Conservative Transportation Policy
Politico reports on conservatives trying to think of some ideas:
Kimberley Strassel, an editorialist for the Wall Street Journal, argued that Republicans would have to expand the electoral playing field by pioneering new initiatives in suburban policy.
“Conservatives have had a tendency to dismiss any quality of life issues that could be characterized as ‘green,’ like sprawl,” Strassel said. “It does affect people’s daily lives, and if conservatives can come up with ideas for making transportation, movement, communication work better, I think that would be a good thing.”
I’m not sure exactly what Strassel has in mind, but to my way of thinking an enormous amount of good could be done if conservatives were more interested in applying really basic free market principles to transportation policy. For example, why not allow developers to build as much or as little parking as they want to build when they launch a new development? Why not charge market rates for curbside parking on public streets? How about fewer restrictions on the permitted density of development? Why not reduce congestion on the most-trafficked roads through market pricing of access? It happens to be the case that most of the people who are interested in these issues have liberal views on unrelated political issues, but the specific set of views at hand don’t draw on any deep ideological principles, it’s just application of basic economic thinking to the issues and, as such, is something that should be completely accessible to conservative politicians looking to show that conservative ideas can be relevant to the concerns (environmental concerns, quality of life concerns, economic growth concerns) of a set of people who are disinclined to think of themselves as conservatives.
429 Responses to “Conservative Transportation Policy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Naturally, I welcome new ideas on now to do “smart” development and transportation policy. But how would any of these ideas be considered “conservative?” At best, they might be labeled market-based-progressive.
That is always going to be the problem for the GOP in times that require broad changes. Conservatism is in its heart and soul a movement that says core values need to be embraced and extended further. Trying to transform itself into Democrats-light is not going to get the party out of its increasingly geographically and culturally isolated political niche.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I think the problem here is that, as embodied politically in the Republican Party, conservatism isn’t about ideas. As William Greider pointed out long ago, the Republican Party isn’t the party of conservative ideas; it’s the party of conservative constituencies. And conservative constituencies love their cars and hate having to pay to use what they’d just as soon have for free. Suburban conservatives are also obsessive about their property values, and convinced that increasing density will damage them. This, I think, accounts for the paradox that it’s lefties who are more free-market on these sorts of issues than the Right is; lefties are disproportionately urban and interested in the quality of urban life. It’s interests, not ideas, that drive the policy preferences.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:40 am
The conservative constituency, pace Douthat/Salam/Howard, is suburban and exurban families — two cars or more, medium to long commute, a dislike of ugly stinky buses, like big yards or big houses. Open to light rail, once they see it doesn’t allow bad smelling poor people to move in. (Odor is really the major public policy issue for most suburbanites. See the success of Glade air fresheners)
The proper conservative constituency transportation policy is bigger highways into the city, no tolls, no congestion tax. Houston is the conservative future.
(An alternate conservative transport vision that serves the exurban constuency is one with effective, on time, “high-end” long distance commuter rail to allow the male breadwinner to leave the car at home. Outside the north east, this type of rail doesn’t exist.)
November 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
(Yes, I know houston has some tolls. But you can always get where you want to go using a no-toll highway, even if it is a bit slower. See the hardy toll road)
November 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
They could push for the car park in your photo to be planted with trees and/or solar panels, and surfaced with long-lived, porous paving blocks that allow half the rain to soak through to the soil rather than overloading the sewers. A lot of greenery fits well with conservative values of prudent stewardship. Have a look at the towns and cities run in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland by Christian Democrat politicians.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I think the best way to understand conservative transportation/quality of life/green positions is to understand conservatism as anti-Liberalism - that is, the strain in modern conservative thought that puts as its top priority advocating policies that piss off liberals (see, e.g., “Drill Baby Drill”).
Liberals favor urban, suburban, and exurban planning which focuses on green and quality of life issues. Ergo, conservatives oppose such ideas, because that pisses off liberals. Q.E.D.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Again with the market pricing to solve congestion. Does Matthew not realize this will not and could not work without massive changes? Its amazing how a rich trust fund baby who has no real world experience spouts off at all these policy ideas that have no practical hope of ever working. The only people who are interested in the topics that you mention are idealists who are detached from everyday life and have never had to deal with the struggles of the “real” world.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Look this can go both ways. Free markets can also lead to cheaper land and more sprawl just as they can lead to less parking (in some areas at least).
What conservatives need to do is forget about the rural voters and focus on suburban towns. Places like Redmond, WA and Mountain View, Ca are growing faster and are more desirable than big cities. Liberals are right that people hate commuting, so why not encourage (for environmental reasons) people to live closer to where they work. The only difference is a conservative transportation policy would allow people to live in low-density neighbourhoods rather than force families into uber-dense apartments.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Yes, it is distressing that the republican party (I’m assuming that’s what we mean when you say conserviative)have failed to emrace market solutions in these areas.
Using the market to decide how much parking, congestion or sprawl (for the lack of a better term) is desirable seems to me to be the “fairest” way to go.
The problem is always the legacy attitudes at what must be provided at no percieved cost to the public. It seems that special interests acting through special interests gets in the way by selecting certain public goods that are provided “free” and others that have a marginal cost to the user.
Off the top of my head list includes transportation, education, parks/recreational facilities, public safety infrastructure (fire/police) and others that I can’t think of while I should be working on something else.
I sure in a bipartisan Obama administration there will be some horse trading where the Dems will give the GOP school choice in return for performance parking and other anti sprawl market approaches.
As for land use and zoning issues, I don’t think you can lable these either Democrat/Republican or conservative/liberal. These issues are most often driven by fear or the potential for a local personal interest to profit from the regulation. I don’t think either side of the aisle has cornered the market on these two motivations.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Matthew,
I’m not sure exactly what Strassel has in mind, but to my way of thinking an enormous amount of good could be done if conservatives were more interested in applying really basic free market principles to transportation policy.
But you’re not really interested in applying free market principles to transportation policy, are you? You’re not really against zoning laws per se. You’re only against the particular zoning laws you don’t like, such as density restrictions. You’re not really against public subsidies for transportation, you’re only against the particular subsidies you don’t like, such as subsidized parking. So stop with this phony “Let’s apply free market principles to transportation” stance. You don’t really want to do that any more than you say conservatives do.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Because actually applying free-market policies would sour people on free-market policies.
.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Tom,
Using the market to decide how much parking, congestion or sprawl (for the lack of a better term) is desirable seems to me to be the “fairest” way to go.
Great. So let’s have market pricing of bus and train tickets, rather than the current massively-subsidized pricing that encourages overconsumption. And in return, you can have market pricing of all parking. Deal?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
What David in Nashville said.
For many years, there has been an alarming tendency among policy-minded progressives to forget that most people do not identify with a political party or movement based on policy ideas. Political parties are tribal. Policies emerge based on the preferences of the tribesmen, not any sort of deep ideological soul-searching.
Inner suburbs are trending Democratic because their drivable suburban idyll has turned into a transportation dystopia, and because the Republicans have unwisely chosen to make reverse snobbery against the urban lifestyle their cultural calling card during an era when walkable neighborhoods, art cinemas, and decent gourmet food shops have begun popping up in the land of strip malls. They are not trending Democratic because suburban homeowners have suddenly started caring about different philosophical ideals.
Most “conservatives” care first and foremost about their quality of life, the quality of the local schools, and their property values. The trick is to advance sensible development policies while simultaneously appeasing them on those fronts.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
But you’re not really interested in applying free market principles to transportation policy, are you? You’re not really against zoning laws per se. You’re only against the particular zoning laws you don’t like, such as density restrictions. You’re not really against public subsidies for transportation, you’re only against the particular subsidies you don’t like, such as subsidized parking. So stop with this phony “Let’s apply free market principles to transportation” stance. You don’t really want to do that any more than you say conservatives do.
I think you’re missing the point. Matt’s not claiming to hold a conservative position, he’s just saying that as far as ideology and principles go, there’s no reason conservatives couldn’t adopt a conservative position on urban and transportation policy. And furthermore, that this could be both a nice fresh issue for a conservative party eager to reinvent itself, and offer substantial (though clearly not complete) overlap with the liberal/progressive/urbanist platform.
I’d venture that there are many other areas like this, where progressives and “real” conservatives are not in total agreement, but may still agree more with each other’s positions than with existing policy. Food and farm policy comes to mind. Maybe telecommunications too.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Great. So let’s have market pricing of bus and train tickets, rather than the current massively-subsidized pricing that encourages overconsumption. And in return, you can have market pricing of all parking. Deal?
Massively-subsidized pricing? Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Its not like the government subsidizes driving. All those highways and roads just appeared out of nowhere, funded by private capital, right?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Massively-subsidized pricing? Yeah, you’re absolutely right. Its not like the government subsidizes driving. All those highways and roads just appeared out of nowhere, funded by private capital, right?
Mass transit receives vastly higher public subsidies than roads and highways.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Those 3-acre lots would make great mini-farms. Change the zoning/association laws, allow chickens, and grow veggies.
Get the kids involved, would revitilize middle-school education.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Mixner, Matt has never claimed to be against all subsidies, in fact he supports subsidies for lots of things that he think would be good policy. The deal with public transportation is when a lot of people are arguing against, they argue against it because it would cost the tax payers money. This is absolutely true, but what Matt and others point out is that the current policy already subsidizes cars. So what I would like, and presumably he would as well, is for people to stop looking at policies that support car travel as being subsidy free, but rather look at the cost, including the subsidies, of the two modes of transportation and choose the one inline with what Is ee as better policy.
Okay only if we also have market pricing of road use as well.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
That said, David and La Follette are right. Very few actual Republican/conservative voters vote based on consistent principles.
Zoning deregulation, say, might be ideologically correct, but principles will lose every time when matched up against fears about property values or an influx of “undesirables”.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
A huge problem with conservative ideology is that, on the local level, it contradicts itself. States’ rights and small federal government are only remotely desirable if you have a) state governments that guarantee civil rights and b) generous local governments.
Arts funding is a key example. You can cut the NEA as long as individual cities make up the difference in arts funding; however, since more conservative cities DON’T supply the funding, it just means that there aren’t arts in those cities. Thus, LA and NYC have appropriate arts funding, and nobody else has any.
Of course, none of the ideology is in remotely good faith, or else they’d be happy about gay marriage in California.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
DMonteith,
Matt’s not claiming to hold a conservative position,
So he’s no longer advocating market pricing for parking? When did that change?
he’s just saying that as far as ideology and principles go, there’s no reason conservatives couldn’t adopt a conservative position on urban and transportation policy.
If “conservative” in this context is supposed to mean “less interference by government and more market-oriented policies” then reducing or eliminating subsidies for public transportation is one obvious example of “a conservative position on urban and transportation policy.”
November 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mass transit does NOT receive higher subsidies than roads and highways. Far from it. Roads and highways get about 80 percent of transportation dollars, and on top of that, the federal share assumed is now at about 80 percent for roads as compared to 50 percent of transit.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
The deal with public transportation is when a lot of people are arguing against, they argue against it because it would cost the tax payers money. This is absolutely true, but what Matt and others point out is that the current policy already subsidizes cars.
Mass transit receives vastly higher public subsidies than roads and highways.
Okay only if we also have market pricing of road use as well.
Unless and until technology provides us with the means to obtain comprehensive information on actual road use, and in a way that is politically feasible, this won’t be possible. But gas and vehicle taxes are effectively a road user fee. The heavier your vehicle, the more you pay in registration and license taxes. The more you use roads, the more gas you consume, and the more you pay in gas taxes that finance the Highway Trust Fund.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“high-end” long distance commuter rail to allow the male breadwinner to leave the car at home. Outside the north east, this type of rail doesn’t exist.)
BART in the SF-Bay area is one of these systems. Well, depends what you define as “long distance.” Dublin/Pleasanton to SF always seemed like a long distance to me, but maybe compared to commuting from, say, the Bridgeport metro area to NYC, it’s not such a big deal.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
…reducing or eliminating subsidies for public transportation is one obvious example of “a conservative position on urban and transportation policy.”
And one more obvious example of a “conservative position” would be to eliminate all spending by the government on roads. All roads would be privately financed and funded.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Mass transit does NOT receive higher subsidies than roads and highways. Far from it.
Yes it does. Government statistics on transportation revenues and spending show that mass transit is subsidized by something like $400 per thousand passenger-miles, versus around $5 per thousand passenger-miles for roads and highways. That’s why you can buy an unlimited-use monthly transit pass in most American metropolitan areas for $50-80 or less. Bus and train ticket revenues don’t come remotely close to covering the full cost of providing the transit service.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Let’s ignore Mixie and his contradiction clinic, shall we? Otherwise, it’ll be another 25 back and forths to his petty little games.
If James Robertson shows up, that’s another matter, because while he has some disagreeable opinions, he’s not a troll, and he’s representative of that conservative suburban-flight mindset.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
And one more obvious example of a “conservative position” would be to eliminate all spending by the government on roads. All roads would be privately financed and funded.
How do you propose to track and charge road use?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
For example, why not allow developers to build as much or as little parking as they want to build when they launch a new development? Why not charge market rates for curbside parking on public streets? How about fewer restrictions on the permitted density of development? Why not reduce congestion on the most-trafficked roads through market pricing of access?
Because, while those suggestions are all more free-market than the status quo, none of them are conservative. They all make change easier or simply more likely. Plutocracy is conservative, but other than that, the idea of a conservative approach to life or politics is neutral on government regulation. When the government is needed to preserve the status quo, like in the case of zoning regulations, conservatives are all for it. This is why people like Radley Balko sometimes call themselves “classical liberals” rather than “conservative.”
November 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
DMonteith,jack lecou,So he’s no longer advocating market pricing for parking? When did that change?
Is it really so difficult for you to follow along, Mixie? Let’s go through this slowly:
Progressives/urbanists support market pricing for parking. Conservatives (ought to) support market pricing for parking.
Progressives/urbanists support (some) urban zoning/land use deregulation. Conservatives (ought to) support zoning/land use regulation.
Progressives/urbanists support congestion fees for roadway use. Conservatives (ought to) support congestion fees for roadway use.
Progressives/urbanists support more funding/larger subsidies for rail/mass transit. Conservatives probably don’t.
Etc. Etc.
Was that so hard?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
On the federal level, however, roads are subsidized more than transit. Much more. That’s what I was referring to. And on the local level, there’s much to debate on the cumulative government (and consumer) costs that come from roads and cars.
With rising gas prices, climate change, a rising consumer preference for walkable communities, and voter preference for transit (e.g. transit ballot intitiates passed at an over 70 % rate this Nov.), smart politicians won’t dismiss transit, bike facilities, congestion pricing and a whole host of policies that aren’t ideological but practical.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Oops. Parallel construction fail. Part about zoning obviously should read “Conservatives (ought to) support zoning/land use deregulation.”
November 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
DMonteith/bubbleandsqueak,
I thought you were going to ignore me?
Progressives/urbanists support market pricing for parking.
No, Matt supports market pricing for parking. No evidence has been presented regarding the opinions of “progressives/urbanists” on the issue.
Conservatives (ought to) support market pricing for parking.
Why?
Ditto for your claims about zoning and congestion fees.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
In the almost seven years that Reason magazine, the flagship libertarian publication in America, has had a blog, they have had exactly zero (0) entries criticizing sprawl- and snob-zoning. They have, however, frequently run pieces criticizing people who DO criticize such zoning.
Which is odd, because such regulations are the single most significant distortion of the housing market.
They have also frequently criticized local zoning laws that mandate certain aesthetic/design choices, restrict who may share a housing unit, or promote habitat preservation. My theory is that this represents a combination of butt-kissing to certain large donors to the Reason Foundation, and the same reflexive anti-green sentiments that lead them to bash farmers markets and organic food.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Direct government spending is only part of the state subsidy of roads.
To compute the total cost, you’d have to calculate the dollar value of the huge number of regulatory takings applied to just about every piece of private property in the country in order to facilitate the use of the automobile.
All those building set-backs and parking space requirements on development all have a dollar value.
I would also say that the restrictions placed on use of government-provided roads to favor the automobile have a dollar cost, as well, although it would be harder to calculate. [Preventing me from riding my bicycle on I-10, to allow automobile drivers to travel at a higher rate of speed, denies me my share of a public good in order to make the use of that public good more convenient for others - there has to be a value to that, even if it's hard to measure in dollars.]
Other forms of zoning under attack here [those that aren't directly transportation-related] have a dollar cost as well. Low-density zoning props up property values - but this means, then, that property buyers and renters are in effect being taxed by such zoning.
You can’t really be pro free-market and not oppose our transportation and land-use policies. “Conservatives” who favor both of these and also claim to be pro free-market are either hypocrites or are simply lying to themselves.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Mixner’s argument about the level of subsidy per passenger-mile going to transit vs. highways ignores the fact that highway spending is going towards the maintenance and expansion of a system that is already in wide use - the interstate highway system exists, after all - while most transit spending goes towards the capital construction costs of new systems, or to adding service where it does not currently exist.
If you looked at the spending on the Big Dig between 1985 and 2005, you would find a terrible cost-per-passenger-mile ratio, because no one was driving on it.
The other problem is that “passenger miles” isn’t the right metric, but “trips.” Since the purpose and effect of transit projects is to allow denser development to operate without choking, the fact that the people living in an urban area have 1/2 mile commutes on the subway instead of 40 mile commutes on the freeway makes passenger-mile measurements misleading.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
On the federal level, however, roads are subsidized more than transit.
No, that’s not true, either. But it’s not relevant anyway. Public subsidies are subsidies from all levels of government, not just from the Feds.
With rising gas prices, climate change, a rising consumer preference for walkable communities, and voter preference for transit (e.g. transit ballot intitiates passed at an over 70 % rate this Nov.), smart politicians won’t dismiss transit, bike facilities, congestion pricing and a whole host of policies that aren’t ideological but practical.
If you really believe that voter and consumer preferences are changing and will reverse the decades-long trend of suburbanization, sprawl and an increasingly car-oriented transportation system, what are you worried about? All you have to do is sit back, and these supposed changes in preference will produce the density-and-transit development patterns you claim people really want.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
DMonteith/bubbleandsqueakjack lecou, (seriously, doesn’t it bother you to pretend to be so stupid?)
I thought you were going to ignore me?
You’re far too much fun.
Why?
Um, maybe because the current economically inefficent non-market pricing is mandated by a regime of subsidies and heavy handed government regulation? I thought economic conservatives were supposed to be against that sort of thing.
Ditto for your claims about zoning and congestion fees.
See above.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Hi, Fluffy.
Low-density zoning props up property values. I’ll just note that this is only true on a per-unit analysis, not a per-acre analysis.
Twenty townhouses on an acre @ $100k each = $2 million.
One single family home on an acre @ even $500,000 - $0.5 million, and that assumes that townhouses in a neighborhood of $500,000 homes would only go for $100,000.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If you really believe that voter and consumer preferences are changing and will reverse the decades-long trend of suburbanization, sprawl and an increasingly car-oriented transportation system, what are you worried about?
Restrctive zoning - which brings the thread full circle.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Mixner,
I have an easy way to do market pricing for road use, its called toll roads and congestion pricing in the city. Seems pretty simple to me.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Mixner’s argument about the level of subsidy per passenger-mile going to transit vs. highways ignores the fact that highway spending is going towards the maintenance and expansion of a system that is already in wide use - the interstate highway system exists, after all - while most transit spending goes towards the capital construction costs of new systems, or to adding service where it does not currently exist.
No, it doesn’t ignore that at all. Since you haven’t produced any evidence that “most transit spending goes towards the capital construction costs of new systems,” let alone an argument as to why this is relevant to the issue of the vast disparities in subsidies, it’s hard to know what your point is anyway.
The other problem is that “passenger miles” isn’t the right metric, but “trips.” Since the purpose and effect of transit projects is to allow denser development to operate without choking, the fact that the people living in an urban area have 1/2 mile commutes on the subway instead of 40 mile commutes on the freeway makes passenger-mile measurements misleading.
This “argument” is nonsensical. Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit. If the transportation benefit were independent of the distance travelled, we would pay no more to travel 5000 miles than 500.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Mixner, I have an easy way to do market pricing for road use, its called toll roads and congestion pricing in the city. Seems pretty simple to me.
A toll plaza at every intersection. Yes, that sounds feasible.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
A toll plaza at every intersection. Yes, that sounds feasible.
Another item for the “Mixner is ignorant” file. Congestion pricing is done with license plate cameras.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Since you haven’t produced any evidence that…
You can pretend to notice that the highway/roadway system is up and running, which the new transit projects funded in TEA 21 are not, or you can pretend not to notice.
Either way, not my problem.
Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit.
It’s worth more to get me from my house to my job if I live further away? Um, no, the economic benefit if exactly the same - the sum total of the additional value produced by my being in the office for a day vs. not.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Restrctive zoning - which brings the thread full circle.
