• SwingingTheLamp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Personally, I’m not a fan of government policies that ban things, because a ban is a blunt instrument that often leads to perverse results. Instead, I think that government should internalize economic extenalities, and let the individual incentives work. People who live out in the countryside get massive tax subsidies in the form of all those roads on which only they drive, for the most part.

    So, fine, if cars are the only practical transportation, then the people who want to live out there need to pay for their roads with their own money.

    (That is the long way to say that I don’t think personal cars out in the countryside are all that practical.)

    • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you think only private cars are using those roads? Oh dear, how do you think all the food gets to the cities?

      • SwingingTheLamp
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed, the topic was people living in the countryside, and (I hope) not about Soylent Green. As for the farms producing food in the countryside, they need to pay directly for the road infrastructure they use, too. That way, the true cost of transportation gets priced into the product, which lets the market allocate resources more efficiently. Government subsidy distorts the supply and demand curves, it leads to what I believe economists call deadweight loss. For example, with subsidized road transport, the cost to the farmer of locating a farm far from the city is reduced. That lowers demand for land near the city, which makes it more attractive to build housing on big lots on the land instead. That kind of sprawl means more driving, more pollution, more environmental damage. Plus, the local government has to subsidize even more pavement, which is becoming a major issue as the burden of maintenance costs is overwhelming them in many places. (Incidentally, lots of farms and food processors at least in Wisconsin face labor shortages, because the workers can’t find affordable housing out in the middle of nowhere.) We might benefit from cheaper food prices, but the cost to society is a lot higher than the benefit, hence the “loss” in deadweight loss.

          • SwingingTheLamp
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m suggesting that we remove the subsidies which are harming us, and let individual incentives (a.k.a. “the market”) sort it out. That probably would mean more food production closer to where people live.

              • SwingingTheLamp
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fun fact: The Segoe typeface that Microsoft uses extensively was named after Segoe Road in Madison, WI. I mention it because it’s a good example: The street is a boulevard almost 2.5 miles from end-to-end, with an enormously-wide right-of-way. If we were to take just the median strip, about 20 feet wide, that’s about 6 acres of land, or enough to feed 12 people for a year. If we took half of the ROW, that’s 18 acres of land, or enough to feed 36 people. And if we took 2/3rds, leaving a very adequate 40-foot-wide street, that’s 60 people fed.

                And that’s just one boulevard in a whole city. There are plenty more wide streets that don’t need to be. Add in land from parking lots. Repeal the grass lawn ordinance and let people grow food in their front yards. Grow food on commercial building roofs, as some grocery stores have started to do. Wisconsin also has a successful hydroponic grow operation, Superior Fresh, that produces a lot of food in a relatively small footprint, and provides fresh, local produce even in January, so that’s a possibility. Add all of that up, there’s plenty of land in the city, not even counting the handful of farms that still exist within city limits.

          • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            A private car is owned by a corporation. For example, a CEO’s limosine would be a private car. Or a plumbing company’s van. A personal car is owned by an individual.

            • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              So, how do you propose workers get to farms etc? Buy every single labourer a company vehicle? How do people who live on their farm get into town to go shopping etc?

              • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think farming is one of the few applications where horseless carriages make sense, but they obviously have to be 100% electric in order to stop climate collapse.

    • BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think you realize how much of rural America is a random exit off the interstate. Which is mostly not local traffic and paid for those who travel it.

      • SwingingTheLamp
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We have more than 4,100,000 million miles of highway in the United States, but only 48,756 miles of Interstate highway. That doesn’t sound like most places are just off of a random exit, and with one glance of the map, one can see vast swathes of land nowhere near an Interstate highway. However, the system does carry about 1/4 of all highway miles in the country, so that’s a lot of lightly-traveled non-Interstate pavement. Furthermore, revenues from highway users does not cover the cost of the Interstate system. The Highway Trust Fund has been shrinking, because the $0.184 per gallon tax hasn’t changed since 1993, and the fund is projected to be depleted by 2028. The Federal government has shored it up multiple times with transfers from the general fund. Wisconsin has done the same, I know, and likely quite a few other states that I’m not familiar with, as well. In short, the massive subsidy to automobile travel, especially in rural areas, is not practical, because it is not sustainable.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. One of the problems is the USA is government banning mixed zoning and every tyoe of home except single family home. It can only turn in suburban sprawl and car use.