i was thinking about how i used to have to walk a few blocks and repark the car on street cleaning day in the city i used to live.
if you let the data speak for itself, you’ll hear only lies. @jpkoning.bsky.social on how accurate data about euro-denominated traffic over the SWIFT network might lead one to conclusions 180° off from what’s likely going on. jpkoning.blogspot.com/2024/12/some...
Someone is wrong on the internet about the SWIFT network
Link Preview: Someone is wrong on the internet about the SWIFT network: There's a chart that has been circulating for a while now on social media that shows payments traffic on SWIFT, a key global financial messa...it’s amazing how nostalgia can turn even mildly annoying aspects of the quotidian into things i now pine for.
when what we now take as pathological was aspirational. see also Milton Keynes, and actual city in Great Britain inspired I think by similar currents, muddling along surprisingly well despite what we’d now regret about those currents. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_...
yes. i’d not want their political system, but there’s lots to learn from and admire in their urbanism and governance. (they’re very small, so i don’t think it’s some slam dunk for authoritarianism. in general how to think well as collectivities of 100Ms+ is a hard problem!)
it’s always been true that the modal person lives not so far from where they’re from. but there did not exist 120 years ago a mass professional class whose choice of residence was routinely determined by education and career. there does now.
contemporary Singapore might fit this mold. i think they sometimes describe some of their newer new towns as “garden cities”. in any case, they add housing at scale not through piecemeal infill but by creating new, transit linked new towns. they make automobile ownership onerously expensive.
it’s just now they believe that they *are* the american eagle, and so what’s wrong with grooming?
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
nope. i have no cites. i just think it’s quite obviously true.
emigration has always been a thing, but the frequency of people living an inconvenient distance from family increased dramatically over the 20th Century (for better and worse) due to economic and technological developments.
Cars are really great for intercity travel, for getting between cities. It’s what they’ve done to cities that is terrible. A park-and-ride model where highways (among other modes) take you between cities, but you park them at the edges and ride in could be great.
yep. it’s time to try again, change things, make new mistakes this time.
I wasn’t accusing you of conspiracizing. I was accusing you of accusing me of conspiracizing when I was putting out a quick tweet. I was not twirling my mustache about how to defame zoom, even if i am very tech-co (not tech) skeptical.
We might have continued to a counterfactual built environment of suburbanization without cars! But then it would have been relatively dense “transit oriented development”, because those carless commuters would generally want to be in walking distance of the train and commercial amenities. 1/
Would that kind if suburbanization have been better or worse than no suburbanization? I don’t know. It sounds less horrible, though it would still impose a commute cost, people do enjoy aspects of suburbanization too. 2/
I think what we can say is that the car-centric suburbanization we evolved into has proven very costly, because it imposes a high transportation debt not just to get to work but for commerce and social participation. We don’t know the counterfactuals, but lots of us would try a different path! /fin
there sure isn’t! but conventionally we most frequently use GDP per capita, and this kind of remedial GDP growth is one of many reasons we should be skeptical of that convention.
sure. defense rationales were part of those choices. as was active lobbying by auto, oil, entrepreneurs in an housing development industry. as was consumer choice. lots of reasons we collectively did the thing. we’ve enough experience now i think to regret the mistake. wasn’t obvious ex ante though.
because it was an accurate and really easy example to fit in a tweet? it popped into my head in short sentences? i don’t know how much conspiracizing you do before you post a 300 character masterpiece.
when i’m making an argument, don’t call it a value judgement. the argument is things we score as growth are remedies to problems prior growth created, not actually improvements in welfare relative to the prior baseline. 1/
whether having to pay that cost is “worth it” is a value judgement. whether new growth patterns entail costs as well as benefits, and overcoming those costs requires new economic activity is a factual and i think pretty inarguable claim, not a value judgement. /fin
my friend, what do you think i do? i’ve devoted my life to tech. i run my own jitsi server, thanks, and don’t have anything particularly against zoom. it’s had its let’s-do-evil moments, but it’s decent relative to a pretty bad baseline, microsoft, google, etc. 1/
the only difference between the zoom example and the commute example is that you think (and i agree!) the costs zoom helps remedy were probably worth incurring, freedom to live anywhere breaks important connections but it’s better we have it than if we didn’t, 2/
while you think (and i also agree!) that the choices we’ve made with respect to a sprawled built environment within a particular region are not worth its costs and we ought not to have incurred them in the first place, we should have used land-usw regulation to prevent costly suburbanization. 3/
but in both cases, whether worth it or not, choices we collectively made in the name of “growth”, “dynamism”, or “development” entailed new costs, so developments we pretended were new, even more, growth were actually just remedies, ways to get back what became harder because of past “triumphs”./fin

