 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
- 1 New York, New York - 8,274,527
- 2 Los Angeles, California - 3,834,340
- 3 Chicago, Illinois - 2,836,658
- 4 Houston, Texas - 2,208,180
- 5 Phoenix, Arizona - 1,522,259
- 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,449,634
- 7 San Antonio, Texas - 1,328,984
- 8 San Diego, California - 1,266,731
- 9 Dallas, Texas - 1,240,499
- 10 San Jose, California - 939,899
|
||||
 Originally Posted by andrewc24301
What we need you to do is listen to your own hype and pull yourselves out of your mess without any help from us |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Simple: Do not live in such a place. It CAN be done, believe it or not, having a car is a very recent trend. For 4,000 years, humanity seemed to chug along without them. Now in the last 50 years we can't live without them... |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
And a big Mac IS NOT an "American Cheeseburger" You want an "American Cheeseburger" stop off at the Citgo station off exit 114 on I81 in VA. KFC, isn't american food either, you want real chicken, I can direct you to a nice market in Radford that still serves up fried biscuits with honey. THAT is American food! |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by andrewc24301
So all you have proven is you have exported your junk to the rest of the world along with your industries which as I said we don't need anyway and we don't need fries with that, another outdated american concept |
||||
|
||||
|
So all you have proven is you have exported your junk to the rest of the world along with your industries which as I said we don't need anyway and we don't need fries with that, another outdated american concept
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by andrewc24301
People living in the northern part of NY State should all move into the city of New York or Buffalo, two of the most densely populated cities in the nation. People from all the rural or suburban parts of the country should move to urban areas. All so that they can stop driving cars and save gas. Gee, that won't cause any problems at all, will it? With higher population density in already populated cities, we won't see any issues with increased crime, disease, or demand for basic products like food, clothing and shelter, will we? Not to mention greater demand for energy in order to heat/cool all those new homes that would have to be built to accommodate these people. And where would food be produced and by whom, if everyone is living in the cities in order to have public transportation? Who would do the farming? Where would all these former ruralites and suburbanites find jobs if they all moved to the cities? What about overpopulation in already densely populated urban centers? What about overtaxing the already overstressed infrastructure of the cities... the electrical system, the water works, sewage systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS... Your silly solution, andrew, is incredibly short-sighted, and actually creates more problems than it solves. It is easy to say that for most of history we did just fine without cars. But it misses some basic facts of modern society. For most of history we lived in an agrarian society. We live in a modern (post)industrial society now, which means that travel is REQUIRED as part of our day-to-day responsibilities for work. In the old days, families grew enough food to feed themselves and a little extra to sell in the markets, if they were lucky. And essentially, they did it in their own backyards. Today, NOBODY except professional farmers produces enough food for their families, and are REQUIRED to purchase their food. In order to do so, they must work at a job that is either industrial or service-based. Either of these require that they travel. They must travel to the place where they will provide the service, or they must travel to the centralized location where they perform the task required to complete the industrial task required of them. Either way travel is a requirement for their jobs. Another fact that you completely ignore is that we have never before in our history had as many people on the planet as we do today. There are 6 BILLION people on Planet Earth. There are 307 MILLION of them in the USA. The agrarian-based economy that worked for 1 billion people world-wide 200 years ago cannot work today. What worked for 7.25 million people in the year 1810 (actual census number) cannot work for 307 million today. Travel is required because the basis of our economy is different today. The horse-and-buggy worked fine when you were born, lived your life, and were buried all within a 20-mile radius, with your entire family within walking distance, and your "work" (ei: your farm) was right outside your back door. Today, in a world in which people travel literally hundreds of miles every day to go to and from work, and in which travel across the country to meet clients is required for many jobs, the horse-and-buggy system cannot possibly work. The world has changed. We went through this thing called the "Industrial Revolution", and it changed how the economy works. Your pre-industrial concepts cannot apply to modern society. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
I always find it amusing when others complain about us exporting our junk to the rest of the world, it isn't us keeping them afloat in your country. Someone in Australia must appreciate McDonald's presence, their sales jumped almost 14 percent last year to $6.5 billion, so don't blame us, Clete... that's a hefty chunk of change you guys willingly dropped on our "junk."
|
||||
|
||||
|
So the deal is that for trading in gus guzzlers you get a break on buying fuel efficient new cars... right ? Wrong . Included in the eligible vehicles are the Cadillac SRX 6 cyl. Model ,the Ford 150 truck ,the Lexus RX 350 ,Lincoln MKX,the BMW X3 crossover utility vehicle;and yes even the Hummer H3T. Many of these get worse gas milage than the vehicles eligible for trade in. SPIN METER: $3 billion buys not-so-green vehicles - Yahoo! News |
||||
|
||||
|
Hello Elliot, your post was long, so I will cover each response one by one, my response in italics.
