STIMULATING DISASTER — PART TWO

In STIMULATING DISASTER posted 7 December 2008 – the date of posting is NOT a happenstance – EMR commented on a short list of specific proposals put forth by the president-elect, Barack Obama to “stimulate the economy.”

On that same day on a television talk show, the president-elect suggested that the economic problem “would get worse before it got better.” Few disagree with that assessment.

The gross mismanagement of US of A financial Enterprises and Agencies – selling speculative paper based on bad mortgages – destabilized an over-leverage global financial system that was already grossly over-dependent on unsustainable ‘growth.’ It will take more than creating public service jobs, cutting energy consumption in Agency buildings, tinkering with health records and other sideshows addressed in STIMULATING DISASTER to make any significant change, much less achieve Fundamental Transformation to a sustainable trajectory for society.

Fundamental Transformation will require addressing the BIG ENCHILADAS:

The Mobility and Access Crisis, and
The Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis

That means getting serious about the Helter Skelter Crisis, aka dysfunctional human settlement patterns and the unsustainable trajectory of contemporary civilization.

MOBILITY AND ACCESS

The only things that are on the table with respect to The Mobility and Access Crisis are:

• “Fixing” the Interstate System and “rebuilding highways” addressed in STIMULATING DISASTER and the comments following the post, and

• Bailing out the three largest Autonomobile Enterprises.

With respect to the later, Congress and the White House are on the case. They turned down a request for a $35 billion blank check and are tinkering with a smaller, short term blank check.

However, before they turn over the money, they want some assurance that there will be changes made. They want the head of General Motors to be fired.

They are absolutely right in getting to the core problem. What is GM doing with Mr. Wagoner in the lead? They need Mr. Hybrid.

It is not a joke that Congress is demanding Wagoner’s head. It is a joke if they think that will make any difference.

Wagoner has been on the job since 2000. The problem citizen now face has been growing since 1920. The unsustainable trajectory should have been clear to all since 1973.

In 1973 EMR lost a good client and a great project. Ford Motor Company, to handshake partner of the client, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, walked away from a proposal to build a prototype Planned New Community applying new Mobility and Access technology being developed by Ford’s Fairlane research program.

When the OPEC Oil Embargo hit, Ford abandoned the idea of innovation (and fired the whole Fairlane Research Center that was looking at vehicle / settlement pattern relationships) to focus on their “core business.” Ford and the other Autonomobile Enterprises continued to focus on their “core business” over the next 35 years. They now face bankruptcy because their “core business” is not sustainable for the reasons spelled out in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.

The problem is not some short-term, short-sightedness of a few CEOs, it is a problem of relying of Large, Private Vehicles to provide Mobility and Access to an Urban society. Autonomobiles have grown more complex and more costly to build, operate and maintain and more dependent on cheap energy every year since 1973. With the end of cheap energy, the 35 year joy ride is over.

The choice is either an alternative Mobility and Access System to support a sustainable human settlement pattern or Depression. Take your pick.

Chrysler president Jim Press says: “The solution is product.” No, the solution is a Fundamental Transformation in the settlement pattern and in the infrastructure and vehicles to provide Mobility and Access.

(This just in: The ASHTO lanudry list released in Philidelphia today is made up mainly of projects that that will make human settlement patterns MORE dysfunctional. And to this a list of shared-vehicle system projects like the Silver Line and you have a real disaster.)

AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING

The other half of the BIG ENCHILADA solution to address the Helter Skelter Crisis is a way to provide citizens with Affordable and Accessible Housing.

Here again the issue is quite clear and has been addressed by columns in Bacon’s Rebellion for five years.

What triggered the Global Financial Meltdown was speculative paper base on bad mortgages. The underlying problem was not just loans to bad people or even bad people making bad loans, it was making loans on the Wrong Sized House in the Wrong Location.

For half a decade EMR has been saying that the problem with Fanning and Freddie was not just bloated executive compensation, unsound lending practices and no oversight. The problem was that Freddie and Fannie was pumping Billions into an overheated housing market and exacerbating an unsustainable settlement pattern.

We explored this issue in a series of posts: “IT IS ELEMENTARY,” (10 October 2008), “THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA,” (11 October 2008), “SWIFT BOATING THE MORTGAGE CRISIS,” (12 October 2008) and “THE BOTTOM LINE,” 13 October 2008). These posts will appear, in an edited format as “IT IS THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN STUPID” in TRILO-G.

Bailing out mortgagees or mortgagors will not solve the Mortgage Meltdown problem, that will require Fundamental Transformation of human settlement patterns.

Who will lead that effort? When one looks for an answer to this question, the future looks very scary. In today’s WaPo Robert J. Samuelson’s column is titled “Bernanke’s Burden.” The column outlines why Bernanke is the central figure in solving the financial crisis and points out that Bernake will be around in the new administration unless forced to resign.

