually how things work (key word = usually)...the only reason to say it is because sometimes there are unexpected events that dont fit the trend and throw economic models off. now that i am done proving my economic sholarship (i am one class away from having a degree in the field) i agree with everything else you have said. very good points. the people on this forum are very educated and i find it extremely worth while and intellectually stimulating to read all of your posts, regardless of perspective. keep 'em coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like you are a gov. hating/fearing libertarian.

After you cry on my shoulder about how corrupt the world is, buy some oil stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is one thing to be govermnet hating and another to be govermnent fearing. i hate the u.s. government, as it currently stands, because it is sush an improperly functioning, lobbyist-dominated, screwball mafia-like organization that leads the world in a direction that benefits the few and screws the many. try and prove me wrong, it cant be done (the sarcasm comes from strong conviction, not from trying to be a jerk). but at the same time, i dont fear the government because it protects me in all possible ways. something needs to be done to change the u.s. though...even though there are honest people in govt...there is way too much corruption for a country like america, built on the ideals it is...

libertarians are good and bad. they have the right idea about most things, if you ask me (which, of course, no one has, but im telling you any how) but they are mislead into believing they stand a chance in hell in a two party political system like ours. the way to go is moderate, whether rep or dem, moderate, moderate moderate....compromise achieves everything, "my way or the highway" achieves nothing but chaos and upset...

dixiecupdrinking has some very good points and comments that should be taken more seriously, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like you are a gov. hating/fearing libertarian.

After you cry on my shoulder about how corrupt the world is, buy some oil stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it is one thing to be govermnet hating and another to be govermnent fearing. i hate the u.s. government, as it currently stands, because it is sush an improperly functioning, lobbyist-dominated, screwball mafia-like organization that leads the world in a direction that benefits the few and screws the many. try and prove me wrong, it cant be done (the sarcasm comes from strong conviction, not from trying to be a jerk). but at the same time, i dont fear the government because it protects me in all possible ways. something needs to be done to change the u.s. though...even though there are honest people in govt...there is way too much corruption for a country like america, built on the ideals it is...

libertarians are good and bad. they have the right idea about most things, if you ask me (which, of course, no one has, but im telling you any how) but they are mislead into believing they stand a chance in hell in a two party political system like ours. the way to go is moderate, whether rep or dem, moderate, moderate moderate....compromise achieves everything, "my way or the highway" achieves nothing but chaos and upset...

dixiecupdrinking has some very good points and comments that should be taken more seriously, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

youbetternot, I cannot agree with you verb use of "subsidize." Oil doesn't subsidize the economy, it runs it. It's our energy source. Until it becomes too expensize compared to alternative energies, or it destroys our planet, it will be used. One of the real reasons for the latest increase of oil costs is the world demand has exploded, as China is starting to develop and catch up.

dixie, you are right; people are forced to keep using gas because their cars, etc. run on it. But, when oil becomes too expensive in the short term, the economy will force a long term structural shift in order to provide a cheaper alternative. Which came first, gas stations or cars?

pvenne, thanks for the economics lesson. That's what I meant all along. I have a minor in economics. As for the US gov., I love it. It is one of the best functioning governments in the world where even lower class people have a voice. Of course it isn't perfect, but money does run the world. As for thinking today's gov. is any worse than before, I disagree. Where did this utopian ideal of how the US gov. used to be, come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for thinking today's gov. is any worse than before, I disagree.  Where did this utopian ideal of how the US gov. used to be, come from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well i think youre refering to how i said i dislike the govt "as it currently stands". you misinterpreted my statement. i didnt mean it as it has ever been any better than now, i meant "as it currently stands" in the sense that i feel it could get a lot better in the future. but i guess now that youve brougth it up, the govt is a lot worse these days, even compared to the clinton admin...which had many fauts too, but the bottom line is that there was peace and prosperity, and id take that over war and economic decline any day. i really dont wanna get dragged into politics though, i am a double major in econ and political science, and i have heard so many political arguments in the last three years that if ive learned one thing, its that you cant win a political argument because both sides always have good points...so really it is a matter of opinion, perspective, and the degree to which you can get your hands on better statistics and facts than the other side...and this is just head-ache-causing for me so i will choose to refrain from anything seriously in depth at this point...still trying to pretend summer isnt almost over before i gear up for another school year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will probably think I am nuts, but I have crunched some of these numbers.  The area within route 128 is less than 300 square miles and it contains about 1.8 million people.  It makes me wonder how far outside Boston you have to include to get the 4-6 million metro population.  I could have gone further, maybe to include all within 495, but it is very tedious.  Of course my math could be way off.

If you want to compare:

Houston has about 2 million people over about 600 square miles.  The approximately 300 square miles inside 128 contain nearly 2 million people.

