The fleecings of America

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: beer
His arguments on Urban Sprawl are weak, at best. Urban sprawl is bad for a number of reasons - people spending that much time in their cars are statistically more obese, and that is a public health problem. Urban sprawl also prevents efficient mass transit, such as that in NYC or Boston, from being feasible options to reduce vehicular traffic, and that ends up creating pollution which is also a public health problem.

Forcing people to do what they don't want to is a far bigger crime than anything you just mentioned.

No, it's a public health issue when you let development run rampant like in Houston and your city has so many problems it's unbearable to go anywhere because of traffic. Houston is far bigger and worse in sprawl than Phoenix and KC, and that reflects in the statistics of the city, namely 'the fattest city of america', one of the longest commutes, etc. When you can't even go outside for three months out of the year because of the pressure-cooker type environment pollution has left, its a BIG health issue.

Civil leaders have the right to zone their cities such that the demands of its current citizens can be met at the expense of future citzens. That's how most things work. If a city wants to end all cosntruction within its city borders beyond a certain point, it has that right.

One of the great things about Houston is no zoning. I have many choices where to work. The reason Houston has traffic problems is due to the fact they were slow in responding to the ever growing population. And why is there a growing population? Good/plentiful jobs, ability to work where you live and affordable housing.
 

stephenw22

Member
Dec 16, 2004
111
0
0
High-density housing is the only way to go for large cities, as far as I'm concerned. I intentionally took a job with lower pay in a smaller city just to avoid spending hours and hours commuting.

Living in a big city, it took 15-30 minutes to go for groceries or gas for the car. Now, 15 minutes can get me across the whole city during rush hour. Even friends living across the city are only about 10 minutes away.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Once again, Stossel oversimplifies everything and comes out looking like a genius. He's the Ross Perot of reporters.

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If you think outsourcing is bad, read this article. Like I've sayin for years, outsourcing only improves our economy. Anyone who took Micro should know this.

In the long term, yes, efficient allocation of resources is a GOOD thing for the global economy. However, the short term effects of outsourcing definitely have a negative impact. If I'm a skilled worker and my skill is outsourced overseas, where am I going to go for a job? I have to acquire new skills, but new skills require time and money. In the meantime, I don't have a job and I probably have to rely on government funds to help me get by. Expand this over multiple industries and you have a serious economic problem (again, at least in the short term).

He does have some good points, but, as with everything you read, you should take this article with a grain of salt.
 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
While gas is certainly not expensive - arguably even not expensive enough, it is absolutely asinine to compare gasoline production to haagen daaz production. The article is very good at saying absolutely nothing useful at all.

John Stossel is a tool.
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: beer
His arguments on Urban Sprawl are weak, at best. Urban sprawl is bad for a number of reasons - people spending that much time in their cars are statistically more obese, and that is a public health problem. Urban sprawl also prevents efficient mass transit, such as that in NYC or Boston, from being feasible options to reduce vehicular traffic, and that ends up creating pollution which is also a public health problem.

STFU city boy. :p

Some of us happen to enjoy the country.

There's a big difference between the country and urban sprawl. I'd like to live in the country. I hate cookie-cutter subdivisions all centered around mini-malls with the same wall-mart, home depot, TGI Fridays, and whatever other chgiant chaion stores in each one. They have no character at all.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: beer
His arguments on Urban Sprawl are weak, at best. Urban sprawl is bad for a number of reasons - people spending that much time in their cars are statistically more obese, and that is a public health problem. Urban sprawl also prevents efficient mass transit, such as that in NYC or Boston, from being feasible options to reduce vehicular traffic, and that ends up creating pollution which is also a public health problem.

STFU city boy. :p

Some of us happen to enjoy the country.

There's a big difference between the country and urban sprawl. I'd like to live in the country. I hate cookie-cutter subdivisions all centered around mini-malls with the same wall-mart, home depot, TGI Fridays, and whatever other chgiant chaion stores in each one. They have no character at all.

I hate those too, but I'd rather live there and spend $200-$400 less per month for something 2x as large and less run down. Everyone likes character in shops, housing, etc. But eveyone likes money even more. I'd rather drive in my car an extra 10-15 minutes per day and pocket the difference.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Myth #1 - Media is liberal?
More than likely.

Good article for the most part, except for his slam of Portland, which was very inaccurate IMO. I have a rather large backyard in town and I'm not "rich". And with limited sprawl, you can live out in the country without having to have a 2 hour commute. Sure, the new developments are built on top of each other, but isn't it like that everywhere?
No, Houston is not like that at all. It also explains why I can get 1.5 acres and 3600 sq ft for $350K.
Oregon isn't California, Amused. You could get that same deal here if you looked right, it just probably won't be a brand new home. And our property taxes and homeowners insurance costs are less than a third what they are in Houston.

You east-coast people just don't understand. It's not I like these land-use laws. It's just that, unlike where you live, where I live is beautiful, and we want to keep it that way. If you want to house up all your flat treeless fields, go right ahead. Quite frankly, we wouldn't have any type of sprawl or land-use issues if you people didn't keep moving here when we don't want you (and yes, I am native).
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: torpid
The anti-sprawl arguments above are hilarious. Really, thanks for a good laugh.