Let us review Bernanke’s understanding of shelter finance as noted in THANKSGIVING PERSPECTIVE:

“Bernanke: There’s No Housing Bubble to Go Bust” in WaPo Business Section 27 October 2005 (A few days before President Bush nominated Bernanke to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.)

“Housing Cool-Down Is ‘Orderly,’ Fed Chief (Bernanke) Says” in WaPo Business Section, 19 May 2006

“Fed Chief (Bernanke) Says Housing Problems Won’t Spread to Rest of Economy” on Page C4 of the 29 March 2007 New York Times.

A 5 December WaPo headline reads: “Bernanke Stirs Pot On Home Loan Help: U.S. Must Take Action, Fed Chairman Says.

The bottom line is still that the “leaders” at the federal level did not have a clue what was happening and they still do not know what happened or what will result from pumping more cheap money into shelter related Enterprises before everyone understand the importance of evolving functional human settlement patterns.

At the least mortgage assistance must be focused on loans that qualify for Location Efficient Mortgages.

If mortgages are secured by interests in sound, well located dwellings, even if the mortgagee cannot pay, someone can buy the dwelling and make it a home.

In the National Capital Subregion, the typical cost of a foreclosure mortgage wash for a dwelling in a scattered (orphan) Cluster-scale subdivision in the R = 25 to R = 40 Radius Band are running around $100,000 for a $190,000 resale. A 35 percent mark down on just 5 million underwater mortgages is $500 billion.

Here is the first paragraph of our 9 November 2008 post “Wrong House, Wrong Location”:

“On 31 October CNNMoney.com reported that First American CoreLogic had found 7.5-million home mortgages already “underwater” and another 2.1-million that were on the brink
. The International Herald Tribune story cited in EMR’s post “WAPO AND IHT HOUSING AND MORTGAGE COVERAGE,” 29 October on this Blog pegged the potential for underwater mortgages by 2010 at 19-million.”

You heard about the cause for Thanksgiving on turkey day. Any idea about New Years resolutions?

Note: This post (and other recent posts) have not been edited by Jim Bacon so it may not be as clear as it might otherwise be.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

36 responses to “STIMULATING DISASTER — PART TWO”

  1. As usual – EMR can take a set of facts and completely botch the job of understanding them.

    Point One:

    Not all car-makers are going broke and even the ones that are – are not going broke because cars are becoming less popular for access and mobility.

    If we want to conclude something of substance – evolutionary changes will gravitate to smaller, more efficient and cheaper cars – which will lead to MORE USE of cars for mobility.

    Point Two:

    The prices of homes are crashing – especially in some (not all) suburbs but less so in urbanized areas like NoVa.

    The result: Homes will become even more AFFORDABLE in exurban locations – which will actually further reinforce the “drive til you qualify” dynamic.

    So.. EMR – the trend is actually towards MORE dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    …and in fact.. the more efficient and affordable that cars become – more and more of them will be used to “access” more affordable housing.

  2. and given the obvious trends of MORE cars and MORE homes in exurban areas….

    which I agree is not an optimal situation in terms of scatterization, energy use, etc…

    and given the fact that virtually all those in elected government including the President-elect will:

    1. – encourage the auto industry and encourage more efficient cars

    2. – encourage more home ownership – EVERYWHERE – not just in NURs

    3. – do nothing to change the current Government policies with regard to autos, auto-infrastructure, homes, the location of homes… etc…

    we may not agree on the implications of the above..but let’s say we do agree on the trends and dynamics…

    and let’s say that we agree with EMR that this is not good and we need policies that will encourage more functional settlement patterns…

    where would we start?

    For instance, is the Tysons Corner initiative a “good” thing or a “bad” thing with regard to it being a model of a functional settlement pattern – a model – to be promoted for the rest of NoVa …say ..for instance.. the Fort Belvoir BRAC re-deployment of thousands of jobs…???

    Is there is path or will it take a total collapse of civilization (as EMR seems to hint at) to foster better approaches to settlement patterns.

    I know.. I know.. more flyspeck fodder..

  3. And technically “cheap energy” is back; in a worldwide depression we’re looking at $1.50 gas for a long time. Yes, energy prices will go up but people react to them eventually. This time it took about four years.

    This is also great:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803590.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    The “projects ready to go” are the marginal ones that were cut as a result of budget problems earlier this year. So, to make EMR’s point for him, we are funding the projects that most invested in overstretch.

    Instead of using that money we borrow for long term investments that are going to make the country stronger.

    Can we impeach Tim Kaine yet?

  4. Sorry, got cut off.

    larry, your ideas on getting down to brass tacks is excellent.

    1. Feds need to fund the Tysons tunnel. Yes, the Silver Line is a boondoogle. It will pay benefits in the long term and a tunnel is a better option. In a perfect world, we’d extract some more money from the landowers who stand to benefit. This is not a perfect world.

    2. Obama needs to stop the move to Ft. Belvioir until an alternative with massive mass transit options in in place. My understanding is the Alexandria location fits, except it will take several years and money to move the warehouses. Do it.