---------------------------------------------

Boston  pop.  sq. miles

Boston  589,141        48.4

Border Cities

Cambridge          101,355          6.4

Somerville          77,478  4.1

Watertown          32,986  4.1

Brookline          57,107  6.8

Everett  38,037  3.4

Chelsea          35,080  2.2

Winthrop          18,303  2.0 

Total border city population (sq. miles):  360,326 (29)

Boston plus border city population            949,467 (77.4)

Next Ring

Revere  47,283  5.9

Malden  56,340  5.1

Medford          55,765  8.1

Arlington          42,389  5.2

Belmont          24,194  4.7

Newton          83,829  18.0

Needham          28,911  12.6

Dedham          23,464  10.4

Randolph          30,963  10.1

Quincy  88,025  16.8 

Total population of these "next ring" cities (sq miles): 481,163  (96.9)

Total population of Boston, border cities and next ring: 1,430,630 (174.3)

Remaining Cities within (approximately) Route 128

Lynn  89,050  10.8

Saugus 26,078  11.0

Nahant 3,632          1.2

Melrose 27,134  4.7

Wakefield 24,804  7.5

Stoneham 22,219  6.2

Woburn 37,258  12.7

Winchester 20,810  6.0

Lexington 30,355  16.4

Waltham 59,226  12.7

Braintree 33,828  13.9 

Total population of remaining 128 cities: 374,394          (103.1)

Total population inside 128:      1,805,024 (277.4)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cotuit went all the way with this or at least found info that goes all the way.

Look at the last post on this page:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...pic=1321&st=210

"Greater Boston - Area=619.49 - Population=2,443,374 - Density=3944"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A subjective classification of how special and important a city is, tier one being the highest and including NY and arguably LA and Chicago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well if boston isnt a tier one city, then it should be...especially regionally speaking. i have heard some people call providence a tier 1, but i just dont agree with this....no way, Jose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dixie, you are right; people are forced to keep using gas because their cars, etc. run on it.  But, when oil becomes too expensive in the short term, the economy will force a long term structural shift in order to provide a cheaper alternative.  Which came first, gas stations or cars?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, while that's a textbook macroeconomic idea, I don't think the reality is this simple. You seem to be assuming that the auto industry doesn't have any connections with the oil industry; that there are countless competitive car companies out there with free entry into the market that aren't succeeding because their fuels are less efficient; that everyone is on a level playing ground. In fact, we are so car-dependent that the market is really more of an oligopoly. The system is even more inert and resistant to change when you consider how much the people at the top of both our government and our big businesses profit from what we've got in place.

Point being, I believe if we could dismantle some of that collusion we'd see that in fact, gasoline is not necessarily the cheapest or best fuel to be using. We'd also see that the people eating that extra cost are not the businesses but the consumers, who are basically captive to pay any prices within a reasonable range.

(I was majoring in economics myself until I got too frustrated by that big, fat "all else being equal" that makes everything maddeningly irrelevant. Or interestingly complex, I suppose, if you're a glass-half-full kind of person. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, while that's a textbook macroeconomic idea, I don't think the reality is this simple. You seem to be assuming that the auto industry doesn't have any connections with the oil industry; that there are countless competitive car companies out there with free entry into the market that aren't succeeding because their fuels are less efficient; that everyone is on a level playing ground. In fact, we are so car-dependent that the market is really more of an oligopoly. The system is even more inert and resistant to change when you consider how much the people at the top of both our government and our big businesses profit from what we've got in place.

Point being, I believe if we could dismantle some of that collusion we'd see that in fact, gasoline is not necessarily the cheapest or best fuel to be using. We'd also see that the people eating that extra cost are not the businesses but the consumers, who are basically captive to pay any prices within a reasonable range.

(I was majoring in economics myself until I got too frustrated by that big, fat "all else being equal" that makes everything maddeningly irrelevant. Or interestingly complex, I suppose, if you're a glass-half-full kind of person. :D )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it takes a horse of a different color to major in econoomics, but all you really need to talk intelligently on the subject is your basic intro macro/micro classes...when you get into applied statisitics, and macro/micro theory...especially econometrics, then everything is "maddeningly irrelevant" but in basic terms, holding all else constant is a good idea cause it helps us see the way things most likely WILL work, aside from the fact that there is a possibility (sometimes a strong one) that they might not work that way. anyhow, isnt it true that in an oligpoly, (which is essentially one step removed from a monopoly, with only a few major competitors) that if one person lowers the price of something and can do so efficiently then they can capture the entire market (or most of it anyway) from the others, thus making the biggest profit...or is that in a cartel...or arent they the same thing these days? i could have this all wrong, so it would be helpful to hear from some of the other econ-heads on this forum...i know youre out there. afterall, i am studying it, but have no real love for the discipline, so basically i learn it and forget it...but if this is how it works, then it would make sense for someone to introduce this hypothetical fuel that is cheaper than gas because they would profit immensely, and this would drive everyone else to do it too...unless i have it backwards (which i am beginning to think i might) and it is only with open competition that this happens (afterall, isnt that why the consumer benefits in open markets?) oh sh*t, now i am totally confused, forget this...you probably right...sorry for a waste of a post, but im posting it anyway incase i might still be right...aahh, now im rambling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.