You’re not listening. He claimed that “voter preference” is changing in favor of density and transit. So the voters will supposedly get rid of these “restrictive zoning” laws that are supposedly responsible for our current patterns of land-use and development. The victory of density and transit over sprawl and driving is only a matter of time.
Of course, none of you actually believe this, which is why you spend so much time and energy trying to change voter and consumer behavior.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Road vs. transit subsidies.
The vast majority of (non-toll) roads are government-subsidized at a rate of 100%. The government–local, state, and federal combined–pays the entire cost of building and maintaining the road.
The vast majority of transit systems require some per-trip user fee. The government subsidy for these systems is therefore LESS than 100%–some of the cost is covered by these user fees.
It seems pretty obvious that roads are subsidized at a higher rate than transit (100% vs. 100% - fees).
November 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
This “argument” is nonsensical. Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit. If the transportation benefit were independent of the distance travelled, we would pay no more to travel 5000 miles than 500.
Speaking of nonsense… You are confusing cost with benefit.
See, the benefit I receive from going to work in the morning is not about the 2 miles I travel. It’s about getting to work in the morning. My trip would not be more rewarding if I could travel 50 miles instead.
Certainly there are independent factors (e.g., availability of housing, schools, etc.) that might justify the longer trip, but it’s not in-and-of-itself beneficial.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
You can pretend to notice that the highway/roadway system is up and running, which the new transit projects funded in TEA 21 are not, or you can pretend not to notice.
Huh? “The highway/roadway system” is continually growing and changing. We build thousands of miles of new roads and highways every year. So is “The transit system.” You claimed that “most transit spending goes towards the capital construction costs of new systems.” Show us how you know this to be true. Show us how you know it to be false with respect to roads and highways. You can’t, can you? Because you’re just making up “facts” out of thin air. DTM must have been giving you lessons.
It’s worth more to get me from my house to my job if I live further away?
Unless you’re unwilling to pay more to travel a longer distance (to get to work, or for any other purpose), yes. Are you unwilling to pay more to travel a longer distance?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I hate to say it, but they were more fun when they were in power. Now we’ve got four years of amateur semanticians to deal with.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
DMonteith,
See, the benefit I receive from going to work in the morning is not about the 2 miles I travel. It’s about getting to work in the morning. My trip would not be more rewarding if I could travel 50 miles instead.
If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Oh, I see. My bad.
To a certain extent, I think we will see exactly that, then.
But there are a couple of roadblocks. For one thing, the greater appreciation for density and transit, and the recognition of the problems with sprawl, aren’t evenly distributed throughout the electorate. Unfortunately, the people least likely to be progressing in their understanding are concentrated in the municipalities with the greatest outstanding development potential - the largely-unbuilt-exurbs and the lower-density suburbs which have the greatest opportunity for infill development.
Second, there’s a public policy/individual interest split here. People are recognizing that it is better public policy for towns to grow in a sustainable manner, but they perceive a zoning change to allow such growth could lower their property values, thinking in terms of nothing changing except there being multifamily housing nearby.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
DMonteithjack lecou, (fixed that for you - maybe you should look into some reading glasses or something?)If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?
I’m not. Ceteris paribus, the shorter trip is MORE valuable. The only reason I would accept the inferior longer trip is if it came bundled with something else, like, say, a substantially cheaper house.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
DMonteith,
I’m not.
Really? So you don’t ever drive? Or fly? Or use any other transportation system in which the amount you pay increases with the distance travelled? Seriously?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Market pricing of parking, toll roads, etc ate inherently discriminatory against the poor (so one presumes that “bootstraps” conservatives will like the policies–except as noted by another poster that suburban conservatives don’t like actually paying the fees any more than poor urbanites do).
Somewhat relatedly, I shudder to think what today’s $50BBL oil price will do for what was about to be a significant movement towards more transit. Meanwhile, places like NYC are announcing massive service cuts to their systems.
So it’s Sprawl-o-Matic until oil zooms over $150 again (which, ironically, is more likely since oil at $50 now means exploration will be greatly curbed in the near term).
November 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Huh? “The highway/roadway system” is continually growing and changing. We build thousands of miles of new roads and highways every year. So is “The transit system.”
The highway/roadway system is already in use, and people already have access to it. When we add to it - widening a two-lane road, or building a highway that replicates its route - we’re expanding service that already exists. In a dollars/trip analysis, its only the additional trips generated/allowed by the highway project that should be looked at. If 10,000 people were taking Elm Street to Route 1 for seven miles, and now 12,000 people either do that, or take the new I-685 to go to the same place (with 9000 of them on the highway), the cost of the new highway is only going to 2000 new trips. If you want to count the entire volume on the highway, then you also have to add in all the cost spent constructing and maintaining the older roads, too.
When you built a new transit system, or expand a line outward, or add a station where it didn’t exist, you are actually providing a new service to people who didn’t use it before. Thus, every single trip on that transit system counts when calculating its value.
Oh, and you can look up the projects funded under TEA-21 just as easily as I can. If you don’t wish to, not my problem.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
An early poster says: Using the market to decide how much parking, congestion or sprawl (for the lack of a better term) is desirable seems to me to be the “fairest” way to go.
The problem with market pricing in this context is that the cost of lost green space, lost farm land, diminished air and water quality, etc, are not factored into “market pricing.”
Capitalism is good at pricing intrinsic costs, but lousy at pricing extrinsic costs.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?
The value of a commuter trip is all or nothing - you get all the way to work, or it produces no value for you.
If person A and person B work in the same office, but person A is 50 miles away and person B is 1/2 mile away, their commutes have the same value for them. That it is worth very little for person A to get 1/2 mile closer to work doesn’t matter.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I just want to point out that jack lecou is jack lecou, DMonteith is DMonteith, and Mixner is a fucking idiot.
Sometimes you just have to reiterate the obvious.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“Dirty Davey”
The vast majority of (non-toll) roads are government-subsidized at a rate of 100%. The government–local, state, and federal combined–pays the entire cost of building and maintaining the road.
The subsidy is the difference between the revenues collected by the government from users of the resource and the amount the government spends to provide it. The subsidy for transit is massively higher than the subsidy for roads and highways. As I said, about $400 per thousand passenger-miles for transit, versus only about $5 per thousand passenger-miles for roads and highways.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The value of a commuter trip is all or nothing - you get all the way to work, or it produces no value for you.
Sorry, this is not an answer to the question. I ask again: If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?
If person A and person B work in the same office, but person A is 50 miles away and person B is 1/2 mile away, their commutes have the same value for them.
How do you know?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The highway/roadway system is already in use, and people already have access to it. When we add to it - widening a two-lane road, or building a highway that replicates its route - we’re expanding service that already exists.
Again, so what? The same is true for transit. And new road construction is obviously not limited to just adding lanes and replicating existing routes, but also involves the creation of new routes.
You claimed that “most transit spending goes towards the capital construction costs of new systems.” Show us how you know this to be true. Show us how you know it to be false with respect to roads and highways.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mixner is a fucking idiot.
DMonteith is an ignorant, lying buffoon.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
DMonteithjack lecou, (seriously, this makes me kind of sad. I know a good eye doctor I could refer you to…)I’m not.
Really? So you don’t ever drive? Or fly? Or use any other transportation system in which the amount you pay increases with the distance travelled? Seriously?
I would obviously pay more money to go to Spain than the city park. That’s because I imagine I would have more fun in Spain than at the park. It is not because I would prefer to travel 3700 miles rather than 1/2 a mile.
Likewise, it would not be 7400 times more beneficial to buy an expensive plane ticket and fly in a 3700 mile circle in order to travel to the park.
The distance traveled is a minus not a plus. The cost/benefit calculus here is [fun in Spain] - [time and cost of plane trip] NOT [fun in Spain] + [time and cost of trip].
Seriously, why are we arguing with a person who is effectively claiming people actually like having longer commutes?
God. I don’t know. And the worst part is not the feeling that I’m wasting my time, it’s the icky feeling that I’m sort of picking on a mentally handicapped individual…
November 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Oops. Bold tag fail:
The distance traveled is a minus not a plus. The cost/benefit calculus here is [fun in Spain] - [time and cost of plane trip] NOT [fun in Spain] + [time and cost of trip].
November 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Conservatives (ought to) support market pricing for parking. Why? Ditto for your claims about zoning and congestion fees.
Because these policies that Matt is identifying are examples of intrusive governmental regulation to favor particular types of lifestyles.
Look, the Ross Douthat-style conservative is going to say that the suburbs are good and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have big government encourage people to live in them. That’s fine, and perhaps that’s your position as well.
But what Matt is pointing out is that there is a huge strain of libertarianism in American conservativism which screams and yells whenever a liberal proposes some government intervention to encourage people to live a certain way. Ever hear of the term “nanny state”? Well, telling people they have to have a gigantic parking lot if they want to open a business, in order to ensure that people’s suburban lifestyles are not disturbed, is just a different type of economic regulation, a different sort of nanny state.
Again, none of this matters if you are from the “big government conservativism” tradition. But if you believe in small government and individual economic freedom, it should bother you, even if you like the result of it (more suburbanization than we would otherwise have).
November 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
So the voters will supposedly get rid of these “restrictive zoning” laws that are supposedly responsible for our current patterns of land-use and development. The victory of density and transit over sprawl and driving is only a matter of time.
So happy to see Mixner make this argument again, as last time the thread died before I got to respond.
Here’s a hypothetical (which oversimplifies how zoning actually works): Suppose you have a leafy suburb with 1000 residents, entirely zoned for single-family houses on lots of at least an acre. There is a piece of vacant land in the town perfectly suited for a large apartment complex that would house 2000 people. There is demonstrably enough demand to fill these apartments, so 2000 people in addition to the developer will benefit if they are built.) A proposal to change the zoning to allow the apartments is put to a vote
So 2000 is more than 1000, so the proposal passes, right? Like hell it does, because the only people who get to vote are the 1000 who are already living there.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
In the Mixnerverse, that would be “jack lecou is an ignorant, lying buffoon”, no?
Seriously, the master of sock puppetry calling anyone else a lying buffoon is a textbook demonstration of chutzpah. I think Mixner is actually Stephen Colbert, honing his satirical skills while hanging out in his dressing room. Well done sir! See you at 11:30pm ET.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mixner, automobile use it heavily subsidized. If motor fuel taxes paid for most of the costs associated with automobile use we would be looking at $6 a gallon gas and that’s conservative.
Some numbers for you with links
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp
November 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Mixner’s petulant refusal to use my name kind of amusing, but mostly just really bizarre.
As the one other person who knows without a doubt that we’re not the same person, I’ve been curious how you feel about it, DMonteith?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Of course, none of you actually believe this, which is why you spend so much time and energy trying to change voter and consumer behavior.
Mixner, the entire point is that if conservatives are going to pretend to be pro free market, changing voter behavior shouldn’t be an issue. The voters should have no say in transportation policy and land use, if you’re going to advocate for the market. The fact that the voters have a say in both is a market distortion, and people who advocate keeping matters that way should acknowledge, if they are honest, that they are enemies of the free market and of limited government.
And it’s pointless to talk about consumer preference in an unfree market. The fact that people choose to live suburban lifestyles is not dispositive when the suburban landscape was created, and is maintained, by massive state intervention. Remove the machinery of statism from transportation policy and land use, and undo the massive market distortions already in place, and then we’ll have a do-over and see what the real “consumer preferences” are. [Of course, we're so committed to our current system that this isn't really possible - but that doesn't mean that we can't rhetorically dismiss your whining about "you guys want to change consumer preference".]
November 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
As the one other person who knows without a doubt that we’re not the same person, I’ve been curious how you feel about it, DMonteith?
Well, since I have yet to see an instance in which you have not totally owned him on the rhetorical/factual battlefield, I think of it a compliment.
Kind of like the way having a stalker is a compliment, though.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
DMonteith
The distance traveled is a minus not a plus.
Then, again, it makes no sense for you to travel 50 miles rather than 2.
The cost/benefit calculus here is [fun in Spain] - [time and cost of plane trip] NOT [fun in Spain] + [time and cost of trip].
Your position is utterly incoherent. If travelling longer distances allows you to reach more desirable destinations than travelling shorter distances, then that is a benefit of travelling longer distances. But you just just denied that travelling longer distances is a benefit. Make up your mind.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Er…”think of it as a compliment”…
November 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Places like Redmond, WA and Mountain View, Ca are growing faster and are more desirable than big cities”
Snort! If the future of the republicans is in Mountain View……..well, all I can say is that they’ve got a long road to climb.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
roac,
Here’s a hypothetical (which oversimplifies how zoning actually works): Suppose you have a leafy suburb with 1000 residents, entirely zoned for single-family houses on lots of at least an acre. There is a piece of vacant land in the town perfectly suited for a large apartment complex that would house 2000 people. There is demonstrably enough demand to fill these apartments, so 2000 people in addition to the developer will benefit if they are built.) A proposal to change the zoning to allow the apartments is put to a vote
So 2000 is more than 1000, so the proposal passes, right? Like hell it does, because the only people who get to vote are the 1000 who are already living there.
So what? If you think zoning regulations should be made at a higher level of government (county, state, federal, whatever, you are free to use the political process to try and achieve that goal. Zoning laws are the result of the political process just like all other laws. If you think they should be changed, you are free to try and change them. But you’ll only succeed if enough other people agree with you. There don’t seem to be enough other people who agree with you.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Your position is utterly incoherent. If travelling longer distances allows you to reach more desirable destinations than travelling shorter distances, then that is a benefit of travelling longer distances. But you just just denied that travelling longer distances is a benefit. Make up your mind.
This is very simple. Traveling longer distances is not a benefit. Traveling to nicer destinations is a benefit.
It is not the miles, it is the endpoints.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Or, if I can edit myself:
Traveling longer distances is a cost. Traveling to nicer destinations is a benefit.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
DMonteith,
Another item for the “Mixner is ignorant” file.
Another item in the “DMonteith is a moron” file.
Congestion pricing is done with license plate cameras.
Congestion pricing could be implemented in a variety of ways. But congestion pricing is only a very crude form of market pricing anyway. In any case, banks of cameras at every intersection recording license plate numbers isn’t feasible either.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
If travelling longer distances allows you to reach more desirable destinations than travelling shorter distances, then that is a benefit of travelling longer distances.
That proves it. Mixner is Colbert. Nobody else can miss the point this badly with a straight face.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
That proves it. Mixner is Colbert. Nobody else can miss the point this badly with a straight face.
I’m beginning to believe it myself. It’s astonishing.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
banks of cameras at every intersection recording license plate numbers isn’t feasible either.
Awesome.
As I said, the Mixner is ignorant file. (It’s a thick file…)
November 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Ah, and now that Mixner has decided he dislikes the flavor of his ass being handed to him over the difference between costs and benefits, he pirouettes into a discussion of traffic camera feasibility. This is Mixner’s way of saying “you’re totally right, but I’m going to grasp at this straw over here in the hope that you’re wrong about that”.
Hope springs eternal…
November 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ha. Today’s exchange is totally not helping on the dissuading Mixner from being an ass and assuming that DMonteith/jack lecou are mutual sock puppets from.
But that was always a lost cause.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
DMonteith,
Traveling longer distances is a cost. Traveling to nicer destinations is a benefit.
If travelling longer distances allows you to reach nicer destinations than travelling shorter distances, then the benefits of travelling longer distances are greater than the benefits of travelling shorter distances. So how is “trips” a better measure of transportation benefit than “passenger-miles?”
November 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Ah, and now that Mixner has decided he dislikes the flavor of his ass being handed to him over the difference between costs and benefits, he pirouettes into a discussion of traffic camera feasibility.
DMonteith doesn’t have the faintest clue what he’s talking about.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Adirondacker,
Mixner, automobile use it heavily subsidized.
You’re not listening. Transit is subsidized massively more than automobile use. We’ve been over all this before. See my posts here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/externalities.php
November 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Mixner: “If travelling longer distances allows you to reach nicer destinations than travelling shorter distances, then the benefits of travelling longer distances are greater than the benefits of travelling shorter distances.”
Ah, I think a new form of measurement is in order: “Magic Mixner Miles,” the measurement of utility in units of distance. Interestingly enough, if you multiply Magic Load Factor by Magic Mixner Miles, you find that the more crowded the bus, the more happy are its passengers.
“See my posts here:”
Aww! He’s citing his own unsourced statements as sources themselves! How precious!
November 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Oh look, another of bubble’s many personalities just showed up.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
The main problem with this is that such decisions (on things like amounts of parking, density, etc) are rarely decided based on conservative or progressive principles. Rather, they are decided by local zoning boards that are mostly conservative in a “small c” sense: they are trying to preserve their communities as they see them. That’s why the town I grew up in had a 1 acre minimum for new houses; it’s why the town I live in now has parking minimums.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
The “which is more subsidized” argument is a nice one, but there is another way to look at the question of which is a greater intervention to override the market:
In the absence of any subsidies at all, what sort of transportation network would likely to be brought into being by purely private action?
In the absence of any subsidies, it is likely that we would have highly dense spaces with road networks maintained on the HOA/private road agreement model, and that those dense spaces would be linked by rail and air transportation. It is very unlikely that a subsidy-free environment would produce, or would have produced, our current automobile-centric system.
Even if the “road commuter / bedroom community” system costs less in subsidies per passenger mile traveled than other sorts of systems, in the absence of those subsidies and other legal interventions it wouldn’t exist at all.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I, like jack, am honored to be considered amongst such august company as one of DMonteith’s many personalities. I am not worthy.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It is very unlikely that a subsidy-free environment would produce, or would have produced, our current automobile-centric system.
It’s unlikely it would have produced our current automobile-centric system, but it would almost certainly have produced some kind of automobile-centric system because automobiles have so many benefits over mass transit.
But it’s not a terribly relevant or interesting question. If you want to change our land-use/transportation patterns to be substantially less auto-centric and substantially more transit-and-density-centric, how do you propose to do that?
November 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I’ll give you an example of the problem at hand:
There’s a mall near where I live, at the center of Columbia, MD. The mall is the downtown area. There’s a proposal to make that center more urban - build an elevated walkway between the mall (across a 4 lane road) and down to the waterfront (a man-made lake). The lake area is pleasant enough - there’s a running trail around the lake, concerts in the summer, and fireworks on 4th of July. However, given the 4 lane road, no one walks from the mall to the lake.
However, there are issues with building the proposed walkway - it would dramatically scale back parking (and, unless they build a large garage, above or below ground, there’s no room for more). The area around the mall simply doesn’t have enough people to support walk up business, so you need sufficient parking for the tens of thousands of people (like my family) who live in the surrounding area.
If we had it all to do over again 40 years ago, maybe we should have done it differently; but that’s not possible. We have the population living where it lives, and that’s not going to change, absent some catastrophe - at which point urban planning would be the least of our problems.
One proposal is to make “outer parking”, and put in a bus to cycle to the mall or the waterfront, and let people walk everywhere else. That’s kind of a non-starter when you have the population profile we have here (many aging people with increasing mobility issues). I showed my wife that plan (she has bad knees), and she just laughed.
My point? None of this is simple, and it goes well beyond conservative/libertarian/progressive points. Most of it has to do with dealing with the built reality.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
It’s amazing how the conservative ideas about transit on this thread stand out like sore thumbs: “cars have so many advantages over mass transit,” “Mountain View is a potential conservative target” (uh, that would be where Google is located …), etc.
The reality is that America’s transportation system is a massive failure because - and only because - for 40 years, conservative ideologues have opposed urban planning, public funding of transit, and free-market principles for highways and parking.
If you are sitting in traffic, thank your “conservative” city council member (no doubt also a member of the National Association of Realtors and/or Homebuilders and/or Chamber of Commerce). These so-called “business” groups hate anything that smells like liberal-lefty quality of life policies, and have effectively blocked smart growth since the concept emerged - in the frikkin’ 1950’s for Chrissakes.
There is no expansion of superfreeways without Republican “bridge to nowhere” largesse. There is no unzoned ranchette sprawl mushrooming across the continent without Republican opposition to zoning and impact fees.
As someone who sat through umpteen planning meetings, conferences, transportation seminars etc, I challenge any conservative/Republican who suggests they have any ideas about this other than laissez-faire. Which means, in short, they are no longer relevant to the conversation.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I work in this field and Yglesias is not dealing in reality.
1) Everything you are talking about are dealt with at the local level and conservatives are less interested in taking over all the village counsels in America. If you are advocating moving these functions to the state level, than you will get more development- but it won’t be based on anything other than what developers want to build. As anyone who works in this field knows that the further the regulator is from the impacted community the more developer friendly they are.
2) The liberal outcome you are talking about (dense non-car dependent development and rapid transit) requires huge market manipulation (i.e. very tight density controls beyond the inner suburbs). Left to its own devices, the market will create more and more sprawling development.
