02 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess that all depends on how your define subsidized. If you mean strictly speaking government money is being funneled into it directly (not by tax breaks) then that isn't true.
Not true. All fossil fuels are subsidized to some extent.
[b]Your utilities are charged at different rates based on the company that controls the area. Rates are given the OK by the state government but private companies run the utilities in the US, at least electric, gas and telephone. Sewage and water are usually run by the city.
And can you t ...[text shortened]... the question of whether or not those in the suburbs are being subsidized by those in the cities.[/b]
As I said about utilities, companies run them. Companies' rates are there to make money. In the country quite often we have co-ops which are not for profit companies so country pricing is often less.
03 Aug 14
Originally posted by JS357Please. The "rabble" is not prevented from driving. Many do without State mandated insurance via loopholes in insurance laws. I routinely see huge smoke chucking busses with 2 or 3 passengers on board.
"The trouble with public transport is that I subsidize it, even if I never use it,..."
You "use it" to keep the rabble out of cars that might otherwise be in your lane.
03 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadFree markets don't exist due to the interference of control freaks who want government to run everything, and this is much more prevalent in cities in the US than in suburbs or rurals.
That sounds good, but free markets do not exist, and are practically impossible to implement.
How would you put road maintenance on the free market? Toll roads? There is concern that it costs so much to collect the tolls that it dramatically increases the cost of the roads.
03 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhether or not fuel is subsidized isn't relavent to the issue of urban vs. suburban, or rural. People who use fuels of all those classes get the subsidies, and pay the penalties. My suburb is probably more densly populated than the city of Detroit, which has vast stretches of uninhabited wasteland. Other than vacations and other recreation, I seldom leave about a 5 mile radius from home. I drive into the city only for business reasons and as infrequently as possible.
Not true. All fossil fuels are subsidized to some extent.
[b]Your utilities are charged at different rates based on the company that controls the area. Rates are given the OK by the state government but private companies run the utilities in the US, at least electric, gas and telephone. Sewage and water are usually run by the city.
And can you t ...[text shortened]... the question of whether or not those in the suburbs are being subsidized by those in the cities.[/b]
It is probable that urban living ought to be more efficient, but that would require good management, which isn't something readily found in either big or small government. The problem for Americans is that even perfect government management would remove a great deal of the freedom of choice that Americans cherish.
03 Aug 14
Originally posted by normbenignUrban people use a lot less fuel.
Whether or not fuel is subsidized isn't relavent to the issue of urban vs. suburban, or rural.
My suburb is probably more densly populated than the city of Detroit,
Then I would consider you to be in a higher density area than the part of Detroit you are referring to. I knew much of Detroit's suburbs were abandoned, does the same apply to the inner city? If so, it can be considered inefficient, low density, and explains Detroits financial problems.
Other than vacations and other recreation, I seldom leave about a 5 mile radius from home.
Then you are an exception. I too live in a suburb (but in a flat) and I too stick within 5 miles because I work from home. But the majority of suburb dwellers work further away.
It is probable that urban living ought to be more efficient, but that would require good management, which isn't something readily found in either big or small government.
But why are your suburb managers better than your inner city managers (according to you)?
The problem for Americans is that even perfect government management would remove a great deal of the freedom of choice that Americans cherish.
I don't understand that. Why would better government management remove freedoms?
I am saying let people live where they like, but let them pay the full costs. As it currently is, high density dwellers do not pay significantly less for services than low density dwellers despite the obvious differences in costs of supplying those services.
03 Aug 14
I don't understand that. Why would better government management remove freedoms?
I am saying let people live where they like, but let them pay the full costs.
I say let everyone pay the full cost of living where they choose to live. Stop making some people pay more and making other people pay less by having the government take from some to give to others.
Just saying.