    3. Gas tax. Nobody wants it, but we’re going to paying higher taxes anyway. That’s what happen you you run $2 trillion deficit. Do it now why gas is cheap so it doesn’t hurt so much.

  5. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry said:

    “Point One:

    Not all car-makers are going broke and even the ones that are – are not going broke because cars are becoming less popular for access and mobility.”

    “Less popular” is not the issue, given an undending supply of cheap energy, Autonomobiles would be “popular,” especially with 12.5 Percenters.

    Autonomobiles will be less available due to rising costs — embeded and direct fuel costs.

    And, the big issue, they cannot provide Mobility and Access — it is a matter of physics and economics, not ‘popularity,’ policy or politics.

    “If we want to conclude something of substance – evolutionary changes will gravitate to smaller, more efficient and cheaper cars – which will lead to MORE USE of cars for mobility.”

    You still have not read THE PROBLEM WITH CARS. smaller, cheaper, more effecient cars are still Large, Private Vehicles from the prespective of Mobility and Access and places to drive and park them.

    For a great summary of the limitation of vehicles to provide Access see today’s story on where to park buses. Even shared-vehicle systems have limits.

    A sustaianable tracetory for civilization requires less reliance on all Vehicles.

    “Point Two:

    The prices of homes are crashing – especially in some (not all) suburbs but less so in urbanized areas like NoVa.”

    “The result: Homes will become even more AFFORDABLE in exurban locations – which will actually further reinforce the “drive til you qualify” dynamic.”

    Sorry two strikes.

    If you cannot afford an Autonomobile, having cheap houses in the wrong location does nothing to solve the Affordable and Accessible Housing problem, NOTHING.

    “So.. EMR – the trend is actually towards MORE dysfunctional settlement patterns.”

    Yes, if we do not change the current trajectory.

    “…and in fact.. the more efficient and affordable that cars become – more and more of them will be used to “access” more affordable housing.”

    We have said this for years. Smaller, more fuel efficient but still Large, Private Vehicle are just a form of GREEN GREED.

    EMR

  6. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry said:

    “and given the obvious trends of MORE cars and MORE homes in exurban areas….”

    But see above.

    “which I agree is not an optimal situation in terms of scatterization, energy use, etc…”

    On this we agree.

    “and given the fact that virtually all those in elected government including the President-elect will:

    “1. – encourage the auto industry and encourage more efficient cars”

    Yes

    “2. – encourage more home ownership – EVERYWHERE – not just in NURs

    NOT “in NURs,” OUTSIDE THE CLEAR EDGES.

    With that change, yes.

    “3. – do nothing to change the current Government policies with regard to autos, auto-infrastructure, homes, the location of homes… etc…”

    That is the core fear and why we wrote the last two posts. Our email suggests some are listening. We can only hope…

    “we may not agree on the implications of the above..but let’s say we do agree on the trends and dynamics…

    “and let’s say that we agree with EMR that this is not good and we need policies that will encourage more functional settlement patterns…

    where would we start?”

    For instance, is the Tysons Corner initiative a “good” thing or a “bad” thing with regard to it being a model of a functional settlement pattern – a model – to be promoted for the rest of NoVa …say ..for instance.. the Fort Belvoir BRAC re-deployment of thousands of jobs…???”

    In both cases Tysons and BRAC could lead to a system of Balanced Communities but not just by happenstance or by following current least common denominator policies.

    “Is there is path or will it take a total collapse of civilization (as EMR seems to hint at) to foster better approaches to settlement patterns.”

    That is the question, will citizens and their Organizations wake up before all the resources are exhaused and there is none left to implement Fundamental Transformation.

    EMR

    I know.. I know.. more flyspeck fodder..

  7. E M Risse Avatar

    Opps forgot the flyspeck item:

    No Larry this is not a flyspeck issue, after making the wrong initial assumptions you came to the right conclusion.

    Fundamental Transformation or Collapse.

    EMR

  8. E M Risse Avatar

    charlie:

    Good points on what needs to be done. The largely reflect what we have been saying for years re Tysons and Ft. Blvior.

    You are exactly right about all the pork barrel ‘ready to go’ projects. They are the ones that were cut when money got tight and for good reason.

    Cheap energy is back for the short term. It will be ‘cheap’ in the longer term only if there is a Real Great Depression and there is not demand.

    Surprisingly, some favor Depression over giving up their Hummer or their Really Big House.

    There is still a lot of denial out there.

    EMR

  9. re: “A sustaianable tracetory for civilization requires less reliance on all Vehicles.”

    stand back!

    EMR is having a Luddite attack – AGAIN!

    EMR – Vehicles are – civilization as we know it.

    if someone on a bike can carry 300 lbs of milk.. someone in a small truck can carry a ton of it, go 4 times as fast and deliver it 100 times further.

    All the stuff that is brought to you on trucks and trains – they are large vehicles – guy.