The fact you always miss in these posts is that it is more profitable to build large houses on big lots because they are essentially made out of plywood and developers can externalize all the big ticket costs like road building and sewer system expansion. On the other hand, once you go over three stories construction cost increases geometrically because you need a steal skeleton. In order to make money in these buildings developers doll up the units with granite counter tops and Viking ranges and sold for a half a million. The people who can afford and want such apartments usually move to the city. Otherwise, most people with this cash prefer the McMansion.
AND all of this is moot because the days of free mortgages are over. The perverse development patterns that phenomenon created will create the need for massive redevelopment. Otherwise, the free market plus old, inadequate housing stock= slum lords.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
If travelling longer distances allows you to reach nicer destinations than travelling shorter distances, then the benefits of travelling longer distances are greater than the benefits of travelling shorter distances. So how is “trips” a better measure of transportation benefit than “passenger-miles?”
Because the relevant unit of benefit from a subsidy is not passenger miles, or even trips. It’s the net social benefit from a marginal expansion of lifestyle X vs lifestyle Y.
The urbanist contention would be that a walking/transit oriented lifestyle involves fewer motorized trips, of shorter average distances, a correspondingly smaller land use footprint, more diverse and easily available cultural, culinary and retail offerings, etc., and that transit - while expensive on its own - is a key enabler for the rest of the package.
So, I certainly wouldn’t say that discussing transit costs on a per trip basis is ideal. Ideally, we want to be looking at the entire picture. But that’s complicated, contentious, and we lack a lot of data.
However, what I can say is that talking about transit costs on a per-mile basis illogically biases the discussion against a dense, transit oriented lifestyle. Whatever benefits density has fundamentally stem from less distance, you don’t actually win the argument by trying to just cancel that out in the denominator.
In that sense, trips is at least a better unit of benefit than miles.
It’s a big simplification, but the alternative is to also speculate wildly about gritty details like housing costs, environmental values, etc. A blog comment thread just ain’t the right place.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Look, yet another new alias - “mateosf”
It’s amazing how the conservative ideas about transit on this thread stand out like sore thumbs: “cars have so many advantages over mass transit,”
If that’s a “conservative idea,” then conservative ideas seem to be very, very popular.
The reality is that America’s transportation system is a massive failure because - and only because - for 40 years, conservative ideologues have opposed urban planning, public funding of transit, and free-market principles for highways and parking.
Wow, “only because” of that? I didn’t realize “conservative ideologues” had so much power. You’d think the combined power of hundreds of millions of voters and consumers would be able to defeat “conservative ideologues,” but apparently not.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Look, yet another new alias - “mateosf”
You know, someday you might consider gathering up some of this text, running it through a few language analyzers, and seeing if your (oh-so-Occam-worthy) hypothesis that that there’s just one incredibly prolific guy out there who has it in for you is actually correct.
I’m not sure you realize just how big an ass you make of yourself to the rest of us…
November 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
DMonteith,
Because the relevant unit of benefit from a subsidy is not passenger miles, or even trips. It’s the net social benefit from a marginal expansion of lifestyle X vs lifestyle Y.
Gibberish. The question was: “How is “trips” a better measure of transportation benefit than “passenger-miles?” What is “the net social benefit from a marginal expansion of lifestyle X vs lifestyle Y” supposed to mean, and how do you propose to measure it?
The urbanist contention would be that a walking/transit oriented lifestyle involves fewer motorized trips, of shorter average distances, a correspondingly smaller land use footprint, more diverse and easily available cultural, culinary and retail offerings, etc., and that transit - while expensive on its own - is a key enabler for the rest of the package.
And the response of the American people is that the costs of of “a walking/transit oriented lifestyle” exceed the benefits. They would probably also take issue with your assertion of “more diverse and easily available cultural, culinary and retail offerings.”
However, what I can say is that talking about transit costs on a per-mile basis illogically biases the discussion against a dense, transit oriented lifestyle. Whatever benefits density has fundamentally stem from less distance, you don’t actually win the argument by trying to just cancel that out in the denominator.
Nonsense. Transportation over greater distances is obviously a benefit for both urban and suburban lifestyles. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t be willing to pay more for it. If you were limited to only those jobs, restaurants, shops, hospitals, movie theaters, vacation destinations, etc. etc. that you could reach on foot or by bicycle your quality of life would be greatly diminished. That’s why “trips” is worthless as a measure of transportation benefit except in specific contexts.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Really? So you don’t ever drive? Or fly? Or use any other transportation system in which the amount you pay increases with the distance travelled? Seriously?
First, traveled.
Second, flying is the worst analogy you could use. It’s almost always based on the market value of the flight. Oftentimes shorter flights cost more
To wit:
Orbitz trip Dec 8-14
Atlanta-Miami: $185
Atlanta-Tallahasse: $349
November 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
of course, I spell Tallahassee wrong
November 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
DMonteith,
I’m not sure you realize just how big an ass you make of yourself to the rest of us…
I’m not sure if you realize just how big an ignorant moron you make of yourself to the rest of us…
November 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Second, flying is the worst analogy you could use.
It’s not an “analogy,” it’s an example.
It’s almost always based on the market value of the flight. Oftentimes shorter flights cost more
Obviously, many factors influence air fares in addition to costs that increase with the distance of the flight (fuel, maintenance, crew, etc.) That doesn’t alter the fact that, in general, fares increase with the distance of the flight.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Mixner: “That doesn’t alter the fact that, in general, fares increase with the distance of the flight.”
…except when they don’t, which is often. Perhaps you meant to say “virtually always” instead of “in general”?
November 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The only costs that increase with the distance of the flight are fuel and crew. This has less to do with the price of the fare than the airline’s goal to make the most money they can with each flight. The markets at work.
Also, I wonder where they got the money to build all these airports. oh wait, subsidies. (Rhymes with zombies)
November 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Another example of the market for airline prices at work: The fact that prices for flights increase the closer you get to the departure. The costs are the same for every seat, but the airlines know they can charge more the closer to departure.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
No, “Jer,” not “except when they don’t.”
November 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
The only costs that increase with the distance of the flight are fuel and crew.
No, operating costs overall increase. And higher fares are needed to cover those higher costs.
Also, I wonder where they got the money to build all these airports.
Aircraft landing fees, jet fuel taxes, freight waybill fees, and passenger facility charges on plane tickets. In other words, usage fees.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
(Wow, I come back to see the transcript of a nervous breakdown.)
James Robertson: I agree that you can’t pretend that the last 40 years (however anomalous they may be) haven’t happened. You do need an environment where people and institutions are prepared to step back and say that polishing suburban turds doesn’t give you .
Mall owners right now are looking increasingly screwed; but malls are very hard to re-configure. There’s one near me that’s dying on its feet, and had the misfortune to lay out some ‘welcome money’ to Steve and Barry’s, which had kept itself afloat on the money malls paid it to open stores; the entity that bought S&B’s just filed Chap 11 today, and all signs point to the chain going belly-up this week. Eventually, some lots are going to be worth more than the malls built upon them as going concerns.
My sense is that conservatism manifests itself in a resistance to perceived potential inconvenience, even when existing practices are often little more than learned inconveniences. (If you’re used to shopping in a relatively dense urban downtown, then a day-long trek from perimeter mall to strip-mall to out-of-town warehouse to perimeter mall seems absurdly inefficient.)
I’m more skeptical about the age/mobility concerns, in part because I’ve lived in environments where many seniors either can’t drive, or feel unsafe to themselves and others in cars. The answer is free bus passes, because somehow I don’t think self-driving cars will be around to serve the people retiring today.
(And now, off for a beer.)
November 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Mall owners right now are looking increasingly screwed;
Retailers in general right now are looking increasingly screwed. The retailers likely to do best in an economic downturn are big discount chains like Wal-Mart that liberals tend to hate. The retailers likely to suffer the most are smaller, independent, higher-priced stores that you are more likely to find in urban “transit-oriented development.”
My sense is that conservatism manifests itself in a resistance to perceived potential inconvenience
My sense is that liberalism manifests itself in the pretense that actual inconveniences and other actual costs (longer travel times, less flexibility, higher prices, less choice) are only “perceived” rather than real.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Meanwhile, out there in Transitland things are not looking too good…
M.T.A. Plans Steep Service Cuts and Fare Increase.
Quote:
Ouch.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Uh-oh — So Mixner has figured out that we’re all the same person . . . wait till he catches on that we’re all . . . Bill Ayers!
November 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Transportation over greater distances is obviously a benefit for both urban and suburban lifestyles.
The capability, sure. And the availability of various modes of cheap, fast transportation is certainly a general benefit of modern life.
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. A particular trip isn’t necessarily more valuable just because it has more miles. Is my 2-mile trip to work less valuable than someone else’s 50-mile trip? We can’t say without more information. How much more or less do I earn? How much more do I pay to live close to work? Miles have little or nothing to do with it.
Miles don’t even have much to do with travel cost - value, in your terms. By your own arguments, automobile travel can be quite fast, and for most people, the largest part of a trip’s cost is the time it takes. So if a 2-mile bus ride takes the same amount of time as a 15-mile car ride (with approximately the same fare/fuel/ownership costs) mustn’t those trips have the same value? Or, a 15-mile car trip in an urban area may take more time than a 30-mile car trip in a sparsely populated one, while using almost as much gas and wear and tear. Shouldn’t that make the shorter urban trip more valuable in your world?
f you were limited to only those jobs, restaurants, shops, hospitals, movie theaters, vacation destinations, etc. etc. that you could reach on foot or by bicycle your quality of life would be greatly diminished. That’s why “trips” is worthless as a measure of transportation benefit except in specific contexts.
But people in urban, walkable, transit friendly environments have as much (or more!) access to all the same stuff. They just have a wider variety of transport options, and it’s all closer distance-wise. You’re saying this means going to the movies is less valuable to city dwellers somehow?
November 20th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
The retailers likely to do best in an economic downturn are big discount chains like Wal-Mart that liberals tend to hate. The retailers likely to suffer the most are smaller, independent, higher-priced stores that you are more likely to find in urban “transit-oriented development.”
Evidence?
November 20th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Meanwhile, out there in Transitland things are not looking too good…
Indeed. A countercyclical aid package for local governments should have been passed months ago. These cuts in transit options are just going to make things a lot worse.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Uh-oh — So Mixner has figured out that we’re all the same person . . . wait till he catches on that we’re all . . . Bill Ayers!
Crap! The jig is up!
November 20th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
The capability, sure.
No, the transportation itself. You don’t get the benefit of those nicer destinations that are further away from the mere capability of reaching them. You actually have to use the capability.
A particular trip isn’t necessarily more valuable just because it has more miles.
We’ve been over this. If the trip costs you more, it wouldn’t make sense for you to pay that extra cost unless you’re getting a benefit equal to or greater than the increased cost. Such as a nicer destination. Or a higher-paying job. If people didn’t get any more benefit from longer trips than shorter ones, they wouldn’t be willing to pay more for them.
But people in urban, walkable, transit friendly environments have as much (or more!) access to all the same stuff.
More access than who? People in the suburbs? How do you know? And how are you measuring “access?”
You seem to have missed the point, anyway. The further you travel, the more destinations you can reach - restaurants, stores, jobs, vacation spots, whatever. That’s a benefit. That’s why people are willing to pay more to travel further, and why transportation benefit is measured in passenger-miles and not “trips.”
They just have a wider variety of transport options,
If they don’t have a car because it’s too expensive or too much hassle (parking, congestion), then they obviously have less options than if they had a car. They may have better transit options than suburbanites who do have cars, but most people don’t seem to think that’s a good tradeoff.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
A countercyclical aid package for local governments should have been passed months ago. These cuts in transit options are just going to make things a lot worse.
The cuts are a symptom of the general economic situation. Transit’s going to suffer just like other parts of the economy. The New York MTA situation is actually much worse than just the service cuts and fare increases described above. It also says it needs $30 billion over the next 5 years for maintenance and renovation of aging railtrack and stations.
Obama will have his work cut out for him just finding enough money to maintain the current transit system, let alone expand it.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
No, the transportation itself. You don’t get the benefit of those nicer destinations that are further away from the mere capability of reaching them. You actually have to use the capability.
This is incredibly silly. 1) They do actually have value just sitting there, even if I never use the. 2) the furthest destinations are not automatically the nicest.
We’ve been over this. If the trip costs you more, it wouldn’t make sense for you to pay that extra cost unless you’re getting a benefit equal to or greater than the increased cost. Such as a nicer destination. Or a higher-paying job. If people didn’t get any more benefit from longer trips than shorter ones, they wouldn’t be willing to pay more for them.
This is all true. And yet it says nothing to address the argument.
Let’s say I live 2 miles from work, and my cousin Steve lives 40 miles from work. The 2 mile trip (+location+job+etc.) is more valuable to ME. Likewise, the 40-mile trip (+etc) is apparently a better fit FOR STEVE. All good.
But that’s not the point of your argument. What you’re trying to argue is that if the government is going to subsidize transportation, it should subsidize Steve’s trip to work by 20 times as much. Justify that, please.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Or, going back to your weird definition of “benefit”, let’s say I can take a 1-mile, 15-minute walk+train ride to the movie theater.
My cousin Steve can get in his car and drive 7 miles in 10 minutes to his movie theater.
Which of us benefits more from going to the movies?
November 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
This is incredibly silly. 1) They do actually have value just sitting there, even if I never use the.
Your endless nonsequiturs and irrelevancies are certainly silly. The value in question here is the value to you, the traveller. You don’t get the value of those nicer destinations that are further away unless you actually do travel to them.
2) the furthest destinations are not automatically the nicest.
No one said they are. You gave nicer destinations (Spain!) as a reason to travel further. If you don’t consider them nicer than closer destinations, or if travelling to them doesn’t provide you with some other benefit over travelling to closer destinations, it wouldn’t make sense for you to pay the extra cost of getting to them.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:03 am
What you’re trying to argue is that if the government is going to subsidize transportation, it should subsidize Steve’s trip to work by 20 times as much. Justify that, please.
What is the justification for the proposed subsidy?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:08 am
Your endless nonsequiturs and irrelevancies are certainly silly. The value in question here is the value to you, the traveller. You don’t get the value of those nicer destinations that are further away unless you actually do travel to them.
Look up the concept of “option” or “existence” value. I may never take a trip to Spain, but it’s still nice to know I could.
What is the justification for the proposed subsidy?
Don’t change the subject.
This whole time, you’ve been making the the claim that the benefits of a trip are the passenger miles. Explain why Steve’s trip to work is 20 times more (socially) valuable than mine.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:09 am
Or, going back to your weird definition of “benefit”,
It’s not “my weird definition of benefit.” Passenger-mile (in Europe, passenger-kilometer) is the standard unit of measure for transportation costs and benefits used in government and academic literature.
Which of us benefits more from going to the movies?
Impossible to determine without additional information.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:14 am
It’s not “my weird definition of benefit.” Passenger-mile (in Europe, passenger-kilometer) is the standard unit of measure for transportation costs and benefits used in government and academic literature.
(Irrelevant appeal to authority, but let’s move on, because…)
“Which of us benefits more from going to the movies?”
Impossible to determine without additional information.
Wait. What? It’s clearly Steve. He’s got more passenger miles, right?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:15 am
I may never take a trip to Spain, but it’s still nice to know I could.
That’s nice for you, but it’s not a benefit from actual transportation.
Don’t change the subject.
I’m not changing the subject. You asked me a question about a proposed subsidy, and my answer would depend on the purpose of the subsidy. So what is it?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:21 am
Irrelevant appeal to authority,
It’s not an “appeal to authority.” It’s a fact that refutes your claim that passenger-mile is “your weird definition of ‘benefit’”.
It’s clearly Steve.
No, of course it isn’t clearly Steve. He may hate the movie, for example.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:23 am
That’s nice for you, but it’s not a benefit from actual transportation.
No. It is a benefit from the existence of modern transportation. I.e, as I originally stated, the capability…
I’m not changing the subject. You asked me a question about a proposed subsidy, and my answer would depend on the purpose of the subsidy. So what is it?
The same purposes as highway or rail subsidies, obviously.
Bit if that’s confusing, ignore the subsidy. Answer the question. Why do you think Steve’s trip to work represents 20 times more social benefit than mine?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:23 am
No, of course it isn’t clearly Steve. He may hate the movie, for example.
So you’re saying there’s more to benefit than passenger miles?
No kidding…
November 21st, 2008 at 12:40 am
No. It is a benefit from the existence of modern transportation.
But we’re not measuring the benefit from the “existence” of transportation, we’re measuring the benefit from the use of transportation. If you want to propose a method for measuring the benefit of the mere “existence” of transportation, feel free.
The same purposes as highway or rail subsidies, obviously.
What purposes are those? Describe them.
Why do you think Steve’s trip to work represents 20 times more social benefit than mine?
I don’t think Steve’s trip to work necessarily represents 20 times for social benefit than yours.
So you’re saying there’s more to benefit than passenger miles?
I’m saying that I can’t answer the specific question you asked me without more information, such as how much each of you likes the movie.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:45 am
“…in general, fares increase with the distance of the flight.”
Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes studying the airline industry knows how wrong this is, except in the very barest sense of “in general.”
A 15-minute flight from San Francisco to Monterey can cost several times as much as a six-hour flight from San Francisco to New York. It is cheaper to fly from Baltimore to Chicago or New York-JFK to Fort Lauderdale than it is to fly from New York-LaGuardia to Washington-National.
Airline fares are affected by a multitude of factors, of which distance traveled is only one. Others include size of aircraft, competition, average load factors, government subsidies, number of seats sold on a given flight, amount of ticket flexibility desired, etc. It is foolhardy to state that one can say with any certainty the effect distance may have on the pricing of a given city pair.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:48 am
But we’re not measuring the benefit from the “existence” of transportation, we’re measuring the benefit from the use of transportation. If you want to propose a method for measuring the benefit of the mere “existence” of transportation, feel free.
I’m not proposing any such thing. I was initially merely agreeing with you that modern transportation is nice. Apparently there’s either no agreement on that minor point, or your reading comprehension is utter crap. Either way, it was never at all relevant to the central argument. I think we can stop wasting words on it.
I don’t think Steve’s trip to work necessarily represents 20 times for social benefit than yours.
But Steve’s trip represents 20 times as many passenger miles. Your claim in this thread is that passenger miles are pretty much THE industry standard measure of social utility from transportation. Which is it?
I’m saying that I can’t answer the specific question you asked me without more information, such as how much each of you likes the movie.
Again, you’ve been claiming that the benefit from transportation use is in it’s passenger miles. Steve’s using 7 times as many as I am, so your answer should be clear.
However, let’s say we both see the same movie, eat the same popcorn, and enjoy it as nearly equally as two different people can. What else would you like to know?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:52 am
Aircraft landing fees, jet fuel taxes, freight waybill fees, and passenger facility charges on plane tickets. In other words, usage fees.
How does an airport that isn’t built yet get traffic to accrue usage fees?
New airports are paid for by taxes, just like new roads, new schools, new stadiums, new almost anything. They are subsidized.
If after being built they receive funding (tolls, subway fares, usage fees, beer tax) those fees pay for usage & maintenance, and even then they don’t always completely cover it. (See cuts in transit funding)
November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 am
Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes studying the airline industry knows how wrong this is, except in the very barest sense of “in general.”
Assuming “except in the very barest sense” here is supposed to mean that there is only a very weak correlation between fare and distance, show us how you know that to be true. Since it only takes 5 minutes of study, you should have no difficulty substantiating your claim here.
Airline fares are affected by a multitude of factors,
Yes, I said that already. It doesn’t conflict with the fact that, in general, fares increase with the distance of the flight.
It is foolhardy to state that one can say with any certainty the effect distance may have on the pricing of a given city pair.
Well, gosh, it’s a good thing no one stated that then, isn’t it? Keep burning those strawmen.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:19 am
I’m not proposing any such thing.
Yes, I know you haven’t. That’s why I wrote, “If you want to propose….”
Either way, it was never at all relevant to the central argument.
Oh, I agree. But since you seem determined to nitpick-to-death every irrelevant side issue you can think of, I thought I’d just humor you. For the time being.
But Steve’s trip represents 20 times as many passenger miles. Your claim in this thread is that passenger miles are pretty much THE industry standard measure of social utility from transportation. Which is it?
No, I have not claimed that passenger-miles are the industry standard measure of “social utility” from transportation.
Again, you’ve been claiming that the benefit from transportation use is in it’s passenger miles. Steve’s using 7 times as many as I am, so your answer should be clear.
The benefit from transportation in general is measured in passenger-miles. But the benefit to you and Steve of this particular trip depends on how much each of you liked the movie, among other things.
