Comments

10 responses to “MORE BAD REPORTING”

1. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   “What they NEED are functional human settlement patterns with Accessible and Affordable housing so that citizens of the US of A can be happy and safe and not NEED a lot of new Large, Private Vehicles.”

   WRong. Wrong. Wrong.

   What they need is the best and most economical mix of both balanced settlements and private vehicles, along with whatever else works. These vehicles need not necessairly be large, or not all of them anyway.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   “If cheap money is pumped into the economy so citizens can buy lots of new cars, the cost of imported energy would go back up and then there would be a real crash. “

   The cost of energy will go up, regardless of whether it is imported. Even if you had a totally level playing field, it might still turn out that imported energy is cheaper, because it costs less to produce.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   I’ll saay this much: it is possible that one reason people (at least Americans) are not buying things is that they already have two or more of them already.

   Most probably, we CANNOT achieve a sustainable trajectory without a crash. If we only need 70% of what we have been producing as we reach the graying of America then we are going to need a lot fewer workers which means more unemployment, more vacation, earlier retirement, and more partial employment.

   Our economy has no idea how to manage any of those things, let alone pay for them.

   or

   WE COULD let in a lot of non-
   Americans, immigrants, who don’t have all those things, and who will work like crazy to get them, allthe while supporting our failing social security system.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   Social Security and Bernie Madoff have more things in common. I do think that we need to maintain immigration, but opening the doors to lots more people just so we can put more money into Social Security just pushes an even bigger problem into the future. What do we do to fund their Social Security benefits? Maybe we need robots to pay FICA, but not collect Social Security.

   I’d say we need to focus on rewarding those who produce needed goods and services and not reward those who bet on this, that or the other thing, even at the risk of making some investments illiquid. We also need to reward longer-term thinking and investment. Lower taxes on long-term gains and virtually confiscate the gains from very short term investing.

   TMT

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   ” and not reward those who bet on this, that or the other thing, “

   See, I just don’t understand this. We all make similar bets: You buy a Toyota and bet it will depreciate less than a Chrysler. You buy a home because it is in a ‘safe” neighborhood, meanig it will hold its value. You divvy up your 401K based on a mix of return, growth, and safety.

   We all do it, but we tend to take it out on the speculators we see as driving costs up. Never mind tht speculators also buy short, thereby driving prices down. We prefer to think there is some kind of conspiracy among them against us, ignoring all the other evidence that the system does work.

   Then there is a huge difference in opinion on what are needed goods and services, ranging from what the Amish think is “needed” to what the nuclear physicists think we need in order to study bosons.

   I should think they could find plenty of bosons to study in the Senate this week.

   ——————————-

   “We also need to reward longer-term thinking and investment.”

   I agree, but I don’t know how you go about doing it. You can’t very weel have long term profits without short term ones along the way. Government, it seems to me has to provide the incentives to make this happen.

   Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the distinction between incentives for desired behavior and punishment for undesired behavior. With enough “spin” we cna make one appear like the other at least superficially.

   So here is my test: if someone wants someone else to do something, they should be willing to pay for it to happen. If they are not paying or not willing to pay, then it is a punitive incentive, regardless of how it is phrased.

   You suggestion of lower taxes on long term gains is a good example of wanting something and being willing to “pay” for it, because those lower taxes would have to be made up someplace else.

   We already have rules for “wash sales” which are very short term investments, as opposed to short term and long term capital gains. So what we are talking about is, again, a matter of degree.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   Anonymous

   February 7, 2009

   Here is another example of why many do not think RH knows what he is taking about:

   Quoting Prof. Risse he said:

   “What they NEED are functional human settlement patterns with Accessible and Affordable housing so that citizens of the US of A can be happy and safe and not NEED a lot of new Large, Private Vehicles.”

   “WRong. Wrong. Wrong.

   “What they need is the best and most economical mix of both balanced settlements and private vehicles, along with what ever else works.”

   The only thing “wrong” with the quote and the retort is the “WRong, Wrong. Wrong” line by RH.

   Dr. Risse never says tht no citiens will need private vehicles. He says citizens cannot rely on Large, Private vehicles exclusively.

   He suggests “Large, Private Vehicles, aka Autonomobiles do not make sense for most uses in functional settlement patterns.

   RH seems to admit this with:

   “These vehicles need not necessairly be large, or not all of them anyway.”

   So what is the point of the post? Just to make noise?

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   Anonymous

   February 8, 2009

   “Dr. Risse never says tht no citiens will need private vehicles. He says citizens cannot rely on Large, Private vehicles exclusively. “

   And I agree with that point.