    Admit it fella.

    You’d be walking to your seminars if you did not have cars and planes and roads and airport terminals.

    You’d not have your tomatoes and wool socks if it were not for large vehicles and the roads and rail they travel on.

    By the way – for ALL of us – where EXACTLY can we find “The Problem with Cars”?

    Is there a LINK perhaps?

  10. EMR: we are in the big one, energy (gasoline) is going to be cheap for at least 5 years, and people were giving up their hummers. Now that gas is back to 1.80 they may keep them. Funny how people are.

    Interesting link:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9136/05-07-Infrastructure_Testimony.pdf

    Peter Orzag, Obama’s choice for OMB estimated – when Director of the CBO – that an additional $20 billion in spending, mostly to maintain current transportation infrastructure, would achieve 83% of the net benefits to be had from more transportation infrastructure spending.

  11. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry said:

    “Vehicles are – civilization as we know it.”

    That is just what a few Romans at the top of the Ziggurat said about chariots.

    And Attila said that about horses.

    And 12.5 Percenters and those who have speculated in land for future Urban land uses REALLY want to believe that too.

    A sustainable future for democracies with market economies requires places that do not rely on Vehicles for every activity, especially Large, Private Vehicles.

    The alternative is Imperial Roman Ziggurat governace sturcture and / or Attila’s anarchy — complete with barter markets for horses and root crops.

    The future that relies on Large Private Vehicles makes Cuba look like Monte Carlo.

    The nice thing is that the vast majority of citizen in the US of A, when given the chance vote with their dollars vote for settlement patterns that do not require anyone to balance 300 pounds of milk or drive to every activitiy.

    12.5 Percenters and thier allies do not like to recognize this fact.

    THE PROBLEM WITH CARS first appeared as a four column series in BR zine. (Jim Bacon edited so it has fewer mispellings, etc.) I will check but as I recall it was also made into a Backgrounder.

    More recently it has become PART THREE of FOUNDATIONS, the first Volume of TRILO-G.

    EMR will check on the current status.

    EMR

  12. E M Risse Avatar

    Larry:

    No wonder you get so confused. Are you serious that you did not know where to find THE PROBLEM WITH CARS?

    Wow! Those who I hear from via email know all this stuff and it is hard to see how someone could decise to comment not knowing the source material. Anyway…

    THE PROBLEM WITH CARS is one of the Backgrounders that started as a series of columns.

    EMR just checked and it is not on the BR web site in that format. THE ESTATES MATRIX is. (Hint when you see an all caps title it will be a PART (seperate file) in TRILO-G.)

    To read THE PROBLEM WITH CARS go to BR web site, go to Wonks, go to EMR Profile page and look at columns for 11 Feb 2008, 25 Feb 2008, 5 Mar 2008 and 7 April 2008 in that order.

    As noted above Jim Bacon edited them so they read quite well in that format. They have been expanded, imporved and updated in the version that will appear in TRILO-G.

    Hope that helps.

    EMR

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Tysons Corner – The Fairfax County Parks Authority has, in a public meeting in McLean, acknowledged that there will be insufficient parks, recreational facilities and open space within Tysons Corner to meet the needs of new residents and workers. Thus, people will need to drive to other parts of the county to meet their needs. However, despite the many flaws of the FCPA’s plans for Tysons, those plans are better than what many on the Task Force wanted. Many did not want to address the need for more parks, etc. at all.

    In response to this criticism, one Task Force member has argued that the recreational and open space needs of Tysons residents will be different than those of the rest of the suburban county since the demographics will be different. Most people who will live in Tysons will be young, single professionals or empty-nesters. Don’t need all those parks, I guess.

    But if one thinks about this, donut-hole demographics for Tysons means that most of those who are not young, single professionals or empty-nesters, but who will work in a much larger Tysons will, axiomatically, live outside Tysons and will need to commute to work — just like today.

    Metrorail will capture say 25% of those workers, but the rest will drive. Where is the road capacity to handle 75% of the added workers?

    I submit that Tysons will not ever be a functional community under EMR’s or anyone else’s standards.

    TMT

  14. I don’t know that we can (or should) classify people with respect to whether or not different kinds of folks need different kinds of open space.

    But I would ask – if we are holding Tysons to the same standard that we might find in other urban and urbanizing areas…

    further.. I wonder what EMR’s view of this is…

    In a Functional Settlement pattern – is there a recommended scope/scale of open space per capita …standard?

    As far as the auto is concerned – there are many ways to discourage it’s use and to encourage walking and using public transportation.

    For one thing – Tysons could do the same thing done on the Mall area around the Monuments and that is put a pedestrian demand button on every light and have a count-down on it so that pedestrians know how much time is left.

    Parking could be made to be as expensive as it is … in places like New York City where the parking space costs extra from the rent or purchase price of a condo or office space.

    I’ve read that .. just since the Feds have given tentative approval that there is now a rush on to approve land-use so that new construction can start soon – so it is ready when the METRO is ready.