However, let’s say we both see the same movie, eat the same popcorn, and enjoy it as nearly equally as two different people can. What else would you like to know?
How much value does Steve attach to not having to walk a mile, for example?
But never mind. You’ve exhausted my patience. I’m not going to trawl through all your posts about Steve and DMonteith’s Trip To The Movies trying to piece together the complete story.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:36 am
How does an airport that isn’t built yet get traffic to accrue usage fees?
New airports are built using funds from the Aviation Trust Fund accumlated by usage fees and with loans repaid from usage fees.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 am
No, I have not claimed that passenger-miles are the industry standard measure of “social utility” from transportation.
Let’s see. I seem to recall… Oh yeah, here it is:
Hmm…
More relevantly, you claimed that transit is subsidized more per passenger mile than roads and highways, and that this could validly be used to compare the relative levels of subsidies:
This certainly implies that passenger miles are a valid measure of social utility.
(As an aside, this is a ridiculously low figure for road and highway subsidies. For example, the Texas study I’ve brought up before suggests that the level of subsidy is something more on the order of $100 or more per thousand vehicle mile - that’s $66 or so per thousand passenger miles.
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the ridiculous figures, this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20. If we use even a slightly more reasonable figure for road subsidies - say $25/1K-p-m, Steve ends up with more than me, a whole $1. And if we use the whole $66/1K-p-m, he’s getting a whopping $2.64 in government handouts every morning.
In other words, for some reason current government policy is that Steve’s trip is at least 2 or 3 times as socially desirable as mine. And that’s before we consider any implicit subsidies Steve might be enjoying for cheap parking or gas…)
November 21st, 2008 at 1:55 am
Oh, I agree. But since you seem determined to nitpick-to-death every irrelevant side issue you can think of, I thought I’d just humor you. For the time being.
And this, folks, is why Mixner is obviously a comic genius.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:58 am
The Aviation Trust Fund only covers the Federal commitment, it doesn’t pay for everything. The municipal commitment is usually higher. And cost overruns for airports and roads either come from the General fund or further municipal funds, whether you fly or don’t, or have a car or not.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:06 am
From Reuters:
in a June 2008 interview with Reuters, current Amtrak President Alex Kummant made specific observations: $10 billion per year is transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund; $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA; $8 billion goes to “security and life safety for cruise ships.”
I thought usage fees pay for everything
November 21st, 2008 at 2:11 am
And this, folks, is why Mixner is obviously a comic genius.
I’m telling you it’s not Mixner–it’s Colbert!
November 21st, 2008 at 2:17 am
How much value does Steve attach to not having to walk a mile, for example?
I think my job is done here, and this horse is clearly pulp, but I can’t let this go. I mean, this question is weird.
Steve drove to the movie, remember? Why would we care what he thinks about walking? His nearest movie theater is 7 miles away. He obviously lives in a low density suburb or exurb, or maybe just out in the country somewhere, 7 miles from a town. If he walked 1 mile in any direction, he’d probably just be in a field or something.
For that matter, nobody had to walk a mile to the movie. I walked an unspecified (but presumably relatively short - say a few blocks) distance to the train stop, and then an even shorter distance to the theater at the other end.
It’s a complete non-sequitur.
But let’s say Steve hates walking. In fact, he can’t. He lost both legs in the war, is suffering from severe depression, and refuses to try the prosthetics.
How about now, Mixner, is that enough information for you calculate the social benefits of our trips to the movies?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:23 am
Let’s see. I seem to recall… Oh yeah, here it is
What about it? Your point is…..what?
More relevantly, you claimed that transit is subsidized more per passenger mile than roads and highways, and that this could validly be used to compare the relative levels of subsidies
Another utterly incoherent statement. Yes, I claim transit is subsidized more per passenger-mile than roads and highways. Presumably, the “this” in your second clause refers to that proposition. So your second clause is: transit is subsidized more per passenger-mile than roads and highways…could validly be used to compare the relative levels of subsidies. I have no idea what that bizarre sentence is even supposed to mean. Your writing is poor at the best of times, but you now seem to have worked yourself up into such a state that you can barely write anything intelligible at all.
This certainly implies that passenger miles are a valid measure of social utility.
It doesn’t imply any such thing. It’s simply a statement about the relative level of subsidy for mass transit vs. roads and highways.
As an aside, this is a ridiculously low figure for road and highway subsidies.
No it isn’t. It’s the total public subsidy for roads and highways as reported by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics. If you have a serious critique of the BTS data or methodology, feel free to present it.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:32 am
No it isn’t. It’s the total public subsidy for roads and highways as reported by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics. If you have a serious critique of the BTS data or methodology, feel free to present it.
I have. The BTS data tallies only actual outlays (and given the ambiguous nature of some items in budgets and spending bills, possibly not even all of them). However, as the under-maintained and deteriorating condition of the nation’s roads and bridges will attest, the BTS figures don’t include costs that should have been paid, or depreciation.
The Texas study is (AFAIK) unique, precisely because it did account for the cost of depreciation and optimal maintenance.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:36 am
And let’s try this other thing one more time:
12:09 am: Passenger-mile (in Europe, passenger-kilometer) is the standard unit of measure for transportation costs and benefits used in government and academic literature.
…
1:19 am: I have not claimed that passenger-miles are the industry standard measure of “social utility” from transportation.
Maybe it would help if I pointed out that Steve’s trip to work is 64.4 passenger-kilometers?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:38 am
DMonteith,
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the [official government] figures, this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20.
That’s right. You’re receiving four times the subsidy he does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
Steve drove to the movie, remember? Why would we care what he thinks about walking?
Because you asked which of you benefits more from going to the movies, and the answer to that question, given your description of how each of you got there, depends in part on what Steve thinks about walking.
For that matter, nobody had to walk a mile to the movie. I walked an unspecified (but presumably relatively short - say a few blocks) distance to the train stop, and then an even shorter distance to the theater at the other end.
Huh? You wrote: “I can take a 1-mile, 15-minute walk+train ride to the movie theater.” Leaving aside your bizarre use of “can take” here, I took that to mean you walked a mile, which took you 15 minutes, then took a train ride. If you had meant to write that the entire trip was 1 mile and took 15 minutes, you should have written that. Once again, you need to learn how write sentences that express what you’re trying to say more clearly.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:46 am
I have.
No you haven’t.
The BTS data tallies only actual outlays (and given the ambiguous nature of some items in budgets and spending bills, possibly not even all of them). However, as the under-maintained and deteriorating condition of the nation’s roads and bridges will attest, the BTS figures don’t include costs that should have been paid, or depreciation.
This is utter nonsense. The BTS data includes spending on maintenance and repair as well as new construction. Whether you think the level of spending was adequate is completely irrelevant to the question of the amount of the subsidy. That amount is the difference between revenues and expenditures.
Maybe it would help if I pointed out that Steve’s trip to work is 64.4 passenger-kilometers?
No, it doesn’t help at all. Do you have a point or don’t you?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:48 am
“This certainly implies that passenger miles are a valid measure of social utility.”
It doesn’t imply any such thing. It’s simply a statement about the relative level of subsidy for mass transit vs. roads and highways.
It’s a statement about the relative level of subsidies on a passenger-mile basis. Your implication is clearly that passenger-miles are the correct basis of comparison for subsidy levels, and therefore that passenger-miles are the appropriate measure of social utility.
If that was not your implication, your original statement about the relative subsidy levels was pointless - a non-sequitur academic fact with no implication for the policy discussion.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:51 am
Andrew Fly,
The Aviation Trust Fund only covers the Federal commitment, it doesn’t pay for everything. The municipal commitment is usually higher.
No it isn’t. There is some subsidy for air travel, but the subsidy for both mass transit and intercity passenger rail is far higher.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:59 am
The BTS data includes spending on maintenance and repair as well as new construction. Whether you think the level of spending was adequate is completely irrelevant to the question of the amount of the subsidy. That amount is the difference between revenues and expenditures.
Yes. The BTS tallies spending. That is to say, it tallies actual outlays.
For example, let’s say Minnesota spends $50 million a year on road maintenance. But let’s say it would really cost $100 million a year to keep the roads in optimal condition.
Then the BTS reports only $50 million. It does not record the additional >$50 million in costs from accelerated depreciation due to undermaintenance.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:02 am
It’s a statement about the relative level of subsidies on a passenger-mile basis.
Right.
Your implication is clearly that passenger-miles are the correct basis of comparison for subsidy levels,
Also correct. I haven’t just “implied” this. I have explicitly stated it numerous times.
and therefore that passenger-miles are the appropriate measure of social utility.
Nonsense. I have never said or implied that passenger-miles are “the appropriate measure of social utility.” Or any measure of “social utility,” for that matter. Passenger-miles are a measure of transportation benefit. I don’t even know what you mean by “social utility.” You haven’t defined the term as you are using it, or even offered a vague description of what you mean by it. Your writing is full of this kind of thing. Made-up terms that you don’t define, incoherent sentences, and other such confusions. You really need to take the time to organize your thoughts and compose posts that express them clearly and concisely, and maybe then your writing wouldn’t be such a jumbled, confused mess.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:06 am
Huh? You wrote: “I can take a 1-mile, 15-minute walk+train ride to the movie theater.” Leaving aside your bizarre use of “can take” here, I took that to mean you walked a mile, which took you 15 minutes, then took a train ride. If you had meant to write that the entire trip was 1 mile and took 15 minutes, you should have written that. Once again, you need to learn how write sentences that express what you’re trying to say more clearly.
Yes. I meant that my entire trip, walking and train, covered a distance of 1 mile over a period of 15 minutes.
On re-reading I can see the ambiguity in that sentence, although I daresay context should have made it clear. (I obviously intended for you to compare the time and distance involved in the two different trips to the theater - that would not have been possible if I had not provided data for the train segment of my trip, and should have been your first question.)
(And you’ve honestly never heard someone say something like “I can take the bus down to 7th street…”?)
November 21st, 2008 at 3:06 am
let’s say Minnesota spends $50 million a year on road maintenance. But let’s say it would really cost $100 million a year to keep the roads in optimal condition. Then the BTS reports only $50 million. It does not record the additional >$50 million in costs from accelerated depreciation due to undermaintenance.
“Let’s say…” is not fact. It’s fabrication. And your complaint is nonsensical anyway. The subsidy is the difference between revenues and spending. It does not depend on what you claim to be “undermaintenance.”
November 21st, 2008 at 3:29 am
When you buy a candy bar at the store, you get a certain amount of what economists call “utility” from it - a measure of how much enjoyment you get from the candy, in standard units.
“Social utility” (or social benefit, etc.) is another standard economics term, and it simply means the sum of the private utilities of every member of that society for some shared item.
For example, if the government builds a new sports stadium, some people enjoy it or benefit from it, some people don’t. We add up the enjoyments - subtract the disappointments - in a common unit, and that is the social utility of the stadium.
Obviously true social utility, like private utility, is impossible to measure directly. As much as possible we try to arrange policy so that we don’t need to know it. If we can’t avoid it, we have to try to guess it using proxy measures, hedonic pricing, contingent valuation, etc.
However, abstractly, a good government would clearly be one which maximizes social utility.
An economist would say that if I say “I am spending too much money on candy bars, and not enough on potato chips”, I must mean that I would get more utility buying fewer candy bars and more chips.
Likewise, if one says “the government is spending too much on X relative to Y”, this implies that more social utility could be purchased by shifting some spending to Y.
Lastly, I realize it’s the internet and everything, but if you don’t know what things like “social utility” are, you really have no business commenting here.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:36 am
“Let’s say…” is not fact. It’s fabrication.
Fabrication, huh? I guess that’s kind of like an example…
The numbers are illustrations only, but it’s a real phenomenon. Do a news search for something like “deteriorating infrastructure”.
And your complaint is nonsensical anyway. The subsidy is the difference between revenues and spending. It does not depend on what you claim to be “undermaintenance.”
Gosh. I wonder why American Airlines hasn’t thought of that? They could just stop spending on maintenance, and suddenly their profits would be great! The planes would fall out of the air in a couple months and need replacing much earlier, but hey, that’s not really a “cost”, right?
November 21st, 2008 at 9:18 am
If you want to change our land-use/transportation patterns to be substantially less auto-centric and substantially more transit-and-density-centric, how do you propose to do that?
We can’t unring the bell, and it’s not really relevant to the argument anyway.
The entire point of my argument that the current system is the result of massive state intervention is this: it means you can’t argue against additional state interventions based on market principles.
If you concede that our current system is the result of state intervention, you are then estopped [if you're intellectually honest] from arguing in the future that current development and transportation patterns reflect consumer preference, and that different future state interventions would somehow be unfair.
Many defenders of the automobile society object to any measure that would favor other transportation options, because it’s “socialistic”. That is only a valid argument if the current system is not also socialistic.
It may be that we can no longer even contemplate applying market principles to transportation and land use, because of the huge distortions that are already in place. We can’t just eliminate all zoning and stop repairing the roads and say, “We’ll let the market work it out”. But that’s not my fault; it’s the fault of the generations of planners who brought us to this point.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
I think what we are seeing is a misapplication of the basic economic notion of revealed preferences, e.g. that if Person A would prefer paying $10 to have X over paying $5 to have Y, Person A values X over Y. Although a useful simplifying notion, it can’t be applied when you start talking about the choices of different people.
Yeah, I think that’s exactly it. It took me a while to figure out what the heck Mixner was thinking, but I had this same realization, eventually.
But then, a day into it, he dropped the bomb about “social utility”…
God help us.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
fluffy,
The entire point of my argument that the current system is the result of massive state intervention is this: it means you can’t argue against additional state interventions based on market principles.
Why not?
If you concede that our current system is the result of state intervention, you are then estopped [if you’re intellectually honest] from arguing in the future that current development and transportation patterns reflect consumer preference, and that different future state interventions would somehow be unfair.
Huh? How are you “stopped” from doing that?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t mean to say I told you so (well, actually I do), but you all just spent hours arguing a basic economic point with a guy who doesn’t know what “social utility” means.
DTM is utterly clueless about even basic economic principles. On the rare occasions when he gets something right, it appears to be purely by accident.
Similarly, if Person A is given a choice between traveling ten miles for X or five miles for Y and he chooses to travel ten miles for X, it is reasonable to hypothesize that Person A values X more than Y (assuming traveling more represents a cost). But the fact that Person A travels ten miles for X and Person B travels five miles for Y does NOT tell us that Person A values X more than Person B values Y,
Right. That’s why, as I have explained to DMonteith, you can’t determine the relative value of a particular trip to particular individuals without additional information. Passenger-miles is a measure of the aggregate value of transportation benefit, not the value of a particular trip to a particular person. “Trips” is worthless as a measure of transportation benefit outside of specific contexts because it takes no account of the value of the distance travelled.
Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with “social utility.”
November 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Right. That’s why, as I have explained to DMonteith, you can’t determine the relative value of a particular trip to particular individuals without additional information. Passenger-miles is a measure of the aggregate value of transportation benefit, not the value of a particular trip to a particular person. “Trips” is worthless as a measure of transportation benefit outside of specific contexts because it takes no account of the value of the distance travelled.
Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with “social utility.”
Astonishing.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
DMonteith,
“Social utility” (or social benefit, etc.) is another standard economics term, and it simply means the sum of the private utilities of every member of that society for some shared item.
You are, as always, utterly confused.
“Social utility” as you define it above, is synonymous with total benefit (or total “utility”). What does this have to do with subsidies? Are you now proposing that the internalized benefit of a trip to the traveller himself should be subsidized as well as any external benefits such as a reduction in pollution? If so, why? And if so, why should the value of that internalized benefit subsidy per passenger-mile be more for transit than for cars? Is there any kind of, you know, actual argument buried in there somewhere among your endless parade of nonsequiturs, irrelevancies, and assumptions?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Astonishing.
Amazing! Dazzling! Astounding!
November 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
DMonteith,
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the [official government] figures, this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20.
That’s right. You’re receiving four times the subsidy he does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I guess I’m already in deep, might as well see what we can make of this muck:
Right. That’s why, as I have explained to DMonteith, you can’t determine the relative value of a particular trip to particular individuals without additional information.
Exactly so. (Although I would drop the word ‘relative’: We can’t determine the value of trips based on distance traveled. Period.)
Passenger-miles is a measure of the aggregate value of transportation benefit, not the value of a particular trip to a particular person.
But if passenger miles is not a measure of the benefit of a particular trip, how does it become a measure of benefit when we aggregate a bunch of trips together?
For example, you claim that we can’t say whether my 1 mile trip to the movies or Steve’s 7 mile trip has more benefit. But aggregrate (social…) benefit is just all the individual benefits added up.
So, if we add up a whole county full of 2 million people making trips like Steve, and 2 million people making trips like me, why would you now be able to say that the trips made by the Steve’s produce 7 times as much benefit?
“Trips” is worthless as a measure of transportation benefit outside of specific contexts because it takes no account of the value of the distance travelled.
There is no intrinsic value to distance traveled. When I travel 1 mile, and Steve travels 7 miles, it says nothing about the level of benefit obtained by either of us. Likewise, if 2 million people each make a 7 mile trip, and 2 million different people each make a 1 mile trip, we can’t say that the first 2 million people obtained 7 times more benefit.
Aggregated over a large population, it’s far better to assume that each “trip” is, on average, just “a benefit”, rather than that 7 mile trips are somehow 7 times more beneficial than 1 mile trips.
Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with “social utility.”
It has everything to do with social utility. The social benefit (or “utility”) of a transit subsidy is the total of the individual benefits from all the travel it enables. See above.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
“Social utility” as [it is commonly defined], is synonymous with total benefit (or total “utility”).
Ding ding ding! (Clap clap clap clap!)
Yay! See. that wasn’t so hard, was it?
What does this have to do with subsidies? Are you now proposing that the internalized benefit of a trip to the traveller himself should be subsidized as well as any external benefits such as a reduction in pollution?
Government funding for a program should produce a net social benefit. That is,
should be larger than [PUBLIC_MONEY_SPENT].
Of course, we want to spend money on the programs with the most bang for the buck, so we should also look around to see if there’s something where [SOCIAL_BENEFIT] - [PUBLIC_MONEY_SPENT] is even larger.
Any questions?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
DTM-
Sigh. I know. I know. And yet, work is slow today, and I’ve nothing better to do. Sad, huh?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
DMonteith,
But if passenger miles is not a measure of the benefit of a particular trip, how does it become a measure of benefit when we aggregate a bunch of trips together?
Good grief, you’re even more stupid than I thought. Statistical measures cannot be used to predict individual cases. On average, men are taller than women. That doesn’t mean every man is taller than every woman. On average, longer trips provide more benefit than shorter trips. That doesn’t mean every longer trip provides more benefit than every shorter trip. It’s really not that hard to understand, except for you and DTM.
There is no intrinsic value to distance traveled.
Another bizarre term for which you fail to provide any definition or description. What is “intrinsic value” supposed to mean? Define it. Why is it relevant to the question being discussed?
We know that people value longer trips more than shorter trips because they’re willing to pay more for them. Did you miss this the first umpteen times I explained it to you?
It has everything to do with social utility.
No, it has nothing to do with “social utility.”
Government funding for a program should produce a net social benefit.
The issue isn’t government “funding” but government subsidis. If you would try harder to follow the issue and not keep going off on these bizarre tangents, I wouldn’t have to spend so much time correcting your endless misrepresentations and nonsequiturs.
Are you now proposing that the internalized benefit of a trip to the traveller himself should be subsidized as well as any external benefits such as a reduction in pollution? If so, why? And if so, why should the value of that internalized benefit subsidy per passenger-mile be more for transit than for cars?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
DMonteith,
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the [official government] figures, this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20.
That’s right. You’re receiving four times the subsidy he does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Good grief, you’re even more stupid than I thought. Statistical measures cannot be used to predict individual cases. On average, men are taller than women. That doesn’t mean every man is taller than every woman. On average, longer trips provide more benefit than shorter trips. That doesn’t mean every longer trip provides more benefit than every shorter trip. It’s really not that hard to understand, except for you and DTM.
So you’re saying then, that when 2 million people each take a 7 mile trip somewhere, and a different 2 million people each take a 1 mile trip somewhere, the first 2 million people produce 7 times as much social benefit?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
DMonteith,
So you’re saying then, that when 2 million people each take a 7 mile trip somewhere, and a different 2 million people each take a 1 mile trip somewhere, the first 2 million people produce 7 times as much social benefit?
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying what I said. Do you have a response to what I said?
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the [official government] figures, this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20.
That’s right. You’re receiving four times the subsidy he does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Let’s say I take the train 2 miles to work, and Steve drives 40 miles. Even with the ["official government figures" for highway spending, not highway cost], this implies that I receive $0.80 for my trip to work, and Steve gets $0.20.