I never thought someone would be so preposterous as to offer eliminating urban sprawl as a way of making people lose weight.

Are you denying a correlation?
Live in New York City. Judge how much walking you do.
Live in Houston. Sit in a car for 2 hours each way of commutes. Drive everywhere you go, because everything is so far spread out.

It's unbelievable you're denying a correlation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...8-28-sprawl-usat_x.htm
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: beer
His arguments on Urban Sprawl are weak, at best. Urban sprawl is bad for a number of reasons - people spending that much time in their cars are statistically more obese, and that is a public health problem. Urban sprawl also prevents efficient mass transit, such as that in NYC or Boston, from being feasible options to reduce vehicular traffic, and that ends up creating pollution which is also a public health problem.

Forcing people to do what they don't want to is a far bigger crime than anything you just mentioned.
True, but take the case of Portland to which the article refers. These are the city council who have made these decisions, presumably for the people of Portland, and, as they were elected by the residents of that city, you have to provide that they speak for them. They live there and they should have the right to control their environment. Whether for good or ill, they should have the right to determine how their city will be laid out, and to determine the options of how future residents will live there. They may have not made the right choices, I don't know, but they are the one's that will have to live with it. Those that don't like it can either vote in new council members to get things changed, or move to a place more accommodating to their needs and desires.

 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: torpid
The anti-sprawl arguments above are hilarious. Really, thanks for a good laugh.

I never thought someone would be so preposterous as to offer eliminating urban sprawl as a way of making people lose weight.

Are you denying a correlation?
Live in New York City. Judge how much walking you do.
Live in Houston. Sit in a car for 2 hours each way of commutes. Drive everywhere you go, because everything is so far spread out.

It's unbelievable you're denying a correlation.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...8-28-sprawl-usat_x.htm

No Mr. Straw Man. I am denying your proposed solution. There is also a correlation between sitting on the couch all day and being overweight. I'm not going to propose that cities disallow televisions and couches to solve the problem.
 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
Stossel is teh cool.

and about this....
"One man threw out what looked like a bag of garbage. It turned out to be a bag filled with puppies. We don't know what happened to the puppies."
:confused:
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i don't like the way portland has done things, but if you want to see a sprawled out city (for good or bad,i don't know), come out to kansas city

i live 40 miles east of the city, some of my coworkers live 50 miles south
for its population, this has to be one of the most spread out metropolitan areas in the country

but our traffic is much better than portland, i might drive farther, but i don't take any longer since i am actually moving instead of stuck/stop and go and all that

i moved way out to get into a small rural school district for my kids and to get a cheap but big house on some land, the price i pay in gas/time is worth it for now. after my kids are out of school, we'll re-evaluate
The metro area populations of KC and Portland are almost the same, both a little of 2 million people, with Portland just slighty larger IIRC.
In contrast, Portland spreads out roughly just less than 25 miles from its downtown core in all directions (except NW).
The traffic issue is more about geography (we're not as flat as Kansas and Missouri!), and the need to upgrade and widen more of the highways here, something they are finally working on. Commuters from Vancouver, WA are probably always going to have major traffic problems because of the issues with the ancient drawbridge across the Columbia, which neither Oregon nor Washington want to replace.
i had not thought of that parallel, the Missouri River is just north of downtown KC and while it is much narrower, so have multiple bridges is cheaper, it still tends to be a barrier to traffic, etc

that old I-5 bridge was old when i was a kid, i remember when the 205 bridge opened and how much it helped
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,923
146
There is a show on this same article on 20/20 tonight on ABC.

"Lies, Myths and Nasty Behavior with John Stossel"

10:00PM ... 9:00PM Central
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
After watching the show I felt like he was making some long leaps of logic and some fuzzy math to make some of his points.

Just felt like he made a lot of assumptions and left some facts out to help make some points.

Nothing to the extent of what Michael Moore does though.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: Amused
Great. Let's nanny everyone because they cannot be trusted to live their lives the way they want to.

This is the fascism of the nanny-state. Orwell almost had it right. It should have been named "Big Mother."

When the decisions of others impact my health in such a way that it clearly takes years off my life, yes, they had better do something about it.

You just keep your dumbass liberal self in Austin and leave Houston alone. The traffic here isn't even that bad compared to other large cities. If you don't like the environment because you think it is bad for your health then you just go move where you like and leave us alone. Typical liberal idiot.....moves somewhere and then proceeds to fvck it up trying to changing all the things he doesn't like until it is just like the sh!tpit he came from. California was a great place to live until all the liberals ruined it and now those people fleeing CA are proceeding to screw up Arizona, Oregon, and even Texas.
 