    This would be a good time to push for rules that will help insure less auto-dependent land-use rules.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Larry’s 6:11 comment is correct on all counts.

    Home affordabilty and gas prices in todays dollars are more affordable today than any time in the last thirty years.

    EMR could sell a lot more ideas if they didn’t dso obviously fly in the face of obvious facts.

    RH

  16. Why is America unsustainable?

    1. Our level of debt is built on a presumption of economic growth. Let’s take an example from business. A company should borrow when it can obtain funds at a rate lower than it can earn with those funds.

    2. Debt is subject to compound interest unless repaid. Let’s say I am borrowing $20 per year and paying back $10 at a 10% interest. My interest expense in year 1 (assuming I borrow $20 on Jan 1 and repay $10 on Dec 31) is $2. If I applied that $20 to a revenue producing venture that yielded $3 in profit – I am ahead. In year two, I borrow another $20 (which makes $30 on Jan. 1) and repay $10 on Dec. 31. Now, my interest payment is $3 for the funds in year 2. Assume that I made $3 on the funds I had in year 1 and another $3 on the money I borrowed in year 2. That’s $6 with an interest payment of $3. Pretty good. Let’s go to year 3. Same drill except that I only make $1 on the first year’s funds, the second year’s funds and the third year’s funds. My growth has slowed. But I am still in debt. I owe $4 in interest with $3 in profit. Now what?

    3. America’s growth is slowing. But our debt is growing. Why is our growth slowing? Because we are no longer “heads and shoulders” ahead of the rest of the world in innovation and productive capacity. Why is our debt growing? Because we keep spending more than we make and we have to pay the compound interest on the old debt.

    4. Our options are to produce more output (Chamber of Commerce theory), spend less (Republican theory), tax more (Democratic theory) or restructure our society (EMR theory). I would eliminat 1. as wishful thinking. While we will certainly grow, it will be insufficient for financing our present deficit (including compound interest on prior debt). We no longer have a massive competitive advantage over our competitors (i.e. other countries). I eliminate 2. for two reasons – higher taxes eventually stifle productivity which, in turn, reduces the economic base on which to levy taxes. There is also an insufficient base to tax without impoverishing a good percentage of Americans. Taxes will go up but that alone will not solve our problems. I eliminate 3. beacuse most government spending is entitlement programs and the demographics of the US point toward more citizens needing attention not fewer. Even if benefits are reduced on a per capita basis, they will go up in aggregate. That leaves 4.

    5. EMR is right that our present economic approach is unsustainable. However, stating the problem is a far cry from solving it.

    6. Americans need to get used to having less than they presently have. Excessive debt is the problem at all levels – consumer debt, mortgage debt, governmantal debt.

    7. Consumer debt is cut by consuming less. Walk past the latest iPod, keep your old car, drive less, eat out less often.

    8. Mortgage debt is cut by putting more down on a home (i.e. rent until you can afford to buy), buying smaller homes, buying homes on smaller lots or multi-unit dwellings (aka condos and town homes).

    9. Governmental debt is cut by raising taxes and cutting services. Less money for people to spend (since they pay more in taxes), more money spent on things the government used to fund (like roads). Ultimately, we pay down the corproate debt and get out of the COMPOUND INTEREST CONUNDRUM [Note: G uses capitals to denote chapters of his forthcoming book QUADRILOGY].

    And the funny thing is that most of us would be happier living a simpler, less consumptive life. Slow down, smell the roses. So what if you don’t have the latest flat screen TV or glow in the dark digital watch (with GPS).

    An old boss once told me, “when you find yourself in a hole – the first thing to do is ‘stop digging’”. He also told me at his retirement party that he was going to learn to ski to the point that he could get down a black diamond without falling and to play a round of golf without losing a ball. He never did either. He died of pancreatic cancer a few years after his retirement. It seemed that he waited too long to stop digging and shortened the best years of his life. We passed ad astra as a quite wealthy and quite dead man.

    What would you do if you knew you only had 5 years to live?

    Maybe you do. He did.

  17. well.. it would be good to recognize that productivity is something where innovation and creativity allows us to produce more from less resources and that is the fundamental of “growth”.

    words like automation, miniaturization, computerization, mechanization – i.e. technology – describe the “how”.

    Here’s an example:

    A GPS unit (a miniature computer combined with GPS location technology – a radio receiver) driven with a traveling salesman algorithm combined with a cell-phone type communication’s capability – another radio that sends and receives…which talks to a integrated database which is connected to a network of traffic sensors (also via radio and all of the parts and pieces powered by electricity either directly or by recharged battery) to determine current traffic congestion on the transportation grid

    which results in –

    the optimal route in terms of the best ordering of the stops with regard to time and distance…

    yields – time savings as well as wear/tear savings (less miles) ….

    which means – the company can pay the driver for less hours or more likely add more items for the driver to deliver – multiple across the fleet – means perhaps less trucks and less drivers…

    .. at the end of the string – doing more with less….