That’s right. You’re receiving four times the subsidy he does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
As I’ve said, you’re figures are wrong. But you’re missing the point:
Let’s suppose we reduce transit subsidies to $5/thousand-p-m. Now the subsidies are, in Mixner logic, “equal”.
Now I get $0.01 for my trip. Steve gets $0.20.
Why is Steve’s trip 20 times more deserving of public support than mine? Why are we encouraging him to travel further?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying what I said. Do you have a response to what I said?
But this IS what you’re saying. You’re saying that, “on average”, the millions of people who live far from work and drive long distances produce many times as much value as the millions of people who live close to work and travel short distances.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The issue isn’t government “funding” but government subsidis. If you would try harder to follow the issue and not keep going off on these bizarre tangents, I wouldn’t have to spend so much time correcting your endless misrepresentations and nonsequiturs.
I might be able to explain better if you could tell me how your definitions of government “funding” and government “subsidies” differ.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Mixner doesn’t seem to understand that the benefit in question is being where you want to be and that traveling to get there is a cost that must be subtracted from this benefit. His worldview includes the concept that traveling, in and of itself, is a benefit. The further away you are, the more you get to drive. Woohoo! Bonus!
There’s no arguing with someone this clueless.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
DMonteith,
As I’ve said, you’re figures are wrong.
They’re official government figures. You have produced no evidence that they are “wrong.”
You’re receiving four times the subsidy Steve does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
DMonteith,
You’re saying that, “on average”, the millions of people who live far from work and drive long distances produce many times as much value as the millions of people who live close to work and travel short distances.
No, I did not say that. I don’t even know what your latest bizarre locution, “produce many times as much value” is supposed to mean in this context. The value in question is the value of the transportation to the traveller. You seem to be just incapable of understanding even the simplest economic concepts and arguments.
I might be able to explain better if you could tell me how your definitions of government “funding” and government “subsidies” differ.
I’ve already explained it you numerous times. “Subsidy” is the difference between spending and revenues. What is your justification for the vastly higher subsidies provided to mass transit than to roads and highways?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
They’re official government figures. You have produced no evidence that they are “wrong.”
I have explained carefully, on more than one occasion, how your use of those figures is incorrect. I have also produced alternative figures.
You choose, erroneously, to dismiss the explanation and the new figures. That is not my concern.
You’re receiving four times the subsidy Steve does for travelling one-twentieth of the distance. What is the justification for this absurd disparity in subsidies in your favor?
If this were the case, and if in fact the social benefit of my trip was less than 4 times that of Steve’s, I would not think it was justifiable. Of course, I do not accept your figures, so that’s purely hypothetical.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I’ve already explained it you numerous times. “Subsidy” is the difference between spending and revenues.
Than it is fully contained within the equation for “net social benefit” above. Again, ideally we are trying to arrange government policy — spending and the levying of any user fees — to maximize net social benefit.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
DTM,
Mixner is now effectively assuming that while transporation benefits can vary over different passenger-miles,
Glad you’re still trying to follow along, DTM, even though you’re still failing miserably. The fact that longer trips provide more benefit than shorter trips is not an “assumption,” or even an “effective assumption,” whatever that’s supposed to be. We know that people get more benefit from longer trips because they are willing to pay more for them.
those variations are effectively random such that for any two large subsets of passenger-miles, regardless of how those subsets are defined, the average benefit per passenger-mile will converge on the same number.
If you think you have evidence that some “subsets” of passenger-miles that are relevant to the issue of transportation subsidies provide more “average benefit” than others, feel free to present it.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
DMonteith,
I have explained carefully, on more than one occasion, how your use of those figures is incorrect.
No, you haven’t. You made up your own set of figures, and said “Let’s say…” those figures are accurate. That’s not evidence that either the government figures or my “use” of them is “incorrect.” It’s just made-up nonsense. You can’t just invent numbers out of thin air, D, and pretend that they reflect reality.
If this were the case, and if in fact the social benefit of my trip was less than 4 times that of Steve’s, I would not think it was justifiable.
This nonsense again. You just defined “social benefit” as total benefit, including any internalized benefit to the traveler himself. Are you now proposing that the internalized benefit of a trip to the traveller himself should be subsidized as well as any external benefits such as a reduction in pollution? If so, why? And if so, why should the value of that internalized benefit subsidy per passenger-mile be more for transit than for cars?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
So let’s have market pricing of bus and train tickets, rather than the current massively-subsidized pricing that encourages overconsumption.
Overconsumption of bus tickets? Stupid wing nuts make me laugh/
There’s no arguing with someone this clueless.
So why do people? Mixner is so obviously a cretin that it’s not worth your time to engage him.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
We know that people get more benefit from longer trips because they are willing to pay more for them.
…And the mobius strip of Mixner’s stupidity turns yet again. The existence of diminished marginal utility of money as income rises does not alter the fact that it costs more to travel more.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
We know that people get more benefit from longer trips because they are willing to pay more for them.
Ah, so people think that items provide more benefit as inflation increases.
What people do pay is not indicative of what they’re willing to pay, moron. The price of trips is not primarily determined by their value to the consumer, but rather to the cost of providing them, you blithering cretin.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
No, you haven’t. You made up your own set of figures, and said “Let’s say…” those figures are accurate. That’s not evidence that either the government figures or my “use” of them is “incorrect.” It’s just made-up nonsense. You can’t just invent numbers out of thin air, D, and pretend that they reflect reality.
You’re confusing two different things:
(1) I have provided real figures for the long term cost to government of roads in Texas.
(2) I provided an example - with arbitrary numbers for illustration - of how the BTS figures might not be appropriate if governments tended to underinvest in upkeep. (Which, the news will tell you, they do.)
November 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
And the mobius strip of Mixner’s stupidity turns yet again. The existence of diminished marginal utility of money as income rises does not alter the fact that it costs more to travel more.
What? Aren’t you charged more for gas used to go to places you would rather be? Apparently Mixner is; in fact, he’s charged exactly the amount he’s willing to pay for each mile of travel, and that’s how he can sanely and rationally equate the amount he does pay to the amount he would be willing to pay, and then infer that longer trips are more beneficial.
[/snarkdirectedatstupidrightwingers]
November 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Obviously Mixner is just repeating his misapplication of the notion of revealed preferences as described in my 10:24am. And trust me, he can repeat the same mistake over and over again indefinitely.
Jeez, and you’re still at it? You do realize that you could be doing good in the world instead of engaging with this moron, don’t you? (Me, I’m sick with a cold.)
Imagine that we actually did pay as much as we were willing to for everything — then we would pay according to how much we wanted to get to our destination. Of course, such a system would be totally unworkable … a hallmark of the fantasies of right wingers, libertarians, objectivists, and other ideologically addled fools.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Oh look, DMonteith just sprouted yet another never-before-seen head, this one called “Jay Ballou”.
Overconsumption of bus tickets? Stupid wing nuts make me laugh/
No, not overconsumption of bus tickets. Moronic lefties make me laugh.
Mixner is so obviously a cretin that it’s not worth your time to engage him.
Jay Ballou is a moron.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
DMonteith
The existence of diminished marginal utility of money as income rises does not alter the fact that it costs more to travel more.
True. And your point is…? Or is this yet another nonsequitur?
(1) I have provided real figures for the long term cost to government of roads in Texas.
No you haven’t. But since we’re talking about all public roads and highways in the U.S. and not just “roads in Texas” those figures would be irrelevant even if you had provided them.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
DTM,
Still waiting for your evidence that some “subsets” of passenger-miles that are relevant to the issue of transportation subsidies provide more “average benefit” than others. Do you have any evidence or don’t you?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Jay Ballou is a moron.
Nice try, but it only works when it isn’t prima facie evident that I’m not and you are. And there’s further evidence that you are because, if you want to play that game, you’re guaranteed to lose, since you’re intent on appearing rational so as to win some intellectual argument whereas I don’t give a flying fuck.
If we had a teleportation system with which travel to all locations was simultaneous and equally costly, people would be willing to pay more for more desirable locations, regardless of distance, MORON.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
How do you know that if unleashed from here, I wouldn’t embark on a reign of terror?
Non sequitur; I didn’t say or imply that you wouldn’t. If that’s your preference … you do realize that you could be reigning terror on the world instead of engaging with this moron, don’t you?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
DMonteith,
What people do pay is not indicative of what they’re willing to pay, moron.
Of course it is, you ignorant buffoon. They wouldn’t pay it unless they were willing to pay it, your stupid idiot.
The price of trips is not primarily determined by their value to the consumer, but rather to the cost of providing them.
True, you monumental cretin. And your point is…? Or this yet another entry in your endless parade of nonsequiturs?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
DMonteith
The existence of diminished marginal utility of money as income rises does not alter the fact that it costs more to travel more.
True. And your point is…? Or is this yet another nonsequitur?
(1) I have provided real figures for the long term cost to government of roads in Texas.
No you haven’t. But since we’re talking about all public roads and highways in the U.S. and not just “roads in Texas” those figures would be irrelevant even if you had provided them.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
202. DMonteith Says:
It seems that Mixner can’t even keep track of his own identity identity.
Well, my short visit here has been fun … well worth what I paid for it (which is not necessarily the same as what I was willing to). I now must go find someone whom I can amuses the fact that some cretin on the intertubes thinks that the longer a trip is, the more we benefit from it — as proven by the fact that we’re, um, willing to pay more for it.
ROTFLMAO!
November 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Of course it is, you ignorant buffoon. They wouldn’t pay it unless they were willing to pay it, your stupid idiot.
Look, you stupid fucking retard … the issue is whatpeople are willing to pay, not that they are willing to pay. Of course they are willing to pay what they do pay, but they might well be willing to pay more, so one can’t infer from the fact that people do pay more for one thing than another that they value the former more.
Oh lord, I’m doing it myself … wasting my time engaging with this utter cretin. Ok, bye.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
you do realize that you could be reigning terror on the world instead of engaging with this moron, don’t you?
Make that “raining”. Like I said, I’ve got a cold. Time for soup.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
DMonteith,
Well, my short visit here has been fun
Good riddance to the latest manifestation of DMonteith’s Multiple Personality Disorder.
Look, you stupid fucking retard …
Look, you stupid, ignorant, moronic psychopath…
the issue is whatpeople are willing to pay, not that they are willing to pay. Of course they are willing to pay what they do pay, but they might well be willing to pay more,
The fact that they might be willing to pay more is irrelevant. You claimed “What people do pay is not indicative of what they’re willing to pay.” That claim is utter nonsense. The fact that people do pay is obviously “indicative” that they are willing to pay at least that amount, you retard.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Troll on, soldier.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
True. And your point is…? Or is this yet another nonsequitur?
Your inability to understand the implication that my true statement has for your argument does not mean that it has no implications.
If Joe the College Professor bikes to work and Warren Buffet flies his helicopter to work they receive the same benefit, namely, getting to work. The fact that they pay the same amount as a percentage of income for their respective modes of transportation renders these trips comparable in terms of personal utility for Joe and Warren. These trips, however, are obviously quite different in terms of social utility and this difference is related to the difference in the absolute cost of each trip.
Let me know if you need me to spell this out more clearly.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
A short revisit to the seminal stupidity, nearly 24 hours ago:
This “argument” is nonsensical. Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit. If the transportation benefit were independent of the distance travelled, we would pay no more to travel 5000 miles than 500.
In fact, the benefit is to a large degree inversely proportional to the length of the trip, as evidenced by the fact that people are willing to pay more for faster transportation to the same destination. That we do pay more to travel to more distant locations using the same form of transportation is a function of transportation costs, not benefit … obviously, to anyone who isn’t an imbecile or pigheadedly insisting on defending an indefensible position.
Hopefully the regulars here will pull out Mixner’s paragraph — and his day-long defense of it — whenever anyone seems inclined to think that he might not be an idiot and a troll.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Jay-
There are several other threads like this one. Mixner’s speciality is the stubborn defense of the flatly wrong…
November 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
P.S.
Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit. If the transportation benefit were independent of the distance travelled, we would pay no more to travel 5000 miles than 500.
If benefit were proportional to the distance traveled, people would live as far from work, school, markets, friends … as possible.
ROTFLMAO!!
November 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I should amend that to say “when costs are equal”.
“But honey, if we lived out in the boonies and you took the bus, you could enjoy twice as much time getting to the office and it wouldn’t cost a penny more!”
November 21st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
This one’s still going?
Dear me, Mixie really does have no fucking life at all. Or access to anti-psychotics.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
There are several other threads like this one. Mixner’s speciality is the stubborn defense of the flatly wrong…
I’m suggesting that you just point to one of the more blatant ones, like this one, instead of engaging him, and then his stubbornness won’t be further manifested. I mean, really, 24 hours?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
DMonteith,
If Joe the College Professor bikes to work and Warren Buffet flies his helicopter to work they receive the same benefit, namely, getting to work.
Your capacity for making obviously false assertions is undiminished, I see. Warren Buffett obviously receives a much higher benefit than Joe does, because Buffett makes much more money at work than Joe does. Indeed, that’s why Buffett is willing to pay the huge additional cost of commuting by helicopter.
The fact that they pay the same amount as a percentage of income for their respective modes of transportation
That’s not a fact. They don’t pay the same amount as a percentage of income for their respective modes of transportation. Yet another false assertion. You’re outdoing yourself.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Oh, and here’s what gets derailed when you engage morons like Mixner … the argument that he said was “nonsensical”:
The other problem is that “passenger miles” isn’t the right metric, but “trips.” Since the purpose and effect of transit projects is to allow denser development to operate without choking, the fact that the people living in an urban area have 1/2 mile commutes on the subway instead of 40 mile commutes on the freeway makes passenger-mile measurements misleading.
As DTM asked yesterday, “Seriously, why are we arguing with a person who is effectively claiming people actually like having longer commutes?”
November 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Warren Buffett obviously receives a much higher benefit than Joe does, because Buffett makes much more money at work than Joe does.
I see that my comment about the basic concept of diminished marginal utility sailed right over your head. Oh well.
They don’t pay the same amount as a percentage of income for their respective modes of transportation. Yet another false assertion.
If you really think that I’m proposing that we research what Buffet pays for helicopters and what hypothetical adjunct professors pay for bikes, you’re dumber than I thought, and I’m not certain that’s possible.
Since arguing in good faith appears to be an alien concept for you, just what do you think you’re accomplishing here?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
DMonteith,
In fact, the benefit is to a large degree inversely proportional to the length of the trip
More nonsense. If the benefit were inversely proportional to the length of the trip people obviously wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further.
as evidenced by the fact that people are willing to pay more for faster transportation to the same destination.
Still more nonsense. The fact that people are willing to pay more for faster transportation to the same destination is evidence that people value their time, not that the benefit of transportation is inversely proportional to the length of the trip. You really are outdoing yourself in unbelievably stupid assertions, D.
That we do pay more to travel to more distant locations using the same form of transportation is a function of transportation costs, not benefit
No, that we do pay more is “a function of” our willingness to pay more. We are willing to pay more because we get more benefit.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I’m suggesting that you just point to one of the more blatant ones, like this one, instead of engaging him, and then his stubbornness won’t be further manifested. I mean, really, 24 hours?
Well, I think everyone else here already knows that Mixner is flatly wrong. The fun part is trying to show him how he is. And pointing to a thread where his buffoonery is particularly well demonstrated doesn’t help with that much.
It probably would help to have a FAQ or something for newcomers though.
(There’s still a thread out there, probably hundreds of pages long, in which it is conclusively shown that bus load factor tends to improve with ridership volume. As with this one, Mixner just refuses to acknowledge - or, more likely given the revelations in this thread, simply fails to understand - his errors.)
November 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
actual inconveniences and other actual costs (longer travel times
Hey, it’s a cost and a benefit! Maybe that’s the secret meaning of “mixner”.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
DMonteith,
As DTM asked yesterday, “Seriously, why are we arguing with a person who is effectively claiming people actually like having longer commutes?”
Seriously, what made you so incredibly stupid that you cannot understand that people would not be willing to pay the higher cost of a longer commute unless they were getting an equal or larger benefit in return, such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Well, I think everyone else here already knows that Mixner is flatly wrong.
Mixner has been wiping the floor with you, jack, and all you can do in response is flail around like a headless chicken.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Seriously, what made you so incredibly stupid that you cannot understand that people would not be willing to pay the higher cost of a longer commute unless they were getting an equal or larger benefit in return, such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job?
So, what you’re saying is that someone who lives in a suburb and pays the price of commuting 40 miles is should likely be getting more overall utility from the experience than someone who lives in the city and commutes 2 miles?
Why?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
(ugh. Editing fail:)
So, what you’re saying is that someone who lives in a suburb and pays the price of commuting 40 miles should likely be getting more overall utility from the experience than someone who lives in the city and commutes 2 miles?
Why?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Mixner,
Mixner has been wiping the floor with you, jack, and all you can do in response is flail around like a headless chicken.
Nice try, sock puppet! I can’t wait for Heywood Jablomey to show up to agree with Mixner.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
So, what you’re saying is that someone who lives in a suburb and pays the price of commuting 40 miles should likely be getting more overall utility from the experience than someone who lives in the city and commutes 2 miles?
No, I didn’t say that.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
If the benefit were inversely proportional to the length of the trip people obviously wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further.
An utterly baseless inference, cretin, just as it would be to claim that, since people are willing to pay less for shorter trips, they value them less. The fact is that what rational people are willing to pay for something is a matter of weighing its benefit against its cost, not comparing to other prices. The latter only comes into play when the difference seems unfair, but paying more for longer trips seems fair because the transportation cost is greater.
The fun part is trying to show him how he is.
Ah, but how do you tell whether you have done that when he is committed to defending even the most absurd positions, and he is quite evidently an idiot? As DMonteith said, it’s a matter of bad faith.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
DMonteith, I agree with samson. You’re just a blithering idiot. Mixner writes “I’m saying X” and you respond “So you’re saying Y?” Over and over again. I don’t know if you truly cannot understand the points he’s making or if you’re just pretending you cannot understand them, but either way you’re just a damn fool.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
DMonteith, I agree with samson.
What matters is an argument you might present, not whether you agree with yourself.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Seriously, what made you so incredibly stupid that you cannot understand that people would not be willing to pay the higher cost of a longer commute unless they were getting an equal or larger benefit in return, such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job?
It’s worth noting that the bad faith cretin counted “longer commute” as a “higher cost” and did not include “length of commute” among the benefits — i.e., he flatly contradicted his own bizarro world position.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
No, I didn’t say that.
Well, you seem to be:
people would not be willing to pay the higher cost of a longer commute unless they were getting an equal or larger benefit in return, such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job
You’re saying that if people are being enticed into longer commutes, it must be because they are getting something else of equal or greater benefit to make up for it.
You’re also saying that you think that any transportation subsidies that are given out should be given out on a passenger mile basis.
That implies transportation subsidies should increase linearly with distance from one’s job. For every mile further from their job people move, society should reward them with an extra half-penny or so.
Now, if that’s rational government policy, it must be that people are gaining at least an additional half-penny in private utility (in terms of larger houses, etc.) for every mile they move further from work. No?
Do you think there is a limit to this process?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
DMonteith,
An utterly baseless inference, cretin,
You don’t know what you’re talking about, you moron.
The fact is that what rational people are willing to pay for something is a matter of weighing its benefit against its cost, not comparing to other prices.
It costs more to travel further, you cretin. People wouldn’t be willing to pay that additional cost if they weren’t getting an equal or greater benefit in return, moron.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Mixner writes “I’m saying X” and you respond “So you’re saying Y?” Over and over again.
drsamson,
There have been some recent posts written by Mixner and jack lecou that follow this pattern. But you, sglover, seem to have attribution derangement syndrome or severe reading comprehension problems.
Good luck with that, Mixner.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
It costs more to travel further, you cretin. People wouldn’t be willing to pay that additional cost if they weren’t getting an equal or greater benefit in return, moron.
Indeed … “such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job”, but not length of the trip, which you count as a cost. It’s nice that we all agree. Now we can go back to #46, which wasn’t a “nonsensical argument” after all.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
(I should add that the half-penny is from Mixner’s own subsidy figure of $5 per thousand passenger miles. That figure’s technically wrong - the real figure would have people apparently gaining at least 7 cents or so with every mile they retreat from their job - but it’s not really important to the argument.)
November 21st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
DMonteith,
You’re saying that if people are being enticed into longer commutes, it must be because they are getting something else of equal or greater benefit to make up for it.
Pretty much, yes. Well done. You actually managed to paraphrase something I wrote without screwing it up beyond recognition.
You’re also saying that you think that any transportation subsidies that are given out should be given out on a passenger mile basis.
No, not necessarily “any” transportation subsidies. But subsidies justified on the grounds of a pollution externality, for example.
That implies transportation subsidies should increase linearly with distance from one’s job.