NightCrawler

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,179
0
0
Urban Sprawl always annoyed me, call it what it is, Suburban development. If "you" want to live in the city then go ahead. The rest are happy living in the burbs.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,923
146
Originally posted by: Ornery
Hah-ha! If Democrat/greenie, blue state voters hate him, he can't be all bad! :laugh:

It is such a joke how liberals label him as "conservative." He's an obvious libertarian.

It is sad how liberals make such knee-jerk assumptions when faced with the reality of nanny-statism and freedom-robbing socialism.

And the true irony here is that libertarianism is classical liberalism. Today's "liberals" are nothing of the sort. They are authoritarian socialists.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,455
19,923
146
BTW, last nights show was excellent.

The Number 1 myth was about private ownership vs shared property. Stossel showed how private ownership is nearly always superior and BETTER for everyone than shared property.

A true libertarian showing the logical truth: selfishness is a virtue.

Here it is:

MYTH No. 1 Sharing Would Make the World a Better Place

We learn in childhood that sharing is a good thing. And it's true ? in families and small groups.

But would the world be better off if we shared everything? No.

Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They're often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed. Earlier I mentioned how people litter on public lands, and think about what you share at work. The refrigerator where I work is disgusting ? filled with food that's rotten. I found cottage cheese that was more than a year old. It's because it's shared property.

Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University, points out that private property rarely gets abused or degraded.

And there's an explanation for this. "When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. No one owns it. There's no incentive to take care of it. It gets abused and degraded," Roberts said.

Private property sounds selfish. We think of rich people taking advantage of other people. But it works a lot better, Roberts said.

Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners ? selfishly seeking a profit ? work at keeping them clean.

Why do we have so many catastrophic forest fires? Did you know that most of them are on government land ? land we share? The feds own only a third of the forests, but they have most of the forest fires. Private forests are less likely to burn, because the livelihood of "greedy" timber companies depends on having healthy trees. But the government, managing land we all share, is less careful.

Here's another example. I can throw my trash on the floor at a pro basketball game. The home team leases this space, and they're fine with people littering, because they clean it up. The price of the cleanup is included in the ticket price, and they clean it up well. At stadiums, they don't even call this litter, it's just part of the game.

Compare that to public parks or fields ? the litter tends to stay here. It's the same reason people overfish the sea. The ocean is public property, shared property. So for years, fishermen took all they could. They had little incentive to make sure enough fish were left to reproduce, and the supply of fish has dropped drastically.

But good things happen when this public property is privatized. For example, private fishing quotas helped restore fisheries in the United States and New Zealand. In the 1980s, New Zealand's government gave fishermen individual fishing quotas, setting a total allowable catch for different species of fish. Then it granted each fisherman the right to take a certain percentage of that. Because the fishermen own those rights, it's private property. The government can't take it away from them. The fisherman are free to buy or sell those fishing rights, just like private property. The result: Fish populations went up.

Communal farming is similar. The Pilgrims tried shared farming when they first arrived in America. But, rather than working shared property, they faked illness. Some of them said the kids were too young to go out in the fields. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death, and ended up eating rats, dogs, horses and cats. When each was given his own land on which to grow crops, food was abundant. I wish they taught the kids that at Thanksgiving. Likewise, when Stalin and Mao collectivized their farms, their people nearly starved to death.

High school teacher Tori Haidinger runs an experiment to show her students that this is just the way people act.

Each group of students gets a covered beaker of candies they must share. She tells the kids, take as many as you want and then pass them on to the next kid. Any left over will reproduce, just like fish, because the teacher will double them. What happens?

The beakers were emptied completely, because nobody shared. Bad news if the candies were fish.

Economists call this the "Tragedy of the Commons."

When Haidinger changed the rules and gave each student, rather than a group of students, his or her own private beaker, things worked out better.

She's privatizating the beakers. People sneer at the term privatization, but this time no one overfishes. Kids are careful to leave enough in their ponds and new generations of chocolate candies are born.

One of the students understands the lesson. "If it's ours, we will care more about it," she said.

The same principle is saving elephants in Africa. In many African countries, the elephants belong to everyone. Governments have outlawed killing them, but the vast plains are too big to police. So greedy poachers kill elephants and steal their tusks.

Roberts said, "It's a nice idea to say it's wrong to kill elephants. But that method has not worked."

In Zambia, Uganda and Kenya, where elephant hunting is banned, the number of elephants has actually dropped dramatically ? from 180,000 to 44,000 ? in the past four decades.

But in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, local villagers have a form of ownership rights. They have the right to sell hunting licenses for about $10,000 per elephant.

And this permission to kill elephants is actually saving elephants.

"Oh, it's disgusting. But it works," Roberts said.

It works, because the villagers now say, these are our elephants. Even a former poacher now works to protect the elephants.

"The villagers have a profit motive to make sure that elephants don't get poached and killed. As a result, they take care of them. They don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," Roberts explained.

In these countries where villagers virtually own the elephants, elephant numbers have almost tripled ? from 80,000 in 1960 to about 230,000 in 2000.

So while sharing may feel warm and fuzzy, it often makes things worse.

By contrast, private ownership ? whether it's public toilets or hunting and fishing licenses ? makes the world better.