    That’s productivity

    That’s separate from what you do with the money that you have invested in that operation.

    For instance, you could have one of the most optimized, efficient operations known to man but if you mismanage it financially – you’re doomed,.

    so….in my view, it’s not productivity that is not sustainable – it’s when we act as is we have more productivity than we actually have that we get into trouble.

    in short – we spend more than we make…no matter what level of productivity that we have.

    no?

  18. This is a classic thread. It seems to me tha Larry and TMT are right on most counts. This must be EMR’s worst dream come true.

    In current dollars, homes, gas, and autos are cheaper than any time in the last the thirty years, yet according to EMR collapse is “just around the corner”.

    EMR is simpy wrong about cars. They are the best, and cheapest answer ecver devised to provide mobility and access to the masses – despite their many problems. If you did as EMR proposes and charged the full cost for autos – and for all the other “shared vehicle systems” – autos would win hands down.

    His argument that if you cannot afford an auto, then you cannot afford a home in the wrong place is both circular and insufficient. If you can;t afford an aut then you probably can’t afford a home in the right place, either.

    I think Groveton inadertently hit on the futility of EMR’s argment.

    In his point four he itemizes the reasons that the usual prescriptions for getting us out of our current problems won’t work. They boil down to the idea that higher taxes and more debt will reduce productivity and leave us all worse off.

    Therefore, the only answer remaining is number 6) – Americans need to get used to having less than they presently have.

    Either way, we are going to be worse off. Where did I put my sack cloth and ashes?

    Combine that idea with the Petri dish analogy and the wealth disparity, and pretty sooon you come to the conclusion that those who are already on the bottom edge, are going to have to die off.

    EMR has said we need fewer people consuming less stuff, but the obvious corollary is that with enough fewer people we could consume a lot more stuff, and still be sustainable.

    Therfore, neither consumption nor productivity is the issue. the issue is how do we choose who is going to die off? Right now, we have a rudimentary idea, already embedded in government policy which is called the statistical value of human life.

    RH

  19. “.. at the end of the string – doing more with less….

    That’s productivity”

    Doing more with less, this way, means that what you are doing is more profitable. Therefor you will do more of it, and use more stuff in the process.

    Airplanes are foar more efficient than they were thirty year ago, and yet we use more jet fuel than ever.

    RH

  20. “Metrorail will capture say 25% of those workers, but the rest will drive. Where is the road capacity to handle 75% of the added workers?”

    This is a critical issue, in my opinion. At BEST transit is going to handle 50% of required traffic, even in the most heavily transit oriented development.

    That says nothing about the area wide needs, including the transit oriented development and whatever is around it. You MUST plan on a total system that includes adequate roadways and parking for cars, in order to get the most efficient total system.

    At some level, those requirements are going to conflict, and the thing to do is to design for the pattern that gives the best combination of both, even if both are partly suboptimal as a result.

    On top of that, you have to figure on TMT’s arguemnt aobut open space, parkes, etc. to my mind, failur to adequately consider these things is a major failure on the part of smart growth coalitions: they are dogmatically overfocused on certain aspects they desire.

    And finally, layered on top of whatever pattern the combination of those requirements result in, you still have the matter of sustainability. To my mind that means you would ADDITIONALLY have to reserve (and pay to maintain) sufficient land outside the urban area to guarantee its sustainability. I’d suggest tat you would have to reserve enough land suchthat the solar energy which falls on it is sufficient to meet the embedded and direct energy costs of the urban area, plus the area needed for supply and disposal.

    ———————

    EMR claims that the majority of people vote with their dolars to live in places where they do not have to drive to every activity. True, as far as it goes, bu tit is also true that many of those people have to suboptimize on the quality or price of activities they attend, because their access is limited to those they can walk to.

    RH

  21. re: …. ” ..we use more jet fuel than ever.”

    not on a per airplane basis…

    better efficiency – productivity means that you use less resources to accomplish the same job…

    don’t confuse it with “growth” which means more planes serving more people and using more fuel not because the planes are not more efficient than they used to be but because there are more planes than there used to be.

    Think about this with respect to EMR and autos and his view that eventually auto usage will lead to a collapse of civilization because the fuel needed will no longer be available.

    That assumption – assumes that the current efficiency of cars will remain what it is right now and it won’t.

    10 years from now (or less) we might be seeing cars that using electric engines instead of internal combustion engines (or much, much smaller combustion engines)…

    It might well be that these engines won’t be powered with oil … but nukes … or …even coal and natural gas – or solar or wind or tides… whatever…

    So… we all know and EMR refuses to admit it – that large private vehicles will remain the preferred method of mobility for a long, long time and that rather than the collapse of civilization – cars will just become more and more efficient… probably to the point where they will be mostly powered not with fossil fuels.

    so EMR’s great, great grandson will probably be driving a large private automobile….

    and with any luck… he’ll be talking about chicken-little also.