No, it doesn’t imply that at all. You’re back to utter stupidity again.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
DMonteith,
Indeed … “such as lower housing prices or a higher-paying job”,
Yes. Those are examples of benefits that make people willing to pay the higher cost of longer commutes.
but not length of the trip, which you count as a cost.
Yes. I count it as a cost because it is a cost.
Now we can go back to #46, which wasn’t a “nonsensical argument” after all.
Right. #46 wasn’t a nonsensical argument.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
It’s also useful to revisit #57:
“If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?”
I’m not. Ceteris paribus, the shorter trip is MORE valuable. The only reason I would accept the inferior longer trip is if it came bundled with something else, like, say, a substantially cheaper house.
The cretin doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of “ceteris paribus”. The simple and obvious fact is that, ceteris paribus, people aren’t willing to pay more to be transported further; ceteris paribus, they will choose the shorter distance. But ceteris are rarely paribus.
Meanwhile, Obama has chosen Timothy Geithner as Secretary of Treasury; excuse me while I go see what people are saying about that.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I count it as a cost because it is a cost.
AND a benefit, according to #46: “Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit.”
Right. #46 wasn’t a nonsensical argument.
Bad faith asshole.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The cretin doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of “ceteris paribus”.
The moron DMonteith doesn’t understand that the statement in question was not ceteris paribus, which suggests the idiot doesn’t even understand what the term means.
AND a benefit, according to #46: “Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit.”
DMonteith is such an utter moron he thinks “is proportional to” means “is the same thing as.”
Bad faith asshole.
Lying, stupid, ignorant douchebag.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
If Mixie had a job. (Or two jobs, since he performs both.)
November 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“My name is pseudonymous in nc and I live in a permanent state of uncontrollable rage.”
November 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
The moron DMonteith doesn’t understand that the statement in question was not ceteris paribus, which suggests the idiot doesn’t even understand what the term means.
That proves that you don’t understand the concept.ceteris paribus is not an attribute of statements, moron. “ceteris paribus” was Jack’s hypothetical, which I quoted, about two situations.
he thinks “is proportional to” means “is the same thing as.”
I know that “Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit” means that the benefit also is proportional to the distance traveled, and that you’re a sociopathic clown playing a silly game, because you can’t be as stupid as you’re pretending to be. In #46 you argued that #37 was a nonsensical argument, on the basis that there is a benefit proportional to distance traveled, and you have persisted in arguing this absurdity for a full day … up until you started arguing that distance traveled is a cost, as everyone sane has maintained all along. What a fucking waste of time and space you are.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
If Mixie had a job.
Indeed. He’s a tar pit, as in the skit.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
DMonteith,
That proves that you don’t understand the concept.
No, it proves that either you didn’t read the statement you were responding to or that you didn’t understand it, D. Given your record, either possibility is highly plausible.
I know that “Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit” means that the benefit also is proportional to the distance traveled,
Do you? Then why did you just pretend to believe that it means that the distance travelled is in itself a benefit? Answer: Because you’re a psychotic, obsessed, lying fool.
In #46 you argued that #37 was a nonsensical argument, on the basis that there is a benefit proportional to distance traveled, and you have persisted in arguing this absurdity for a full day
There is obviously a benefit proportional to the distance travelled. Otherwise, people wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further. That is why the standard measure of transportation benefit is passenger-miles and not “trips” or some other metric that ignores distance. The only person who doesn’t understand this blindingly obvious fact is you, you moron.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Jay: the funny thing about Mixie No-Life and his psychoses is that (outside west-coast sleeping hours) he could conceivably spend the next ten years on this thread, convinced that he’s frothing at one person. He’s the Energizer bunny of trolls, and I might pity him if he wasn’t such a piece of shit.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
If you don’t get more benefit from being transported 50 miles than 2, why are you willing to pay more for it?
As Jack noted, ceteris paribus, distance traveled isn’t beneficial; if the target 2 miles away were more valuable than the target 50 miles away, then people would be willing to pay more for the shorter trip. Which is the whole point of joe from Lowell’s comment @37 about trips vs. passenger miles.
To say that “the statement in question was not ceteris paribus” is to admit that it was a case of petitio principii.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Then why did you just pretend to believe that it means that the distance travelled is in itself a benefit?
Hmm, I had assumed that English was your native language, but apparently not.
There is obviously a benefit proportional to the distance travelled. Otherwise, people wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further.
No, there’s only a benefit proportional to the distance traveled when there is, and people are only willing to pay more to travel further when they get more benefit from traveling further.
Obviously.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Another point about the cretin’s obviously wrong “obvious” claim: people are not generally willing to pay proportionally more to travel further. What people are willing to pay is a function ofbenefit, which is obviously not proportional to distance. There are many instances in which it costs more to be closer, and people are often willing to pay those costs.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
DMonteith,
No, there’s only a benefit proportional to the distance traveled when there is, and people are only willing to pay more to travel further when they get more benefit from traveling further.
So when people DO travel further, they DO get more benefit, comprendez? Otherwise, they wouldn’t be willing to pay the additional cost of travelling further. So explain to me again why you think distance travelled should be ignored, and transportation benefit can be measured in “trips” rather than passenger-miles.
Your position is just utterly incoherent. You admit that when people travel further they’re getting more benefit, but you also claim benefit can be meaured using a metric that ignores distance travelled. You’re just an icon of unbelievable stupidity, D.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
P.S. My home town of Santa Barbara is a good example … distance from town is, to a large degree, inversely proportional to wealth, because of housing costs. Workers in vital services like police and fire being pushed further and further from town have created a number of crises, making both dense housing and freeway widening more urgent.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
people are not generally willing to pay proportionally more to travel further.
Yes they are, moron.
There are many instances ….
We’re not talking about “instances.” We’re talking about transportation benefit in the aggregate. Statistical measures cannot be used to predict specific cases, you cretin.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
outside west-coast sleeping hours
pseudonymous in nc is on nc hours, which means he routinely stays up until 3 or 4am, obsessively checking this blog every five minutes, desperately looking for new posts by the object of his mancrush, Mixner.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
So when people DO travel further, they DO get more benefit, comprendez?
No, moron. This is only true if the distance is balanced by an equivalent benefit, but that may or may not be true. People traveling further may be getting more benefit than people traveling less far, or they may not. People traveling to different destinations may be getting more benefit going to the further one, or they may not. Urban planning affects the relationships between homes and workplaces; neither is fixed.
Otherwise, they wouldn’t be willing to pay the additional cost of travelling further.
Only ceteris paribus, cretin. But other things generally aren’t equal, making the statement generally false.
So explain to me again why you think distance travelled should be ignored, and transportation benefit can be measured in “trips” rather than passenger-miles.
Because, moron, the benefit isn’t determined by distance, it’s primarily determined by destination, and so the benefit of getting somewhere is the same no matter where you came from (well, actually, it may be less beneficial if you came from somewhere further away, because of the time, wear and tear, etc. of the trip).
November 21st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
people are not generally willing to pay proportionally more to travel further.
Yes they are, moron.
No, fuckhead, they obviously aren’t, else they would generally be willing to pay a lot more to go a store in Somalia than one around the corner.
There are many instances ….
We’re not talking about “instances.” We’re talking about transportation benefit in the aggregate. Statistical measures cannot be used to predict specific cases
Fuck but you’re stupid. A general rule like “people are generally willing to pay proportionally more to go further” is falsified by contrary instances … empirical science 001.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
God. I don’t know. And the worst part is not the feeling that I’m wasting my time, it’s the icky feeling that I’m sort of picking on a mentally handicapped individual…
For me it’s more a matter of schadenfreude as I watch him flail, but my feeling of wasting my time has finally overcome that pleasure, so I’m going to try to pull my brain out of this tar pit and close this window. (But, with the miracles of technology, I can always find it in the browser history, and I’ll probably compulsively come back later to see what further sorts of idiocy have issued forth from the poor cretin.)
November 21st, 2008 at 8:18 pm
This is only true if the distance is balanced by an equivalent benefit, but that may or may not be true. People traveling further may be getting more benefit than people traveling less far, or they may not.
Nonsense. The cost of transportation rises with the distance travelled. People wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting an additional benefit equal to or greater than the increase in cost, you cretin.
Because, moron, the benefit isn’t determined by distance, it’s primarily determined by destination
You are still utterly, utterly confused, moron. The benefit provided by the destination must increase with the distance travelled to offset the additional cost of travelling further. If closer destinations provided just as much benefit as further destinations, people wouldn’t waste the extra money it costs them to travel to those further destinations for no extra benefit.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
DMonteith,
No, fuckhead, they obviously aren’t, else they would generally be willing to pay a lot more to go a store in Somalia than one around the corner.
No, shithead cretin, they wouldn’t. People are obviously generally willing to pay more to travel further, because it generally costs more to travel further. Apparently, you think gasoline is free, and plane tickets are the same price whether you fly 100 miles or 10,000 miles. You are just unbelievably stupid.
Fuck but you’re stupid.
Fuck, fuck, fuck you’re a brain-dead cretin.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Mixner, you’re wasting your time with this bozo. If he doesn’t understand by now, he’ll never understand….
November 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Mixner, I just realized that you’re me.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
jack lecou, I just realized that you’re me.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I just realized that we’re us!
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 am
To the above: Wow.
Anyway, let’s go with this:
Nonsense. The cost of transportation rises with the distance travelled. People wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting an additional benefit equal to or greater than the increase in cost, you cretin.
First of all, this uncontroversially applies to “people” only one at a time: Steve goes to the restaurant 10 miles away from where he lives because he prefers it to the restaurant 5 miles away, but this tells us nothing about whether Jill gets more or less utility than Steve when she visits a restaurant 15 miles away from where she lives.
To say that “on average” longer distances traveled mean larger utilities would mean that we can say that Jill should be getting more utility than Steve, or at least that if we picked several sets of people in the above situation, the person traveling 15 miles to the restaurant would be getting the most utility more often than not.
With me so far?
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
Continuing…
Nonsense. The cost of transportation rises with the distance travelled. People wouldn’t be willing to pay more to travel further unless they were getting an additional benefit equal to or greater than the increase in cost, you cretin.
Again, to apply this as statistical rule means that “transportation benefit generally increases with distance”.
That is, if randomly selected Person A lives further from work than randomly selected Person B, we should be able assume that this means person A receives more benefit. (That is: this will happen “on average” with over 50% of randomly selected pairs.)
“More benefit” doesn’t mean the length of the trip, obviously, since that is a cost. It’s the total package of goods that the longer trip enables: Person A must have something like a better job or a better house than Person B.
Everything still good?
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 am
Then, it looks like what we’re interested in is comparing the total utility that Person A gets from life, vs. the utility that B gets.
Now, would you agree that this corresponds, on average, to income?
Obviously there are many things in life that make us happy that come for free: family, friends, a sunny disposition. But these aren’t correlated with income - richer people can have them just as often as poorer ones. Meanwhile, richer people can buy nicer things: better houses, vacations, etc.
So, in general, we’d expect a somewhat richer person to have more utility than a poorer one. Correct?
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Oh God…..IT’S STILL ALIVE!
First of all, this uncontroversially applies to “people” only one at a time:
No, DMonteith, it applies to millions and millions of people at the same time.
To say that “on average” longer distances traveled mean larger utilities would mean that we can say that Jill should be getting more utility than Steve, or at least that if we picked several sets of people in the above situation, the person traveling 15 miles to the restaurant would be getting the most utility more often than not.
No, it means that, on average, a trip to a restaurant 15 miles away provides more benefit than a trip to a restaurant 1 mile away. Since, on average, the 15-mile trip costs more than the 1-mile trip, it wouldn’t make sense to make that 15-mile trip unless the benefit was correspondingly greater. I don’t know why you still can’t understand this blindingly obvious point.
That is, if randomly selected Person A lives further from work than randomly selected Person B, we should be able assume that this means person A receives more benefit. (That is: this will happen “on average” with over 50% of randomly selected pairs.)
No, we cannot assume that. The average is derived from the total costs and benefits of all passenger-miles of transportation. It doesn’t tell you anything about the proportion of randomly-selected trip pairs for which the average relationship is true.
Then, it looks like what we’re interested in is comparing the total utility that Person A gets from life, vs. the utility that B gets.
No. The benefit we’re measuring here is transportation benefit, not “total utility from life.” Yet again, you’re going on a wild goose chase into nonsequiturland.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
No,
DMonteithjack, it applies to millions and millions of people at the same time.No, it does not. Because different people have different abilities to pay, different preferences, and different total utilities, and as a result, live in different places and can end up traveling very different distances to obtain the same utility.
But I think pretty much everyone else in the world understands this. So, I guess I’ll leave you to your ignorance.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
No, it does not.
Yes, it does, D. People really do have the ability to travel at the same time. They don’t have to do it “one at a time.”
I swear, it’s like talking to a five-year-old.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Yes, it does, D. People really do have the ability to travel at the same time. They don’t have to do it “one at a time.”
Oh my god.
Admit it. This is parody, right?
Look, my email address is first name then last initial at frenetic dot com.
You can tell me privately. I really need to know.
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
This is parody, right?
No, it’s not. People really do have the ability to travel at the same time, D. It really is true.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
No, really. Nobody can be as dense as you act. Jonah Goldberg isn’t this dense.
Who are you, really? Stephen Colbert? A shared pen name used by Onion staffers with writers block? Landover Baptist’s transit policy arm?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
You don’t have to post it here, tell me privately. I won’t give it away. But give it up. You’ve pushed it too far.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
DMonteith,
No, really.
Yes, really. People really do have the ability to travel at the same time, D.
Nobody can be as dense as you act.
You are so unbelievably stupid that you cannot even understand that people are willing to pay more to travel further because they get a greater benefit from traveling further.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Yes, but they have varying abilities to pay for, e.g., housing closer to work, so greater distance traveled does not mean greater absolute utility relative to others.
How can you not see this?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Yes, but they have varying abilities to pay housing closer to work, so greater distance traveled does not mean greater absolute utility relative to others.
For the umpteenth time, this is utterly irrelevant. On average, men are taller than women. That does not mean every man is taller than every woman. On average, longer trips provide more benefit than shorter trips. Otherwise, people would not be willing to pay more to travel further. That does not mean every actual longer trip provides more benefit than every actual shorter trip.
Is this clear yet, or will I have I explain it to you another twenty times before you’re capable of understanding it?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Would you say this is a rule that holds true in all countries and cultures?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
That is, that this is a mathematical/statistical rule? Not just an observation that you happen to think is true of the United States?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
greater absolute utility relative to others.
A typically nonsensical DMonteith phrase. What’s the difference supposed to be between “greater absolute utility relative to others” and greater relative utility than others?
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Absolute in this case is meant to imply a greater utility in a common unit of measurement, not just relative to one’s own alternatives.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
That is, that this is a mathematical/statistical rule?
I don’t know what “rule” you’re referring to.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“On average, longer trips provide more benefit than shorter trips.”
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Absolute in this case is meant to imply a greater utility in a common unit of measurement, not just relative to one’s own alternatives.
Incomprehensible. You obviously need a common unit of measurement to evaluate the relative “utility” of alternatives. “X is greater relative to Y” implies a common way of measuring X and Y. So what’s “absolute?”
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
That’s an economic “rule.”
Is a point forthcoming, or is this yet another one of your side trips into nonsequiturland?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“X is greater relative to Y” implies a common way of measuring X and Y.
No, “X is greater” only implies an ordering, it doesn’t necessarily imply a unit or a measurement. When I drive 10 miles to go to a restaurant rather than go to the one 5 miles away, it only tells us I prefer the further restaurant.
It does not tell us how many units of utility I got from it on any absolute scale, just that I got more than the nearer restaurant, and the distance between the two was greater than the disutility of the extra driving.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
No, “X is greater” only implies an ordering, it doesn’t necessarily imply a unit or a measurement.
You can’t “order” X as greater than Y unless you have a common way of measuring them. A common way of measuring is implicit in any claim of the form “X is greater relative to Y.” So what’s “absolute?”
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
That’s an economic “rule.”
Excellent.
Than this rule should apply to Jack & Steve Land, a nation with two types of people: “Jacks”, and “Steves”.
In most ways, Jacks and Steve are almost identical. Both prefer to live closer to work, other things being equal, and both prefer larger houses to smaller ones. All houses in Jack and Steve Land are of the same quality, they vary only in size and location.
For simplicity, the only thing that gives either Jack or Steve satisfaction is the size of their home (this is a standin for the whole bundle of goods that real people get satisfaction from). A longer daily journey to work gives them dissatisfaction.
Since Jack and Steve have identical preferences, having the same sized home the same distance from their jobs would give both exactly the same absolute utility.
Any objections so far?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
When I drive 10 miles to go to a restaurant rather than go to the one 5 miles away, it only tells us I prefer the further restaurant.
In other words, it tell us that you get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant than the closer one. And yet you claim, nonsensically, that transportation benefit should be measured in “trips” rather than passenger-miles.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Excellent.
Top drawer!
Any objections so far?
I may state any objections I have if and when you ever get around to making an actual argument that is relevant to the issue we’re discussing. Your argument should to be stated clearly and concisely. If it’s your just more of your usual fragmented, long-winded, meandering blather with no clear proposition or logical structure, I’ll probably lose interest.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Any objections so far?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I may state any objections I have if and when you ever get around to making an actual argument that is relevant to the issue we’re discussing. Your argument should to be stated clearly and concisely. If it’s your just more of your usual fragmented, long-winded, meandering blather with no clear proposition or logical structure, I’ll probably lose interest.
I will take that as a no, then. You agree that Jack and Steve Land, as described so far, is a world in which your “economic rule” would apply.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Continuing:
Employment opportunities in J&S Land tend to be clustered geographically. Since everyone in J&S Land prefers to live in a large house and close to work, housing prices vary predictably according to their size and distance from the nearest employment center.
A 5000 square foot house 1 mile from an employment center will be more expensive than a 5000 square foot house 10 miles from an employment center.
Stop me here if there are any objections to that.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I will take that as a no, then.
It wasn’t a no, and you shouldn’t take it as such.
And your point is….? Hurry, my interest is waning rapidly.
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Continuing,
The transportation system in J&S Land allows everyone to travel for a cost of $1 per mile, at a speed of exactly 1 mile per minute. The disutility of a 10 mile trip for a Jack or a Steve would be $10, plus the value of 10 minutes of their time.
Now, the only difference between Jacks and Steves is that Jacks earn $50,000 per year at their jobs, and Steves earn only $20,000. Both work 8 hours a day, 260 days a year.
Any problems?
November 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Tick Tock Tick Tock…..falling asleep here.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Since the only source of satisfaction in Jack and Steve Land is a house, less the cost of the trip to work, it is logical to conclude that everyone purchases the most utility that their income will allow, and thus all Jacks have 50,000 units of utility, and all Steves 20k.
Correct?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
(I should also say that there are, for simplicity, precisely equal numbers of Jacks and Steves.)
Now, because Jacks have a larger disutility of travel, and can afford far more expensive houses, I submit that, on average, Jacks live closer to employment centers, and Steves farther away.
Any objections?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
No?
Now Steves, on average, travel much further than Jacks. However, Steves also have much lower overall utility.
Your rule, however, says that Steves must get more utility from their trips somehow though. Where does it come from?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Or, to put it another way, every single Jack travels from a better house to a better job than every Steve. The utility of every trip a Jack takes should be higher than the utility of every trip a Steve takes.
Yet your rule says that Steves must, on average, get more utility from their trips. How?
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
jack,
I think we need to take Mixner at his word when he uses the word “incomprehensible” so often. He just doesn’t understand what we’re talking about. It’s like teaching algebra to a cow. No amount of heroic effort will suffice.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Okay, let’s have some fun….
and thus all Jacks have 50,000 units of utility, and all Steves 20k.
What is “units of utility?” How does it differ from units of benefit? How is this “utility” measured?
Now, because Jacks have a larger disutility of travel,
Huh? Why do Jacks have a larger disutility of travel? And what is “disutility of travel,” anyway? How does it differ from cost of travel?
Since the only source of satisfaction in Jack and Steve Land is a house, less the cost of the trip to work, it is logical to conclude that everyone purchases the most utility that their income will allow
How does that follow? Why wouldn’t everyone in Jack and Steve world purchase the most utility their income will allow regardless of their sources of satisfaction? And how do Jack and Steve avoiding starving to death, if their only source of satisfaction is housing?
Now Steves, on average, travel much further than Jacks.
How do you know that? And if Steves travel further than Jacks, their travel cost is higher. So how do Jacks “have a larger disutility of travel” than Steves?
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
(DMonteith- I know! And yet the cow won’t stop mooing foolish things! “MOO! sqrt(x^2)=x MOO!”)
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
When I drive 10 miles to go to a restaurant rather than go to the one 5 miles away, it only tells us I prefer the further restaurant.
