Another fun fact: Walkable neighborhoods are cheaper to build. But we’ve made that illegal, and instead build insanely expensive car infrastructure everywhere, then wonder why we have an affordability crisis.
the pic is in SF i assume, yea its still a car centric city despite alot of bicycle paths, cars provide more revenue to the cities via dmv registraitons, taxes, gases, businesses, and commute through the bridges bay bridge always busy asf. “non-car” zones reduces that revenue source.
I’m not sure how California works, but that’s wholly inaccurate for Wisconsin, and most other states. Gas taxes and registration fees go to the state, and they do not even cover the whole state transportation budget. Non-car zones area far, far more economically productive than car-oriented areas. Strong Towns has a whole series of articles about it, based on data analysis performed by a consultant called Urban3.
I did the numbers once on the apartment building that I lived in, with ground-floor retail, and it absolutely blew the nearby Walmart out of the water as far as return on investment for the city. More jobs per acre, more taxes per acre, less infrastructure cost, the whole deal.
Yes, there’s this persistent myth in America that cars are good for the economy and local business. It is a myth, though. When you actually look at the real-world numbers, cars are destroying cities financially.
I hate this kinda thought. It is very much based on marxism (class consciousness or whatever), but very much conspirational. ‘They’ control everuthing and don’t want you to know about it!
Obviously there is to some level of cooperarion between the greedy fucks, but it really isnt like that. There are people who became billionaires off of green energy companies, and who would actively push in favor of more eletric cars, so that they make more money, inspite of the petrol companies.
It’s how it works. You don’t own one. You own 5% of twenty things, derivatives in ten others, and one chunk of money in a hedge fund that has you diversified into literally everything.
Its not a conspiracy. Nothing is behind closed doors here. It’s literally ‘diversify your investments’. The first thing literally any competent investment advisor tells you.
But ownership is much more abstracted now, so shares aren’t just shares, they’re bundled and derived, until derivative bundle derivative product bundle derivatives are 10% of your portfolio. It’s literly just a matter of class now. The actual money doesn’t matter.
Another fun fact: Walkable neighborhoods are cheaper to build. But we’ve made that illegal, and instead build insanely expensive car infrastructure everywhere, then wonder why we have an affordability crisis.
the pic is in SF i assume, yea its still a car centric city despite alot of bicycle paths, cars provide more revenue to the cities via dmv registraitons, taxes, gases, businesses, and commute through the bridges bay bridge always busy asf. “non-car” zones reduces that revenue source.
I’m not sure how California works, but that’s wholly inaccurate for Wisconsin, and most other states. Gas taxes and registration fees go to the state, and they do not even cover the whole state transportation budget. Non-car zones area far, far more economically productive than car-oriented areas. Strong Towns has a whole series of articles about it, based on data analysis performed by a consultant called Urban3.
I did the numbers once on the apartment building that I lived in, with ground-floor retail, and it absolutely blew the nearby Walmart out of the water as far as return on investment for the city. More jobs per acre, more taxes per acre, less infrastructure cost, the whole deal.
Yes, there’s this persistent myth in America that cars are good for the economy and local business. It is a myth, though. When you actually look at the real-world numbers, cars are destroying cities financially.
So less profitable?
Fun fact: spending less is a way to increase profits! (It is less profitable for the car lobby tho).
And since all ownership is kind of souped together, profits are averaged across industries.
Why the hell would you accept the capitalist lie that the owner class would compete against each other?
I hate this kinda thought. It is very much based on marxism (class consciousness or whatever), but very much conspirational. ‘They’ control everuthing and don’t want you to know about it!
Obviously there is to some level of cooperarion between the greedy fucks, but it really isnt like that. There are people who became billionaires off of green energy companies, and who would actively push in favor of more eletric cars, so that they make more money, inspite of the petrol companies.
It’s how it works. You don’t own one. You own 5% of twenty things, derivatives in ten others, and one chunk of money in a hedge fund that has you diversified into literally everything.
Its not a conspiracy. Nothing is behind closed doors here. It’s literally ‘diversify your investments’. The first thing literally any competent investment advisor tells you.
But ownership is much more abstracted now, so shares aren’t just shares, they’re bundled and derived, until derivative bundle derivative product bundle derivatives are 10% of your portfolio. It’s literly just a matter of class now. The actual money doesn’t matter.
That’s not at all how that relationship works.
Reducing the cost that it takes to produce something does not affect its margins negatively
It does, when you’re invested in everything.