    😉

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    not on a per airplane basis…

    Actually, we do, but that is because they are so much bigger. On a per seat basis, you are right.

    But, the end result is that we still use more jet fuel, not less.

    “because there are more planes than there used to be.”

    And why are there more planes? Because they are more profitable (hard to believe, the way the airline industry is, but still true). they are more profitable because they are more efficient, and more people can afford to use more of them.

    Therefore, efficiency won’t lead to conservation, but more usage. Conservation can only mean doing without, or at least doing without until later. So, we need to consider carefully what exactly it is we are conserving FOR, and until WHEN.

    Conservationists and EMR seem to think we are conserving for the sake of conservation, forever.

    Where I come unglued with EMR’s argument is that he insists on more efficiency, and yet he hates profit, which efficiency leads to.

    ————————–

    “..and with any luck… he’ll be talking about chicken-little also.”

    Ugh. That’s rich with irony.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    On the topic of efficiency, Ben and Jerry’s has invented or is promoting a new type of freezer which uses no freon of any kind.

    Instead, it uses ordinary propane, and it is said to be 10% more efficient.

    Now that is ahuge gain, if all the claims are true. due to percieved safety issues,it may be a whole before this technology reaches the home.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    The big enchiladas are health care and education. Everything else is small potatoes by comparison.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    Tysons could get more urban and larger, but not on a arbitrary basis. I don’t think that there would be as large an outcry if the Task Force had attempted to size the added density to what infrastructure is needed and can be built affordably. But it didn’t even try and attacked any and all who dared to raise those concerns — including county staff and the consultants.

    The Task Force was no more about responsible planning than were the sub-prime mortgage slicers and dicers about affordable housing.

    The 1990s and 2000s have all been about the reappearance of the alchemist. Too many people are trying to turn nothing into gold.

    TMT

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    I agree, but it would take a lot more than just properly planning tyson’s itself, because the repercussions are much larger. The open space has to happen somewhere, so it might as well be in Tyson’s where people can enjoy it. In which case, there is a limit to how much more urban you can make Tyson’s, or anyplace else, that makes any sense.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    “Economics demands forward motion, a conforming to the facts on the ground and a relentless and realistic assessment of the relationship between cost and price, supply and demand. We must learn to love these forces in society because they are the only things that keep rationality alive in the way we use resources. Without them, there would be nothing but waste and chaos, and eventual starvation and death. We simply cannot live outside economic reality.”

    Jeffrey Tucker, Mises Institute

    I think I’ve been trying to make the point that too much of most anything leads to waste, chaos, and death.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    Mr. Tucker has obviously never visited Fairfax County; read the editorial pages of the Washington Post or the press releases of the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce!

    TMT

  29. Maybe not,but the waste and chaos in Fairfax prove his point.

    RH

  30. re: waste & chaos

    hmmmm….

    I wonder how the State of Virginia would fare without the contributions of Fairfax and NoVa?

    When we say "waste & chaos" – is that also a symbol of prosperity?

    If Tysons, and Fairfax went "poof" tomorrow what would be the impact to Virginia?

  31. I thought you folks might be interested in this article on sustainable development patterns.

  32. the link provided does not work…

    and this is not the first or only time I’ve had that kind of trouble with the “oildrum” blog.

    Perhaps if you can get to it -you could cut/paste the portions of it that you think most relevant.

  33. Larry, sorry about that. Here is an excerpt, though the site seems to be back up:

    There are many efficiencies gained through centralization and specialization (of both place and activity, or, as Jaques Ellul termed it, “technic”). These two principles combine to lay the foundation for most of “classical” economic theory. These efficiencies, however, also produce externalities—side effects that are generally unrecognized and unaccounted for when weighing the value gained by centralization and specialization. I’ve termed these “anti-economies.”

    When weighing civilizational choices, it is also important to consider the dueling perspective of the median vs. the mean. A policy that grows overall wealth in an economy (raising the mean wealth) does not necessarily increase the wealth of most people within that economy (which is best measured by the median wealth). Is an overall richer society comprised of one super wealthy Tiger Woods and 100 destitute peasants preferable to an overall poorer society comprised primarily of a “middle class” at some level of wealth above destitute peasantry? How do we weight the value—from the perspective of economics, politics, sociology, sustainability, etc.—of equality of distribution versus overall wealth distributed? This is a question that is critical to any consideration of the value of decentralization, and represents a lens through which we must view the relative value of suburbia and its alternatives, their present failures, and future potential.

    When speaking of sustainable settlement patterns, I like to think about settlements as nodes on a computer network. The Oil Drum post discussed the pros and cons of decentralization, distributed manufacturing and R&D, and open source innovation.

    Personally, I think the automobile discussion here is a red herring. Leave out the pollution factor and look at peak oil, economics, traffic congestion; the track we're on is not sustainable. So long as we're checking our facts, there's not much room for argument about what things look like now.