   Now let Dr. Risse explain how to properly balance the costs and utility of public transport, with the costs andd utility of private autos, and with the land uses and space needed to support both of them.

   He does not do that, and so far as I know has never recognized the balance of costs and uses required.

   Instead he makes comments about what is wrong with the Automobile, instead of capitalizing on what is right with them while reducing what is wrong.

   Let’s be honest here: Dr. Risse is consistently anti-auto, anti parking, and pro density/public transport.

   I have nothing against density ans public transport, as long as it pays its own full costs. Despite EMR’s claims to the contrary , we can easily see those costs are higher than for more spacious locations. He even tries to hide that fact with the specious claim that urban prices show that this is what people really want and are willing to pay for.

   Like most of EMR’s argument, this one is only half true: some people are willing to pay those prices and some are not. Some people WANT to pay lower prices, not higher.

   That’s what the free market the EMR claims to support and fails utterly to understand is all about.

   I have nothing against density ans public transport, as long as it pays its own full costs. And those costs are NOT being paid if such density is supported and subsidized by restrictive and unrealistic zoning and exhorbitant costs charged in other places, which is much of what Dr. Risse proposes (the 10x rule).

   All I suggest to Dr. Risse is,that if he wants to make an argument that is believeable, that he make it equally on both sides of the fence. Then if he can still show the benefits of his side of the argument, he will make a believer out of me.

   So far, I see his arguments as shallow, one-sided, poorly written, logically faulty, and shrill. And I see an unstated ulterior motive in land conservation, which is admirable, but he has shown no reason for saving all this space that he himself claims has little value.

   ——————————–

   Personally, I have always chosen vehicles of the smaller kind, except my delivery trucks. But, I don’t have the same needs as other people, so I don’t criticize the solo SUV driver like EMR himself. I figure he has his reasons.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   Anonymous

   February 8, 2009

   Anon: 6:56 here.

   RH, among other silly things said:

   “Now let Dr. Risse explain how to properly balance the costs and utility of public transport, with the costs andd utility of private autos, and with the land uses and space needed to support both of them.”

   Actually Professor Risse wrote a 800 and some page book on exactly that issue.

   I guess you have not read it.

   In fact you can prove his equations for yourself.

   By the way, I thought you were going to find something else to do.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   Anonymous

   February 8, 2009

   In fact you can prove his equations for yourself.

   In fact, no I cannot.

   I have read his equations and they invariabley come to some place in the middle where a mathematical or logical miracle happens.

   DR. Risse is not arguing for balance and fairness in treatment of auto drivers and transit users.

   He is not arguing for balance and fairness in treatment of rural residents and urban residents.

   He is not arguing for balance and fairness for both rich and poor, owners and renters, workers and entrepreneurs.

   He is not arguing for balance between economy, equality, and environment.

   When he starts doing that, maybe I’ll buy his CD, which by the way is not a book, last I knew.

   RH

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    Anonymous

    February 10, 2009

    I know RH will not pay any attention but for those who might have doubts raised by RH’s post of , I decided to get an expert opinion on RH’s assertions.

    I knew Dr. Risse would only scold me for bothering to bother refuting anything RH so I consulted someone who is often asked to read Dr. Risse’s work.

    RH: “I have read his equations and they invariably come to some place in the middle where a mathematical or logical miracle happens.”

    Response: This is nonsense, EMR’s equations are simple. If you understand how to acquire the data there is no complexity in the equations and no miracles are involved; mathematical or logical.

    RH: “DR. Risse is not arguing for balance and fairness in treatment of auto drivers and transit users.”

    Response: Whoever said this does not understand what EMR has written or nor what he stands for.

    RH: “He is not arguing for balance and fairness in treatment of rural residents and urban residents.”

    Response: Same as above

    RH: “He is not arguing for balance and fairness for both rich and poor, owners and renters, workers and entrepreneurs.”

    Response: Same as above

    RH: “He is not arguing for balance between economy, equality, and environment.”

    Response: EMR advocates a Balance of economic prosperity, social stability and environmental sustainability. In a draft chapter I read recently, EMR suggests use of “equity” (in the Three E Bottom Line) is a cop out to avoid politically sensitive issues raised by the “social stability.” In fact EMR goes beyond the three Es.

    RH: “When he starts doing that, maybe I’ll buy his CD, which by the way is not a book, last I knew.”

    Response: A perfect example of how up to date RH is. Amazon has sold millions of CDs that it calls “books” including EMR’s.

    Log in to Reply