OK... so all of the people living in MOST of California (which is the most populace state in the union, but doesn't have a reliable statewide transit system) should move into the cities like LA and San Francisco. Only if they want to. I personally wouldn't want to live in a big city like that. However there are numurous smaller cities with smaller cost of living outside of California, if I lost my job tomorrow, I can think of several metropolitan areas off the top of my head where I can most likley find a job with an apartment or trailer somewhere within a 10 mile radius of my work place. Roanoke, Winston Salem, Charlotte NC, possibly Charleston WV, Bristol, Knoxville.... etc... But those who are fine with the commute are free to do as they wish, it is afterall a free country. Personally, if gas was FREE I still wouldn't want to drive 50 miles one way to work every day. People living in the northern part of NY State should all move into the city of New York or Buffalo, two of the most densely populated cities in the nation. Again, only if they want to, but who says they have to move to NYC? I'm sure there are smaller cities and towns with gainfull employment opertunities. People from all the rural or suburban parts of the country should move to urban areas. Perhaps, around here they are one in the same. If you live on a road where farms are abound, you are never far from some out of the way suburb. All so that they can stop driving cars and save gas. Yup, if they so desire. You can also get a scooter. Gee, that won't cause any problems at all, will it? Sure it will. All methods cause problems. What we have now causes problems. Electric cars will have their issues too. The trick is to learn the lesser of several evils, and find what works for each indivudual. With higher population density in already populated cities, we won't see any issues with increased crime, disease, or demand for basic products like food, clothing and shelter, will we? Not to mention greater demand for energy in order to heat/cool all those new homes that would have to be built to accommodate these people. There are still things to do out in the rural areas, farms to tend, "good ol boys" will fix up old cars for money. I'm not convinced that EVERY person would just up and leave the rural areas to live in the city, nor do I think everyone should. By some people's standards, where I live, all be it, in a chartered town, may still be considered "rural". However for the time being, I have gainful employment here, don't know for how much longer, but as of today, it's still here. And if I lost my job tomorrow, then I suppose I would have to move to an area where I could find a job, it may be a small town of 2,000 people, it may be a larger city. But I have to keep food on the table. And where would food be produced and by whom, if everyone is living in the cities in order to have public transportation? Who would do the farming? My comment above covers this. Where would all these former ruralites and suburbanites find jobs if they all moved to the cities? The idea is to move closer to your job. I was assuming they already have a job to move closer to. Are you suggesting they had a job in the suburbs? Then why the 50 mile commute? What about overpopulation in already densely populated urban centers? If a cup is already runneth full, a couple more drops probably won't hurt anything. I wouldn't expect everyone to just run to the city, it would be gradual, and I feel the city would accomidate to it. And like I said earlier, there are still job prospects in the rural areas, so not everyone would move. What about overtaxing the already overstressed infrastructure of the cities... the electrical system, the water works, sewage systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS... I don't think they are as overtaxed as the media would have you beleive. I feel it's a tactic they use to sap tax dollars. As in the federal government, there is wasteful spending right down to the local level. Your silly solution, andrew, is incredibly short-sighted, and actually creates more problems than it solves. Maybe silly to some, but it works for me, and frankly, that's where my concern ends. I'm not burning up $500 per month in gas, not to mention the hours lost on the road. It is easy to say that for most of history we did just fine without cars. But it misses some basic facts of modern society. For most of history we lived in an agrarian society. We live in a modern (post)industrial society now, which means that travel is REQUIRED as part of our day-to-day responsibilities for work. Agreed- but who said we have to drive everywhere. 50 years ago, people rode the train. The train that rolls downtown now don't stop here anymore. We have no passenger station. I personally feel that rail would be a viable solution. Almost every small town in America has a rail line running through it. In the old days, families grew enough food to feed themselves and a little extra to sell in the markets, if they were lucky. And essentially, they did it in their own backyards. And imagine how nice things would be if they still were done that way, I have a lot of people around me that take pride in their home grown produce etc. I myself am working towards that. Most people even then had a job of some sort, however the super market had yet to be conceived. Home preserving was the only way to get through the winter. Some people still live by that today. Today, NOBODY except professional farmers produces enough food for their families, and are REQUIRED to purchase their food. In order to do so, they must work at a job that is