    What we want it to look like (the "ideal") is more complex, but I think we can agree that being located close to work, food, water, entertainment etc is highly desirable. I also think it's desirable for everyone to have transportation options that are affordable and sustainable in all respects, i.e. the "total cost" of transportation should be considered. I don't care if vehicles are "private", so long as they are affordable and don't pollute or consume non-renewable resources. We're talking ideal.

    By far the toughest sell, especially in the company of so many independent thinkers (read: hard-nosed libertarian old farts 🙂 is how do we get there? I’m not here for some pure academic goals. I’m here to engage in this discussion so I can more effectively approach solutions. I want to do something with all this information. The vehicular transport issue is a by-product of where we live, work, and get our basic needs met. Address the settlement pattern and the transportation problem becomes manageable. Redesign the automobile from the ground up, then who cares how many anyone owns?

  34. E M Risse Avatar

    Great Post Rabbit!!

    Keep up the good work.

    EMR

  35. Thanks EMR, and by the way… further reading into that series of articles on The Oil Drum reveals an earlier post about the cost of suburban commuting. Very interesting read! Enjoy.

  36. Good post, Rabbit.

    The part about mean and median welfare seems to me very similar to what I have been saying about net social benefit and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.

    The winners must we willing to compensate the losers in any public policy application. If they re not willing, then it must be because they are unfeeling thieves, and the policy is really a walth trnsfer, or else there is no net benefit to share.

    Research Pigou, Coase, and Kaldor Hicks to learn more.

    There are efficiencies gained through centralization and specialization, but there are also dis-economies caused by complexity and distance. Those are in addition to the externalities. The problem I see with externalities is that they are used selectively by special interests to promote one point of view. Sometimes they are also rather fantastical, as well.

    Coase will tell you that it doesn’t matter what the externalities are. Provided proerty rights are afforded TO EITHER PARTY the end results will be the same, provided the transaction costs are not too high.

    He uses the example of the man whose cows get into the neighbors vegetable garden. The cows eat the vegetables. If the increase in value of the cows afterwords is greater than the cost of the vegetables, then the cow owner ought to be able to pay the vegetable grower fair price, and the vegetable grower should be happy with that result.

    But if the vegetables are worth more than the cows then the vegetable grower should be able to pay to keep the cows out and still come out ahead.

    There is more to this which explains about externalities, liability, and property rights. Milton Friedman thought Coase was utterly wrong, much as Lrry thinks there is no right to pollute.

    Coase utterly turned Friedman and the entire Chicago school of economics around in one famous debate. You canread about it at

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Coase.html

    The point is that liability or government intervention is not the point. The point is, “WHAT is the PROCSS that leads you to the BEST result?”

    From the article:

    “Take divorce. University of Colorado economist H. Elizabeth Peters showed empirically that whether a state has traditional barriers to divorce or divorce on demand has no effect on the divorce rate. This is contrary to conventional wisdom but consistent with the Coase theorem. If the sum of a couple’s net gains from marriage, as seen by the couple, is negative, then no agreement on distributing the gains from the marriage can keep them together. All the traditional divorce law did was enhance the bargaining position of women. A husband who wanted out much more than his wife wanted him in could compensate his wife to let him out. Not surprisingly, divorce-on-demand laws have made women who get divorces financially worse off..”

    Dogma often flies in the face of facts.

    —————————-

    Here is one idea of the PROCESS that leads to the best Reseult.

    This is going to sound like heresy, but as an environmentalist I don’t think it matters if the track we are on is sustainable: that is an unhelpful dogma.

    As a sailor, the tack you are on is never sustainable, what matters is the sum of the zig zag, so you have to make the best of what you have, when you have it, no matter where it leads you.

    (I know, zig zag, what have you been smoking.)

    Here it is. Start with the transportation limitations and build the settlement pattern around that.

    We know roads carry max capacity at around 35 mph and three car lenghts apart. We know what that capscity is how much space it consumes. We know how many trips are generated by the activities inside varous structures. We should not allow the rest of the space (the net dwelling and work space) to conatain more dwellings or activities such that they wii generate trips in excess of the road capacity.

    The people who use all that space should have to pay for all of it, and not get space for free through zoning out their neighbors. Instead of taxing or toling anyone who wants to use a road to create congestion, tax and restrict the landowners who create overly attractive nuisances that cause congestion: go to the root cause.

    If you want to build a second (adequate)transit system, and pay for it, then you can roughly double the density of the net dwelling space. This is based on what we know about actual auto and transit usage.

    After that, nothing more inthe way of density makes sense.

    Probably you will not use anything like all the net space, so you will have some left over for conservation, parks, recreation, sewage treatment, water supply, and refuse disposal. It might not be enough, so you would have to rent some more from the outside, call it an urban support area.

    It is going to be really expensive, but you could design some walkable, pedestrian friendly, enclaves without vehicle transport and much higher density for the poor people.

    RH

Leave a Reply