In other words, it tells us that you get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant than the closer one. And yet you claim, nonsensically, that transportation benefit should be measured in “trips” rather than passenger-miles. Measured by “trips,” the transportation benefit to each restaurant is the same. But according to you, you’d get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of your transportation benefit?
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Comment #305:
And how do Jack and Steve avoiding starving to death, if their only source of satisfaction is housing?
Comment #291:
For simplicity, the only thing that gives either Jack or Steve satisfaction is the size of their home (this is a standin for the whole bundle of goods that real people get satisfaction from).
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
For simplicity, the only thing that gives either Jack or Steve satisfaction is the size of their home (this is a standin for the whole bundle of goods that real people get satisfaction from).
But it can’t be a stand-in for that, because people need other goods to survive. If Jack and Steve die of starvation, they can’t travel to work at all.
and thus all Jacks have 50,000 units of utility, and all Steves 20k.
What is “units of utility?” How does it differ from units of benefit? How is this “utility” measured?
Now, because Jacks have a larger disutility of travel,
Huh? Why do Jacks have a larger disutility of travel? And what is “disutility of travel,” anyway? How does it differ from cost of travel?
Now Steves, on average, travel much further than Jacks.
How do you know that? And if Steves travel further than Jacks, their travel cost is higher. So how do Jacks “have a larger disutility of travel” than Steves?
Moo!
Ruff Ruff!
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
But it can’t be a stand-in for that, because people need other goods to survive. If Jack and Steve die of starvation, they can’t travel to work at all.
Moo harder!
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
What is “units of utility?” How does it differ from units of benefit? How is this “utility” measured?
Economists usually use units of utility that are equivalent to a dollar. But it’s not really all that important, and we needn’t attach numbers at all. The point is that Jacks have 150% more income than Steve’s, so they are able to purchase about 150% more overall utility.
Huh? Why do Jacks have a larger disutility of travel? And what is “disutility of travel,” anyway? How does it differ from cost of travel?
Because a Jack’s time is worth 150% more than a Steve’s.
Disutility and (total) cost are of course the same thing.
How does that follow? Why wouldn’t everyone in Jack and Steve world purchase the most utility their income will allow regardless of their sources of satisfaction? And how do Jack and Steve avoiding starving to death, if their only source of satisfaction is housing?
As I pointed out, a “house” in J&S Land is a simplification - it’s a stand in for the entire bundle of goods (housing, food, tv set, etc.) that real people purchase. You could substitute “bundle of goods purchased” in all of the above without changing the logic.
And naturally, people buy the biggest “best” bundle of goods they can afford. I’m not sure why that would be in dispute…
How do you know that?
Because, as I pointed out, other things being equal, Jacks can afford to live much closer to employment centers. On average, the Steves will have a longer daily journey than Jacks.
And if Steves travel further than Jacks, their travel cost is higher. So how do Jacks “have a larger disutility of travel” than Steves?
It costs a Jack about $1.40 to travel a mile. It costs a Steve only about $1.16.
So a Steve would be willing to travel 12 miles to get the same utility a Jack would only be willing to go 10 for.
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Moo harder!
Ruff! Ruff! Ruff!
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Economists usually use units of utility that are equivalent to a dollar.
I’m not asking about “economists.” What do you mean by “utility” here? How does it differ from benefit? And how are you measuring it?
The point is that Jacks have 150% more income than Steve’s, so they are able to purchase about 150% more overall utility.
How do you know Jacks can purchase 150% more “utility” if you don’t have a way of measuring it?
Because a Jack’s time is worth 150% more than a Steve’s.
Huh? How do you know a Jack’s time is worth 150% more than a Steve’s? And you’re now contradicting yourself too. You previously claimed that “Jack and Steve have identical preferences.” If Jack and Steve have identical preferences, time cannot be worth more to Jack than to Steve. I just love it when you shoot yourself in the foot like this, D.
Disutility and (total) cost are of course the same thing.
Then why don’t you just say “cost?”
It costs a Jack about $1.40 to travel a mile. It costs a Steve only about $1.16.
Another contradiction. You just said “The transportation system in J&S Land allows everyone to travel for a cost of $1 per mile.” Isn’t this fun!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Ruff! Ruff! Ruff!
Mixner, I’m grading you on the steepest curve known to man and yet you still come up with an epic fail.
C’mon, moo like you mean it!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I’m not asking about “economists.” What do you mean by “utility” here? How does it differ from benefit? And how are you measuring it?
This is an economics discussion. I am using the language of economics. Utility means satisfaction, benefit, enjoyment, whatever. (We’re 40 pages into this, you’ve used the word ‘utility’ yourself dozens of times, and yet you still don’t know what it means? Really?)
As for measurement, we can only do that indirectly: if you buy a candy bar that costs $1, we know that you obtained at least 1 unit of utility from it. To know exactly how much, we would have to raise the price of the candy bar incrementally until you no longer find it worthwhile to purchase. For example, if we raise it a penny at a time, and you continue to profess willingness to buy it at every price but $1.50, we would say you must get 1.49 units of utility from the candy bar.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
(For the umpteenth time, this is really, really econ 101 stuff. You seriously have no business commenting in an econ heavy conversation without understanding these basic concepts.)
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Huh? How do you know a Jack’s time is worth 150% more than a Steve’s?
Jack makes $50,000 a year - 8 hours a day, 260 days - or $0.40 a minute.
Steve makes only $0.16 a minute.
And you’re now contradicting yourself too. You previously claimed that “Jack and Steve have identical preferences.” If Jack and Steve have identical preferences, time cannot be worth more to Jack than to Steve. I just love it when you shoot yourself in the foot like this, D.
They have identical preferences. They do not have identical earnings or opportunity costs.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Your rule, however, says that Steves must get more utility from their trips somehow though. Where does it come from?
No it doesn’t. My “rule” says that on average, for the total population of Jacks and Steves, the benefits of their trips increase with trip length. Since travel costs Jack and Steve $1 per mile, they must receive at least $1 in additional housing benefit for every additional mile they travel. Otherwise, they’d be wasting extra money to travel further for no extra benefit.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Jack makes $50,000 a year - 8 hours a day, 260 days - or $0.40 a minute.
Steve makes only $0.16 a minute.
Whoa! We haven’t even gotten this cow to moo properly yet and you’re jumping straight into the algebra.
Slow down, man! We only just got to the 300th comment, fer goodness’ sake!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Then why don’t you just say “cost?”
I’m sorry the big words are confusing for you. Possibly you should consider taking a class or reading a book on economics. You might be able to follow along easier.
Another contradiction. You just said “The transportation system in J&S Land allows everyone to travel for a cost of $1 per mile.” Isn’t this fun!
I said that the nominal cost of transportation was $1/mile, but that the disutility (total economic cost) was that, plus the value of a persons time.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
My “rule” says that on average, for the total population of Jacks and Steves, the benefits of their trips increase with trip length.
Right. In other words, on average, an X mile trip provides more benefits (utility) than a Y mile trip, if X > Y.
No?
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is an economics discussion.
No, it’s a discussion about your Jack and Steve world.
Utility means satisfaction, benefit, enjoyment, whatever.
Then why don’t you just say “benefit?”
As for measurement, we can only do that indirectly: if you buy a candy bar that costs $1, we know that you obtained at least 1 unit of utility from it.
I ask again: How are you measuring “utility” in your Jack and Steve world? In dollars? Something else?
Jack makes $50,000 a year - 8 hours a day, 260 days - or $0.40 a minute. Steve makes only $0.16 a minute.
So what? Average income per minute of work doesn’t tell us anything about the value of their time while traveling.
They have identical preferences. They do not have identical earnings or opportunity costs.
What “opportunity costs?” What is the “opportunity cost” of time spent traveling?
This is fun!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
No, it’s a discussion about your Jack and Steve world.
Right. A discussion of economics. Using the language of economics.
Then why don’t you just say “benefit?”
See above.
I ask again: How are you measuring “utility” in your Jack and Steve world? In dollars? Something else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
So what? Average income per minute of work doesn’t tell us anything about the value of their time while traveling.
See below.
What “opportunity costs?” What is the “opportunity cost” of time spent traveling?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
This is an economics discussion.
No, it’s a discussion about your Jack and Steve world.
Moo!
What “opportunity costs?” What is the “opportunity cost” of time spent traveling?
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I said that the nominal cost of transportation was $1/mile, but that the disutility (total economic cost) was that, plus the value of a persons time.
What is the value of their time spent traveling? How do you calculate it?
In other words, on average, an X mile trip provides more benefits (utility) than a Y mile trip, if X > Y.
That’s right. And your point is…..?
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Actually, this is fun!
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
What is the value of their time spent traveling? How do you calculate it?
Every minute they spend traveling is a minute they could be spending earning money at work, $0.40 and $0.16 for Jack and Steve respectively.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility
Soory, nonresponsive. Directing me to Wikipedia is not an answer to my question. I ask again: How are YOUmeasuring “utility” in your Jack and Steve world? In dollars? Something else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
More evasion. What is the “opportunity cost” of the time spent traveling by Jacks and Steves in your Jack and Steve world?. How are you calculating it?
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Every minute they spend traveling is a minute they could be spending earning money at work, $0.40 and $0.16 for Jack and Steve respectively.
But they don’t spend it at work. You said all Jacks and Steves work the same number of hours (”8 hours a day, 260 days”). They all work the same number of hours regardless of how much time they spend traveling. So what is this supposed “opportunity cost” of additional travel time? How are you calculating it?
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Your rule, however, says that Steves must get more utility from their trips somehow though. Where does it come from?
No it doesn’t. My “rule” says that on average, for the total population of Jacks and Steves, the benefits of their trips increase with trip length. Since travel costs Jack and Steve $1 per mile, they must receive at least $1 in additional housing benefit for every additional mile they travel. Otherwise, they’d be wasting extra money to travel further for no extra benefit.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
In other words, on average, an X mile trip provides more benefits (utility) than a Y mile trip, if X > Y.
That’s right.
Great.
Another way to say that is to say there’s a positive correlation between trip length and utility.
We should be able to plot all of the trips made in J&S Land on a chart, distance on the horizontal axis, and utility on the vertical axis. Then we should be able to run a regression line through it, and the coefficient will be positive - an upward sloping line.
Now, these points will be scattered all over, but we do know a couple things:
We know that every single point plotted for a Jack trip will be above (have more utility) every single point plotted for a Steve trip.
And we know that on the horizontal axis (”distance traveled”), they may overlap, but that the mean horizontal position of the all the Steve points will be greater than the mean value of all the Jack points.
So, our graph will have two clusters: the Jacks must all be in the top half, with a center of mass at least slightly toward the left, and the Steves will be strictly below the Jacks, slightly to the right.
And any regression plotted through that must have a negative slope.
So, in J&S Land, the benefit of a trip generally decreases with distance traveled. Your “rule” doesn’t apply.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Still waiting for an answer to this, too:
When I drive 10 miles to go to a restaurant rather than go to the one 5 miles away, it only tells us I prefer the further restaurant.
In other words, it tells us that you get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant than the closer one. And yet you claim, nonsensically, that transportation benefit should be measured in “trips” rather than passenger-miles. Measured by “trips,” the transportation benefit to each restaurant is the same. But according to you, you’d get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of your transportation benefit?
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Soory, nonresponsive. Directing me to Wikipedia is not an answer to my question. I ask again: How are YOUmeasuring “utility” in your Jack and Steve world? In dollars? Something else?
Exactly the same as any other world. It’s not really important to know the units, only to know that all Jacks have more than any Steve. If you really want some defined, we can use the standard ones which are not strictly speaking dollars, but units with $1 as the numeraire. If someone is willing to pay $1 for something, but no more, that thing must give them 1 unit of utility.
More evasion. What is the “opportunity cost” of the time spent traveling by Jacks and Steves in your Jack and Steve world?. How are you calculating it?
Again, opportunity cost does not somehow have special meaning in J&S Land. You can read all about it on wikipedia, and probably should since you’re clearly not familiar with it.
The opportunity cost is the lost income from not working. While both Jacks and Steves prefer to work exactly 8 hours a day, there’s nothing stopping them from working slightly more or less, and the marginal value of their time is therefore $0.40/minute and $0.16/minute respectively.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Just for the record (consider it a kind of tagging): symptoms of Asperger’s Disorder, with particular emphasis on “[r]estricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities”.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
In other words, it tells us that you get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant than the closer one.
Right. It tells me that I do. It does not say that any 10 mile trip taken by anyone is more beneficial than a 9 mile trip taken by someone else.
For example, for a Jack to take a 10 mile trip, the trip must have at least $14 of benefit.
A Steve would only need a benefit of about $11.60 to make a 10 mile trip worthwhile.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Measured by “trips,” the transportation benefit to each restaurant is the same. But according to you, you’d get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of your transportation benefit?
Watch in amazement as Mixner answers his own question:
Statistical measures cannot be used to predict individual cases. On average, men are taller than women. That doesn’t mean every man is taller than every woman.
In other words, some restaurant trips provide more benefit and others less, so that each trip, on average, provides the same benefit!
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
So, our graph will have two clusters: the Jacks must all be in the top half, with a center of mass at least slightly toward the left, and the Steves will be strictly below the Jacks, slightly to the right. And any regression plotted through that must have a negative slope.
This is nonsense. The only prediction we can make is that the regression lines for both Steves and Jacks will have a positive slope.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
This is nonsense. The only prediction we can make is that the regression lines for both Steves and Jacks will have a positive slope.
No, we really can make these predictions:
1. All trips made by a Jack are from a better house to a better job than any Steve. Therefore all trips made by Jacks have a higher utility than any trip made by a Steve - all Jacks are strictly in the upper half, all Steves in the lower half, with no overlap.
2. It is more valuable to Jacks to live closer to work, and they are also more capable of affording better houses closer to work. Jacks will, at least on average live closer to work than Steves - the mean horizontal value of the Jack cluster will be strictly to the left of the mean of the Steve cluster.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If someone is willing to pay $1 for something, but no more, that thing must give them 1 unit of utility.
So in other words, by “utility” you actually mean benefit, and you’re measuring benefit in dollars. And by “disutility,” you mean cost, and you’re measuring cost in dollars also. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
The opportunity cost is the lost income from not working. While both Jacks and Steves prefer to work exactly 8 hours a day, there’s nothing stopping them from working slightly more or less,
You’re contradicting yourself again. You said all Steves and Jacks work the same number of hours and have identical preferences. So what is this alleged “opportunity cost?” And what is the value of time spent traveling? How are you calculating it?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Right. It tells me that I do. It does not say that any 10 mile trip taken by anyone is more beneficial than a 9 mile trip taken by someone else.
For the umpteenth time, I didn’t say it did. Some women are taller than some men, even though men are taller than women on average, remember?
Measured by “trips,” the transportation benefit to each restaurant is the same. But according to you, you’d get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of your transportation benefit?
In other words, some restaurant trips provide more benefit and others less, so that each trip, on average, provides the same benefit!
I don’t know what “each trip, on average” is supposed to mean. The “average” of each trip? What’s that? You’re demonstrating your unbelievable stupidity once again, D.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
You’re contradicting yourself again. You said all Steves and Jacks work the same number of hours and have identical preferences. So what is this alleged “opportunity cost?” And what is the value of time spent traveling? How are you calculating it?
Yes. Both Jack and Steve have identical preferences. Both prefer to work 8 hour days (the same number).
Steves, while preferring the same jobs as Jacks, are either not as lucky or not as talented as Jacks, and therefore have lower paying jobs.
And, since their wages are not as high, the opportunity cost of traveling is not as high for Steves.
Where, exactly, is there a contradiction in any of that?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
But according to you, you’d get more benefit from travelling to the further restaurant. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of your transportation benefit?
In order to compare transportation benefits, we need at least TWO trips. My trip to the restaurant is only one - I chose the further restaurant over the nearer, but in the end I only went to one restaurant.
So we need to compare this to someone else taking a trip to a restaurant. Someone who may live further or closer to restaurants of greater or lesser quality. Someone who may or may not enjoy eating as much or more. Someone who may earn more and therefore afford to either live closer to good restaurants or buy higher quality food at the restaurants that are closer.
Is this second trip made by a second person with different preferences and a different income more or less valuable than my 10 mile trip? Does the answer depend on whether it was more or less than 10 miles? How?
I say, on average, people choose the best restaurant they can, then go. This is a “trip”. Some of the restaurants all these people go to are better than others, some are worse. There’s an average value. That’s the value of a trip to a restaurant.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
In order to compare transportation benefits, we need at least TWO trips.
Easy, fella! Edging awfully close to algebra there!
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
No, we really can make these predictions:
No, we really can’t make either of those predictions. In fact, from the limited information you have provided, we can’t really make any predictions at all.
But of course, since it’s a ludicrous fantasy world in which everyone works the same hours, everyone makes one of only two possible incomes, and the only source of “satisfaction” is housing, it’s completely irrelevant to any discussion of transportation benefits in the real world anyway.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
So in other words, by “utility” you actually mean benefit, and you’re measuring benefit in dollars. And by “disutility,” you mean cost, and you’re measuring cost in dollars also. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Yes. As I keep saying: benefit is synonymous with utility. Utility is synonymous with benefit. I will continue to use both words interchangeably.
A disutility is a negative utility, AKA a negative benefit, AKA a cost. I will continue to use these words interchangeably.
Do we have this all cleared up now, or are there any other synonyms you’d like to go over in exhaustive detail?
(And a minor point, but “utility” is technically NOT measured in dollars exactly. Just units that correspond to dollars in some cases.)
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
No, we really can’t make either of those predictions. In fact, from the limited information you have provided, we can’t really make any predictions at all.
Would you care to elaborate on what information is missing?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
But of course, since it’s a ludicrous fantasy world in which everyone works the same hours, everyone makes one of only two possible incomes, and the only source of “satisfaction” is housing, it’s completely irrelevant to any discussion of transportation benefits in the real world anyway.
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
But of course, since it’s a ludicrous fantasy world in which everyone works the same hours, everyone makes one of only two possible incomes, and the only source of “satisfaction” is housing, it’s completely irrelevant to any discussion of transportation benefits in the real world anyway.
Would you care to explain how relaxing any of those assumptions would change the conclusion of the model?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Steves, while preferring the same jobs as Jacks, are either not as lucky or not as talented as Jacks, and therefore have lower paying jobs. And, since their wages are not as high, the opportunity cost of traveling is not as high for Steves. Where, exactly, is there a contradiction in any of that?
There is no “opportunity cost” without opportunity. There is no opportunity to work longer hours since everyone works the same number of hours by definition. And since everyone has “identical preferences” no one would take the oppoortunity even if they had it. The whole concept of “opportunity cost” is meaningless in your fantasy world, which is another reason why it’s a joke.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
…soory…
…oppoortunity…
Edging ever closer to “Moo”!
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
There is no “opportunity cost” without opportunity. There is no opportunity to work longer hours since everyone works the same number of hours by definition.
Everyone works the same hours by preference. There’s always a an opportunity cost. (In fact, another way you could view it is that Jacks have larger opportunity costs because they could be spending time in their (larger) houses.)
And of course, it’s not strictly speaking even necessary for Jack’s to have a larger travel disutility. They will still tend to live closer to work because it is desirable for both Jacks and Steves to live closer, but Jacks can afford to pay more for the privilege.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
If you like, you may also imagine that many Jacks and Steves do arrange their lives in a way that involves working an hour or two more or less each day. This would not change the relative incomes or utilities of the Jack and Steve groups at all.
(I’m providing all of the above in good faith effort to move the conversation forward, not to concede the point about opportunity cost.
Whether Jacks nor Steves never actually choose to avail themselves of extra work minutes, is totally irrelevant to the definition of opportunity cost - If you’d read the wikipedia pages you’d realize that an opportunity cost is called that precisely because it is a second-best opportunity: one not taken.)
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
In order to compare transportation benefits, we need at least TWO trips. My trip to the restaurant is only one - I chose the further restaurant over the nearer, but in the end I only went to one restaurant.
Still utterly confused. You just admitted that travelling to the further restaurant provides you with more benefit than travelling to the closer restaurant. The benefit depends on the distance of travel. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of the transportation benefit?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Still utterly confused. You just admitted that travelling to the further restaurant provides you with more benefit than travelling to the closer restaurant. The benefit depends on the distance of travel. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of the transportation benefit?
I went to a restaurant 10 miles away. I got X units of benefit.
Lets call the units “trips”. Then X=1. I got 1 trip worth of benefit from my 1 trip to the restaurant.
How are trips NOT a measure of my transportation benefit?
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I’m providing all of the above in good faith effort to move the conversation forward…
Well that there is where your problem is!
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
You just admitted that travelling to the further restaurant provides you with more benefit than travelling to the closer restaurant.
He just admitted that being at the further restaurant provides more benefit. Travel has nothing to do with gross benefit.