either industrial or service-based. Either of these require that they travel. They must travel to the place where they will provide the service, or they must travel to the centralized location where they perform the task required to complete the industrial task required of them. Either way travel is a requirement for their jobs. Agreed Another fact that you completely ignore is that we have never before in our history had as many people on the planet as we do today. There are 6 BILLION people on Planet Earth. There are 307 MILLION of them in the USA. The agrarian-based economy that worked for 1 billion people world-wide 200 years ago cannot work today. What worked for 7.25 million people in the year 1810 (actual census number) cannot work for 307 million today. Travel is required because the basis of our economy is different today. Perhaps we need more wars to kill some of these pesky people off... J/K: Actually, I think my comments above would about cover this. However you seem to forget that there is no free lunch. This is being proven today. People who can not afford the drive to work, don't work, they go on food stamps, or welfare, that is until Uncle Sam runs out of money and they can't buy the food anymore. Personally, I feel that we are getting near (if we haven't already gotten there) to the point where our planet will no longer be able to support everyone. We will soon run out of resources, even renewable, because it can't grow fast enough. The horse-and-buggy worked fine when you were born, lived your life, and were buried all within a 20-mile radius, with your entire family within walking distance, and your "work" (ei: your farm) was right outside your back door. How old do you think I am? I've never even rode a horse. Jefferson Mills (a sock factory - moved to Mexico) is practically in my back yard. If they were still in production, and I worked there I probably would walk to work. Today, in a world in which people travel literally hundreds of miles every day to go to and from work, and in which travel across the country to meet clients is required for many jobs, the horse-and-buggy system cannot possibly work. I'm not talking about direct business related travel, such as to meet clients. All that is done in the nature of the business. I'm simple referring to the commute to and from work. I myself drive a service van, but as I don't pay for the gas, it is not an expense I factor in my personal budget. HOWEVER- They allow me to take the van home BUT if they didn't then I would certainly move closer to Roanoke where the home office is at. Currently I am 50 miles from there, and service areas close to my home. But like I said, if that ever changed, then I woudln't think twice about finding a place to live in or around Roanoke. Like I said- it's a personal CHOICE. The world has changed. We went through this thing called the "Industrial Revolution", and it changed how the economy works. Your pre-industrial concepts cannot apply to modern society. I'm not an idiot, I know what the "Industrial Revoltution" is. And that is CERTAINLY" not taking place in America, I'd argue we are going through an "Unindustrial Revolution". I also know that the industrial revolution had its roots in the late 1800's. Most people didn't start owning a car until the 30's and 40's. Some even later than that. Id say the age of the 50 mile commute even later. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tell me, do you speak for all of Australia? Because you have quite an "anti American" tone about you. I always thought the two got along good. |
||||
|
||||
|
Junk and Junk food
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by andrewc24301
As to the anti american tone, I was abused by one of your "diplomats" in my own country early in my career and came to understand what you truly think about us, so the feelings mutual |
||||
|
||||
|
Well, paraclete, andrewc24301 hasn't done anything to you, I'm just a simple man trying to get through life like everyone else. You are not buying "my" junk. I don't even produce things, I fix other people's junk for a living, no matter what country it came from.
You should not hold an entire nation accountable for what a handful of people do. One thing America is, is diverse. There's idiots in every nation, even Australia. There are even a small handful of people who think I know what I'm talking about! You're feelings about America sort of echo mine from China, we get all their crap. But it's not the Chinese people, like me, and you, they are just trying to make a living. Nothing wrong with that, and I sometimes have to remind myself of that when another plant closes up and ships hundreds more jobs overseas. It's not the people's fault, it's the powers that be. |
||||
|
||||
|
Crap from China
Originally Posted by andrewc24301
But shipping your industries offshore so you can buy crap versions of what you made well yourselves doesn't make sense. Hey, I know, we did it too and now it's hard to find anything other than cars that are made here. It is imperialism/communism by stealth, after all; Marx or one of those said we will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself, and I expect that rope is chinese made of US Dollar bills. So our governments have forgotten the lessons of history and are marching us in lockstep to our doom. So much for conspiracy theories, but the current approach to recession is all wrong. When you cannot afford something borrowing the money to buy it isn't always a good idea |
||||
|
||||
|
Well, you won't hear me argue the point that our entire government is a crock. Both democrats and republicans.
