<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wojtek:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>"James, capitalism delivers land gasoline and all what people WANT much<BR>better than socialism, so I do not understand why are you calling yourself a<BR>socialist?" </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well, no, capitalism has been very tardy in spreading wealth to the people, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and the living standards we are talking about are still restricted largely to North America, Western Europe and Japan.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I appreciate that the inefficient and authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe laid claim to being socialist, </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>but I don't see any need to accept their austerity regimes as the model for socialism. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, no, I don't accept that capitalism has been more successful than socialism in winning resources.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Indeed I would say that the influence of the socialist movement forced capitalists </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>to give up much more than they would have otherwise,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>"But I shouldn't have to use my car - which I dig (did I mention that?) <BR>to get any and everything.  This is the core of the matter.  Not judging <BR>people who live in the burbs and who drive a lot but wondering whether <BR>the design of these places - which forces you to use your car for the <BR>most basic of things like, getting bread and milk, is really all that <BR>clever."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And are the roast chickens going to fly into your mouth?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do you think the shops in cities are stocked by bicycle?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Amazing though it may seem, suburban dwellings, like most dwellings, are designed to be sold.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That means that the architects build in features that they think people will want.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lots of people trade space and seclusion for the physical intimacy of the city.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you move to the suburbs, then you are making a choice that implies more car journeys, not less.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But nobody is "forcing" anybody to get into a car.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is it clever? It is not rocket science. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is just a trade-off: control over immediate environment for car dependency.</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>"Personal transport is cheap?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is certainly cheaper. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In 1932 you would have to work more than half an hour to earn enough money to buy a gallon of gasoline.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>By 1999, you had to work 5 minutes and 42 seconds (Cox and Alm, Myths of Rich and Poor, 43).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>British household expenditure on transport was 14.4 per cent of the total in 2000, falling from 15.4 per cent in 1990. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>People living in two car households increased from 18 to 22 per cent of the popn. over the same period.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You complain about your car expenses, but you say its manageable. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/">http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne says that his suburban friends feel trapped, like they had no choice.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No doubt we all feel a bit frustrated with our lot in life from time to time.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But look at the facts: people just keep on moving to the suburbs.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The truth is that we could not all live on Manhattan Island (or in south Islington), even if we wanted to.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is no need to make one's own choice a rule for all mankind.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Some people want to live in the inner city, others in the suburbs.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But on the trend, lower transport costs have most definitely facilitated extensive growth in dwellings </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(what other explanation?).</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>