"James, capitalism delivers land gasoline and all what people WANT much better than socialism, so I do not understand why are you calling yourself a socialist?"
Well, no, capitalism has been very tardy in spreading wealth to the people, and the living standards we are talking about are still restricted largely to North America, Western Europe and Japan.
I appreciate that the inefficient and authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe laid claim to being socialist, but I don't see any need to accept their austerity regimes as the model for socialism.
So, no, I don't accept that capitalism has been more successful than socialism in winning resources. Indeed I would say that the influence of the socialist movement forced capitalists to give up much more than they would have otherwise,
But it seems plain daft to me to make the left's cause into one that is hostile to the advance in working class living standards.
Wayne:
"But I shouldn't have to use my car - which I dig (did I mention that?) to get any and everything. This is the core of the matter. Not judging people who live in the burbs and who drive a lot but wondering whether the design of these places - which forces you to use your car for the most basic of things like, getting bread and milk, is really all that clever."
And are the roast chickens going to fly into your mouth? Do you think the shops in cities are stocked by bicycle?
Amazing though it may seem, suburban dwellings, like most dwellings, are designed to be sold. That means that the architects build in features that they think people will want. Lots of people trade space and seclusion for the physical intimacy of the city. If you move to the suburbs, then you are making a choice that implies more car journeys, not less. But nobody is "forcing" anybody to get into a car. Is it clever? It is not rocket science. It is just a trade-off: control over immediate environment for car dependency.
Wayne:
"Personal transport is cheap?"
It is certainly cheaper. In 1932 you would have to work more than half an hour to earn enough money to buy a gallon of gasoline. By 1999, you had to work 5 minutes and 42 seconds (Cox and Alm, Myths of Rich and Poor, 43). British household expenditure on transport was 14.4 per cent of the total in 2000, falling from 15.4 per cent in 1990. In Britain just 12 per cent of people lived in a household with no car, way down from the 20 per cent that did so in 1991. People living in two car households increased from 18 to 22 per cent of the popn. over the same period.
You complain about your car expenses, but you say its manageable. Your fuel tax is the envy of British motorists, for whom 71 per cent of the price of a litre of gasoline goes to the chancellor. http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/
Wayne says that his suburban friends feel trapped, like they had no choice. No doubt we all feel a bit frustrated with our lot in life from time to time. But look at the facts: people just keep on moving to the suburbs.
The truth is that we could not all live on Manhattan Island (or in south Islington), even if we wanted to. There is no need to make one's own choice a rule for all mankind. Some people want to live in the inner city, others in the suburbs. But on the trend, lower transport costs have most definitely facilitated extensive growth in dwellings (what other explanation?). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040924/a9639712/attachment.htm>