But back to borrowing money to buy stuff you can't afford. Unfortunately, that seems to be the American way. Of course, many Americans are toning down their spending. I wish I could say the same for our federal government. I understand the cash for clunkers concept. But the whole thing just seems so wasteful. To disable a completley good car, and reduce it to scrap and junk. It will surely create a slight supply and demand problem when these cars from the late 90's and early 2000's would have come into my market. (I buy my cars when they have exceeded 100,000 miles, normally for around $2,000 or less). I have yet to own a car that's year model was past 1997. 1994 seems to be a popular year for me latley. Eventually I will break the 2000 threshold, but thanks to this new big idea from DC, the pickings will be smaller. I'm not convinced that this whole thing is about the environment. I feel it is meant to move cars out of showrooms and onto the streets. If it were really about the environment, then we'd be doing something about all these trucks on the interstates, and make better use of an alternative system. Such as rail. But not the old rail lines of the 1800's that our system uses today. And updated rail system, that can carry electricity to power the locomotives, simillar to a model rail line. Granted, the electricity to move the cars may be from coal fired power plants, but as time progresses, we will being finding cleaner sources of electricity. These clean rail cars are what can propell folks like Elliot from LA to where ever he lives. Transportation infrastructure? All we have to do is build it! 200 years ago, all that was in the western states was wilderness. Look at it now! If we can burn through billions of dollars a year for God knows what, why can't we apply some of this money to some actual infrastructure upgrades as opposed to just throwing money at people so they can go to walmart an buy more Chinese flat screet TV's. Now, sit back and lets here it from the "nay sayers" who will list 100 reasons it won't work. What they won't say is we are doomed to fail anyway. Why not give it a shot? |
||||
|
||||
|
Andrew,
You are now saying that the solution you posed... don't drive... is an OPTION. Fine. I agree with that 100%. But that is not what you said in your original post. You stated it as "THE SOLUTION" to the problem. And the only way for something like that to work is for EVERYONE to do it. Otherwise, it doesn't solve anything, does it? So, if you are saying that you feel that people should be free to CHOOSE lifestyles that don't require them to drive... great. Wonderful. I'm all for free choice. But if you are saying that everyone should be required to make that choice, I will gladly point out why it wouldn't work. As for your "drop in the bucket" comment, in which you said that the overpopulation of cities won't be all that much of an issue... Here are some statistical facts. As of 2007, the 10 largest cities in the USA, with their populations, were: That's roughly 25 million people. That leaves roughly 282 million that don't live in large cities. MOST of them live in suburban areas and rural areas rather than smaller cities. The migration of 90% of the population of the USA into cities that are already densely populated, just so that they don't have to drive to work, would be much more than "a drop in the bucket" in terms of overpopulation. One last point... you talked about how nice it would be if we all got back to farming. Then we wouldn't need to drive to work. Do you know how modern farming is done? They no longer use oxen or horses to drive their plows. Even organic farmers use modern equipment like combines to do their plowing, planting, harvesting, etc. Combines use a lot of fuel. If EVERYBODY became a farmer, they'd be using equipment that requires MUCH MORE FUEL than a car does, and they'd be using it for much longer during the day. The net result would be MORE fuel usage, not less. Plus the non-organic farmers need to spread chemicals to keep the food from being eaten by bugs while still in the ground, chemicals to keep the weeds from choking out the plants, chemicals to help the plants grow better, etc. All of that requires machinery that uses a lot of fuel. The organic farmers don't use as many chemicals... but they have to plant three times as much land in order to get the same level of crops as a non-organic farmer. (Ask any Amish farmer, if you don't believe me. Or any other organic farmer. The Amish don't use modern machinery to farm, they still use oxen. But other organic farmers use modern equipment.) In order to take care of 3 times as much land, you need three times as much fuel to use the machinery necessary to cultivate the land, plant, harvest. Killing the weeds without chemicals takes additional machinery, which also requires fuel... more fuel than it would take to just spray the area with weed killer. Your ideas SOUND very pretty... until you get into the details. Then they kind of break down in the face of reality. It actually takes MORE fuel to accomplish what you are proposing than it would to simply drive to work and let the professional farmers just do their jobs. Elliot |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
. IRR. Marielle Machinery Works forecasts the following cash flows on a project under
[ 2 Answers ]
IRR. Marielle Machinery Works forecasts the following cash flows on a project under consideration. It uses the internal rate of return rule to accept or reject projects. Should this project be accepted if the required return is 12 percent. Co -$10,000 C1 0 C2 +$7,500 C3 +8,500
Cash for clunkers and healthcare
[ 27 Answers ]
I was running an errand and had Michael Smerconish on the radio and a caler called in and made this analogy. "Look at what the government did with this program: imagine what they will do with healthcare " It meant well: Stimulate car sales Get fuel efficient cars on road and fuel...
Cash for clunkers
[ 1 Answers ]
I have a 2001 mustang that's been wrecked but is drivable can I trade it in on the cash for clunkers?
Are some Republicans fascists?
[ 10 Answers ]
As far as I'm concerned, yes, starting with George W. Bush: " "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television." At least he is honest, unlike Obama and Dems who refuse to acknowledge that they are 'liberal'. But the practical result: "When the...
Unpatriotic Republicans
[ 9 Answers ]
Hello wingers: If the Democrats had acted like the Republicans are NOW acting, we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. It would be as if on the morning after 9/11, Democrats said they wanted no part of any war against Al Qaeda, “George Bush, you're on your own.” Instead, the Democrats...
View more questions Search
|
