• Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because planned economies are a terrible idea. We would be doing this efficiently and organically if the demand for bikes and public transportation was higher and the demand for cars was lower.

    Why don’t we uproot all our vegetable crops and grow cherry trees? Cherries are delicious so this is obviously a great idea!

    The only reason you have food on your plate is because economies adjust incrementally from the ground up, not all at once from the top down.

    • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here comes the guy with the degree in economics and a lot of free time lmfao. It must be really difficult to misunderstand such a simple meme but here, I will help you out: MAYBE the spendings our governements “plan” (uuuh scary buzz word) on: car infrastructure (go check how much your country spends on it), gas tax cuts, road maintenance, healthcare costs related to car accidents (you don’t obviously “plan” those but they are nonetheless a cost for a society), just MAYBE, they could be decresed in favor of public transportation? Cycling infrastructure?

      “BuT tHe dEmAnD fOr CarS iS sO hIgh!!1!1 LeT tHe fReE mArKet ChOoSe wHaT pEoPlE wAnT.”

      Nice free market you got there when outside its all roads and parking lots (tax-paid), with no sidewalks/cycleways, and the only bus/train going to where you need to has a ride every 6 hours. Im sure people will buy a car to get around because they love it so much.

      Why don’t we uproot all our vegetable cropsmodes of transportation and grow car trees? Cars are delicious so this is obviously a great idea!

      • car manufactures in the '60s
      • Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I also have a degree in economics (and computer science, fwiw). We agree that the incentive structures in the United States are fucked up. I was just answering the question in the meme with regards to manufacturing decisions and how/why they’re made. Discontinuing our perverse car-centric subsidy schemes would be a great way to steer demand and supply away from cars.

    • diffaldo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Demand for public transport will not increase because it continues to be underfunded.

      • Nobilmantis@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Under-founds public transportation until all that’s left is a old dirty bus going in along a useless route every 6 hours. Builds massive highways, parking lots and roads that make it “easy” to drive and impossible to walk or cycle, cuts gas taxes. WOAH GUYS, people are buying cars because they love them! We should give them more funding and keep de-funding transit projects

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What we have is a transportation economy that’s been planned by car companies. From demonizing “Jay Walkers”, to buying trolley companies to shut them down.

      Even today, where small trucks stop being produced in order to avoid emission restrictions. Along with marketing, that falsely claims improved safety of the larger, more expensive, more profitable large trucks.

      Whenever a market is dominated by a small enough group of companies, they start planning how it will work.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a horrendous comparison. You could have had an arguable point if other countries weren’t already doing it.

      • gowan@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Their source would be neoclassical economics. The idea that planned economies work well is completely undone by a historic look at planned economies.

        Note this is not a position regarding the viability of cars only one regarding planned economies

    • Airport_Bar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you uproot an old failing oak without plans to plant something in its absence, you’ll be left with a big hole and no shade.

      Edit: Maybe I’m agreeing with some of what was said and I’m misunderstood. Either way, I agree with understanding demand as it relates to a planned economy.

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a problem with some poorly executed pedestrianisation/walkable area conversions IMO.

        I like it since it means more car free spaces for me and my 🚲, but those without a bike aren’t going to wait around a hour for a bus, they’ll hop in their car and drive to an alternative location. They might not even be familiar with bike paths and routes to get there, especially if they’re not comfortable riding on the road.

        When car-first infrastructure is ripped out, people need to be introduced to alternatives and the alternatives need to be attractive, otherwise the status-quo will shift elsewhere