Mixner’s update on Descartes: I travel, therefore I am.
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Would you care to elaborate on what information is missing?
How do the Steves and Jacks avoid starving to death? Where did the houses come from? The transportation system? The workplaces? What do the Steves and Jacks do at work? Where does the money to pay them come from?
Everyone works the same hours by preference.
More contradiction. Everyone has “identical preferences,” but Jacks have an incentive to work more hours than Steves. Therefore, Jacks would choose to work more hours than Steves. But that contradicts your statement that everyone works the same hours. So the work hours must be imposed.
There’s always a an opportunity cost.
There is no opportunity to work more hours.
If you like, you may also imagine that many Jacks and Steves do arrange their lives in a way that involves working an hour or two more or less each day.
It’s not a matter of what I “like,” it’s a matter of the absurdity and incoherence of your Jack and Steve fantasy world. Does everyone work the same number of hours or don’t they? You previously claimed they do. Now you’re saying maybe they don’t. Make up your mind.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I went to a restaurant 10 miles away. …
But you could have gone to a different restaurant 5 miles away. You said: “When I drive 10 miles to go to a restaurant rather than go to the one 5 miles away, it only tells us I prefer the further restaurant.” You admit you get more benefit from traveling to the further restaurant. The transportation benefit depends on the length of the trip. So how is “trips” a meaningful measure of transportation benefit?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Another point that I have honestly just thought of, and must be at least the third or fourth way in which Mixner is wrong here:
I may have chosen the further restaurant not because it was superior but because it was in fact inferior. Inferior, but less expensive. And while I could afford the negligible cost of a little extra fuel and time to reach the cheaper restaurant, I could not have afforded the closer restaurant.
My trip to the further restaurant got me less benefit than a trip to the closer one would have, had I been able to afford it.
If I were to get a raise, I would start taking shorter trips, that had more benefit.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
How do the Steves and Jacks avoid starving to death? Where did the houses come from? The transportation system? The workplaces? What do the Steves and Jacks do at work? Where does the money to pay them come from?
Jack,
He. Just. Doesn’t. Get. It.
He really is that stupid.
You are trying to teach algebra to a cow.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
How do the Steves and Jacks avoid starving to death? Where did the houses come from? The transportation system? The workplaces? What do the Steves and Jacks do at work? Where does the money to pay them come from?
Certainly these details are missing. I also did not provide a detailed description of the various species of insects that populate the country.
If you have any reason to believe that any of these details affect the conclusions of the model, please explain how.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
More contradiction. Everyone has “identical preferences,” but Jacks have an incentive to work more hours than Steves. Therefore, Jacks would choose to work more hours than Steves. But that contradicts your statement that everyone works the same hours. So the work hours must be imposed.
That’s not necessarily true. After all, Jacks also have nicer homes to spend their time in, so they also have greater incentive to stay home.
However, if it makes you feel better, let’s relax that assumption and assume the work hours vary sometimes.
It does not change the conclusion.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
In fact, another way you could view it is that Jacks have larger opportunity costs because they could be spending time in their (larger) houses.
You’re moving the goalposts again. You said: “the only thing that gives either Jack or Steve satisfaction is the size of their home.” The size of their home does not depend on how much time they spend in it vs. traveling. If they get satisfaction from spending time in their home, how are you calculating the amount of satisfaction they get?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
It’s not a matter of what I “like,” it’s a matter of the absurdity and incoherence of your Jack and Steve fantasy world. Does everyone work the same number of hours or don’t they? You previously claimed they do. Now you’re saying maybe they don’t. Make up your mind.
I didn’t say “maybe they don’t”. I said that it does not affect the outcome of the model either way.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You’re moving the goalposts again. You said: “the only thing that gives either Jack or Steve satisfaction is the size of their home.” The size of their home does not depend on how much time they spend in it vs. traveling. If they get satisfaction from spending time in their home, how are you calculating the amount of satisfaction they get?
The detail of whether people ACTUALLY work 8 hours a day, or only 8 hours a day plus or minus a couple is utterly irrelevant to the model’s conclusion.
HOWEVER, it is true that if we relax this assumption, for the sake of argument, then yes, we need to specify (the obvious fact) that people do get more satisfaction when they are at home then when they are traveling or working, and that this satisfaction may further be multiplied by the “size” of their “house” (i.e., the quality of the bundle of goods they purchase with their income).
Happy?
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I may have chosen the further restaurant not because it was superior but because it was in fact inferior. Inferior, but less expensive. And while I could afford the negligible cost of a little extra fuel and time to reach the cheaper restaurant, I could not have afforded the closer restaurant.
But you said you chose the further restaurant because you prefer it, not because you couldn’t afford the closer one. You obviously do have choices between closer restaurants you can afford and further restaurants you can afford. Since travelling to the further restaurants must provide more benefit than travelling to the closer ones to offset the additional cost of travelling further, you cannot measure the transportation benefit by “trips.” It’s meaningless.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Certainly these details are missing.
Well, fill them in.
If you have any reason to believe that any of these details affect the conclusions of the model,
They’re obviously relevant to the economy of your fantasy world, and thus to your other claims.
That’s not necessarily true. After all, Jacks also have nicer homes to spend their time in, so they also have greater incentive to stay home.
No they don’t. You said they only get satisfaction from the size of their house, not from spending time in it.
However, if it makes you feel better, let’s relax that assumption and assume the work hours vary sometimes. It does not change the conclusion.
Of course it does. The distance from work and size of their housing depends on their income, which depends on how much they work. And what causes the work hours to “sometimes” vary, if they all have “identifical preferences?”
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I didn’t say “maybe they don’t”.
Yes you did. You said: “If you like, you may also imagine that many Jacks and Steves do arrange their lives in a way that involves working an hour or two more or less each day.”
I said that it does not affect the outcome of the model either way.
Of course it affects the “outcome” of the “model.”
The detail of whether people ACTUALLY work 8 hours a day, or only 8 hours a day plus or minus a couple is utterly irrelevant to the model’s conclusion.
No it isn’t. It obviously affects the distribution of income and thus housing. You haven’t described a remotely plausible working economy yet. That’s why your whole fantasy world is so utterly irrelevant to the issue of transportation in the real world.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“He is defiant, challenging, stubborn, argumentative, manipulative, pedantic, difficult, aggressive, contrary, oppositional, violent, demanding and inflexible and is extremely adept at attention seeking ploys. He also likes to be the centre of attention and will do anything to gain it whether negative or positive. He uses disruptive behaviour to achieve his objectives.”
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
HOWEVER, it is true that if we relax this assumption, for the sake of argument, then yes, we need to specify (the obvious fact) that people do get more satisfaction when they are at home then when they are traveling or working,
Ha ha ha ha! How is it an “obvious fact” that your Jacks and Steves get satisfaction from spending time at home, when that directly contradicts your description of them, and considering that they are so utterly different from real human beings that they have no interests in life except the size of their houses, and apparently don’t even need to eat?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
“My name is pseudonymous in nc, and I live in a permanent state of uncontrollable rage.”
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
They’re obviously relevant to the economy of your fantasy world, and thus to your other claims.
It’s not obvious to me. Lay out your argument.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I didn’t say “maybe they don’t”.
Yes you did. You said: “If you like, you may also imagine that many Jacks and Steves do arrange their lives in a way that involves working an hour or two more or less each day.”
I think that may be fairly described as saying “it doesn’t matter to me, it’s up to you”. I then added that it did not matter to the model. No maybe about it.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Since travelling to the further restaurants must provide more benefit than travelling to the closer ones to offset the additional cost of travelling further, you cannot measure the transportation benefit by “trips.”
Dude, you’re contradicting yourself in a single sentence by referring to travel as both a cost and a benefit. I’ve highlighted the relevant parts for you. Please come to an agreement with yourself on this point.
The correct answer, of course, is that travel, as a cost, subtracts from benefit, and at least part of you seems to agree with this.
Furthermore, as you’ve already pointed out to yourself, benefit averages out over multiple trips. By virtue of the definition of “average”, differences in net benefit between any particular instances of travel may vary, even given identical travel costs. But while the definition of “average” giveth, it also taketh away: in general, more travel results is less benefit.
Moo!
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Er, that would be “…in general, more travel results in less benefit.”
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
No it isn’t. It obviously affects the distribution of income and thus housing.
How so, exactly?
If the time worked per day varies by even as much as 2 hours, than the most Steves could earn is still only $25,000. The least that Jacks would earn would be $37,500. And as you argued, it’s more likely that the greater incentives would cause Jacks to work MORE and Steves LESS, not the other way around.
But even that is irrelevant, because any variation in hours worked would come about as individuals balanced their income (and the goods it buys) against utility from leisure. Because of their massively greater earning power, the Jacks will always be on a higher indifference curve than the Steves - that is, they will always enjoy far greater overall utility.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
(DMonteith- to be fair, the sentence you highlighted there actually does more or less make sense. The idea is that the additional cost I am observed to incur traveling reveals that the second restaurant must provide at least that much additional benefit.
Where he goes off the rails is in trying to extend this principle to multiple individuals with different incomes, preferences, and choices.)
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
It’s not obvious to me. Lay out your argument.
If the Jacks and Steves die of starvation, they can’t work or buy houses. If the homebuilders compete with the Jacks for their own housing, the housing distribution will be different. If the Steves’ employer goes out of business, the Steves will lose their income. And so on. Answer the questions. I have lots more, too.
I think that may be fairly described as saying “it doesn’t matter to me, it’s up to you”.
No, it may fairly be described as saying “the work hours may vary.” Which contradicts your original description of your fantasy world.
I then added that it did not matter to the model. No maybe about it.
Of course it matters to the “model.” Work hours affect income and income affects the housing market. In fact, how the hell is the housing market even supposed to work in your fantasy world, anyway? Since everyone has “identical preferences” everyone will want exactly the same house. Who gets it? Who gets the next one? What’s the distribution of house sizes? How does housing demand from the homebuilders and transportation workers affect the market? What are their incomes? What are their preferences?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Dude, you’re contradicting yourself in a single sentence by referring to travel as both a cost and a benefit.
Dude, you are seriously confused. I didn’t refer to travel as both a cost and a benefit. I referred to the cost of travel, and the benefit provided by travel. Dude, you need to read more carefully. Dude.
Moo.
Ruff! Ruff!
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Where he goes off the rails is in trying to extend this principle to multiple individuals with different incomes, preferences, and choices
Nonsense. It costs Warren Buffett more to travel further just as it costs you more to travel further. It costs someone who likes Indian food more to travel further, just as it costs someone who likes Mexican food more to travel further. The cost of travel is simply an economic fact.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
If the Jacks and Steves die of starvation, they can’t work or buy houses.
Food (along with all other goods) is part of the bundle represented by the “house”.
If the homebuilders compete with the Jacks for their own housing, the housing distribution will be different.
Since “homes” represent goods of all kinds, and Jacks and Steves are the only people producing anything (indeed, the only people), the “homebuilders” are obviously Jacks and Steves as well.
If the Steves’ employer goes out of business, the Steves will lose their income.
If two fifths of the economy collapses, indeed there would be trouble.
A dinosaur attack would also spell disaster.
And so on. Answer the questions. I have lots more, too.
Lovely. Hopefully some of them will have something to do with the argument?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Nonsense. It costs Warren Buffett more to travel further just as it costs you more to travel further. It costs someone who likes Indian food more to travel further, just as it costs someone who likes Mexican food more to travel further. The cost of travel is simply an economic fact.
It costs Warren Buffet more to travel further than Warren Buffet.
However, it costs me FAR LESS to travel than Warren Buffet.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
How so, exactly? If the time worked per day varies by even as much as 2 hours, than the most Steves could earn is still only $25,000. The least that Jacks would earn would be $37,500.
You just answered your own question. It would affect income distribution and thus housing distribution. And your 2 hours number is purely arbitrary. What if it’s 6? Show us how the income and housing distribution would change under different variations in work hours. This is in addition to the other issues with your housing market that I described above. Explain to us how all this works out in the distribution of housing.
But even that is irrelevant, because any variation in hours worked would come about as individuals balanced their income (and the goods it buys) against utility from leisure.
There is no “utility from leisure.” You said the only source of “satisfaction” is housing size. You keep contradicting your earlier statements.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
If two fifths of the economy collapses
Two sevenths, rather.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
You just answered your own question. It would affect income distribution and thus housing distribution. And your 2 hours number is purely arbitrary. What if it’s 6? Show us how the income and housing distribution would change under different variations in work hours. This is in addition to the other issues with your housing market that I described above. Explain to us how all this works out in the distribution of housing.
It would affect the income distribution and housing distribution, but NOT the indifference curve upon which all of the Jacks sit. That remains exactly the same whether they choose to buy utility by buying larger houses, closer houses, or working less. Even 7 hours less. (Which, really, is absurd - you wanted to make the economy superficially more realistic, fine, but how is that accomplished by making people work an average of either 1 or 15 hours a day?)
The Jacks always have more utility because they have more earning power. Period.
There is no “utility from leisure.” You said the only source of “satisfaction” is housing size. You keep contradicting your earlier statements.
Try to keep up.
We agreed to superficially modify the model so that people might work more or fewer hours, remember?
It didn’t matter before, but now that they can have more or less leisure time, we recognize that real people clearly value leisure time, and so do Steves and Jacks.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 am
Food (along with all other goods) is part of the bundle represented by the “house”.
But it’s not a “bundle.” Where does the food come from? How do the Jacks and Steves get their food? Are there food stores? How are they distributed among the houses? How do food stores affect the price of real estate? Where do the people who work in the food stores live? Where do the people who deliver the food to the food stores live? How does all this affect the housing market? How much time and money do the Steves and Jacks spend traveling to the food stores? How much of their incomes do they spend on food?
Since “homes” represent goods of all kinds, and Jacks and Steves are the only people producing anything (indeed, the only people), the “homebuilders” are obviously Jacks and Steves as well.
Huh? How does that work? Does each Jack and Steve build his own house? Who builds which house for who? Where do the future occupants of each house live while their house is being built?
If two fifths of the economy collapses, indeed there would be trouble.
Well, yes. Hence my questions about the nature of their employment, and other aspects of your fantasy world’s economy. Please answer them.
You seem to be determined to miss the point of all this: Your fantasy world is so simplistic and incoherent it doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about transportation in the real world.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 am
It costs Warren Buffet more to travel further than Warren Buffet.
No, it costs him more to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.
However, it costs me FAR LESS to travel than Warren Buffet.
No, you spend less. So what?
You said you chose the further restaurant because you prefer it, not because you couldn’t afford the closer one. You obviously do have choices between closer restaurants you can afford and further restaurants you can afford. Since travelling to the further restaurants must provide more benefit than travelling to the closer ones to offset the additional cost of travelling further, you cannot measure the transportation benefit by “trips.” It’s meaningless.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
Mixner, if we divide the people real world into a top half (who have wages above median) and a bottom half (below median wages), and call those halves “Jacks” and “Steves”, replace “houses” with the phrase “housing and goods”, and “employment center” with the phrase “weighted geographic center of all the things people want to be close to (job, entertainment, other people, etc.)”, and replace $1/mile with a reasonable figure for the price of a car, gas, and the roads to drive it on, we DO have the real world.
The simplifying assumptions are only there to make the model easier to work with and conceptualize. They are carefully chosen so as to NOT affect the overall conclusion.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
We agreed to superficially modify the model so that people might work more or fewer hours, remember?
We didn’t “agree” to any such thing, and it’s irrelevant to the point here, anyway. You said the only source of “satisfaction” is housing size. If you’re moving that goalpost, please list all other sources of satisfaction for Steves and Jacks, and the benefit of each of them.
The Jacks always have more utility because they have more earning power. Period.
But you now tell us they’re spending their money on a “bundle” of things of which housing is only one. So how much of their income do they actually spend on housing? How does their spending on those other things influence where they live, and how much time and money they spend on traveling? You seem to seriously believe that your ridiculous fantasy world is telling us something useful. Show us how it tells us something useful.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
Mixner, if we divide the people real world into a top half (who have wages above median) and a bottom half (below median wages), and call those halves “Jacks” and “Steves”, replace “houses” with the phrase “housing and goods”, and “employment center” with the phrase “weighted geographic center of all the things people want to be close to (job, entertainment, other people, etc.)”, and replace $1/mile with a reasonable figure for the price of a car, gas, and the roads to drive it on, we DO have the real world.
More nonsense. In real world, people do not have “identifical preferences.” In the real world, people get satisfaction from many more things than the size of their house. In the real world, wages are not the only source of income. In the real world, housing choices and commuting distances are influenced by a multitude of factors. Your fantasy world is utterly meaningless. If you seriously believe you can create a “model” of the real world in which the average benefit of travel does not increase with the distance traveled, then do so.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
jack,
The idea is that the additional cost I am observed to incur traveling reveals that the second restaurant must provide at least that much additional benefit.
This makes sense but I’m not convinced that that’s what Mooxner’s saying. Your statement of what you think he might be saying is much clearer than most of what he’s said along these lines. For example:
“If travelling longer distances allows you to reach more desirable destinations than travelling shorter distances, then that is a benefit of travelling longer distances.”
Since the cost is proportional to the distance travelled, so is the benefit.
This kind of context really does imply cost/benefit or travel/destination confusion that makes me doubt that this:
Since travelling to the further restaurants must provide more benefit than travelling to the closer ones to offset the additional cost of travelling further, you cannot measure the transportation benefit by “trips.”
was intended to make as much sense as you read into it. Besides, in the spirit of Mooxner’s ticky-tack BS, what he actually said was “…travelling to the further restaurants must provide more benefit…”, not “…traveling [more] reveals that the second restaurant must provide at least that much additional benefit.” If he’s not confused, he certainly welcome to clearly demonstrate that fact.
Of course, even if your reading is correct, Mooxner is still wrong.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 am
But you now tell us they’re spending their money on a “bundle” of things of which housing is only one. So how much of their income do they actually spend on housing? How does their spending on those other things influence where they live, and how much time and money they spend on traveling?
The “goalpost” is where it always was: you have to prove your assertion that there is a correlation between length of trip and absolute utility.
But you now tell us they’re spending their money on a “bundle” of things of which housing is only one. So how much of their income do they actually spend on housing? How does their spending on those other things influence where they live, and how much time and money they spend on traveling? You seem to seriously believe that your ridiculous fantasy world is telling us something useful. Show us how it tells us something useful.
They were always spending money on a bundle of things, remember? We called it a “house”.
The exact proportion of their (potential) income they divide between the house and other things isn’t important, though. What is important is that:
1) Jacks have greater earning power, thus higher overall utility, and therefore trips they take will have higher utility than trips Steves take.
and
2) Both Steves and Jacks prefer shorter trips, but Jacks have a greater ability to pay for them (by, for example, living closer to work).
If both of those conditions hold, the regression line will always point downward.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 am
It costs Warren Buffet more to travel further than Warren Buffet.
No, it costs him more to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.
However, it costs me FAR LESS to travel than Warren Buffet.
No, you spend less. So what?
No, it really COSTS me less.
Look, if Warren Buffet goes to a restaurant 10 miles away rather than 5 miles away, he values that one more than the closer one. Same as anyone.
However, HOW MUCH he values it is very different, because, just like the Jacks vs the Steves, Warren Buffet has tremendously higher opportunity costs.
I’m making this number up, of course, but let’s say Warren Buffet, when he’s actively working, can earn himself $10,000 a minute. (The real number obviously isn’t important - the point is it is orders of magnitude higher than my own meager earning power).
I earn more like $0.25/min.
So, let’s assume we are both standing on the same corner in New York. Let’s say Warren mentions that he’s hungry, and that there are a couple restaurants nearby. It takes about 2 minutes to walk one block. The first restaurant is 5 blocks away, the second restaurant is 10 blocks away.
It costs Warren Buffet $100,000 to get to the near restaurant, and $200,000 to get to the far restaurant.
It costs me $2.50 and $5.
Now, this isn’t actually such a big deal for him - it’s not like he necessarily has to agonize over how much every minute is costing him - because he also has tremendously higher income.
However, it does affect the utility he gets from the trip to the restaurant relative to mine, as well as how far is “far” for Warren Buffet.
After all, if he went to the first restaurant, the experience must be worth at least $100,000 to him. And to entice him to walk to the second one, it must be at least $100,000 BETTER.
For me, it’s only got to be worth about $2.50.
So, is it?
Well, it easily could be for me, and not for Warren. Then we have to enter two points on the big scatterplot that you, Mixner are trying to fit an upward sloping line through: One for me at X=10 blocks and Y=$5, and one for Warren at X=5 blocks and Y=$100,000.
Do you still think your “rule” always holds?
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 am
Mooxner:
But you now tell us they’re spending their money on a “bundle” of things of which housing is only one.
From Wikipedia:
In cognitive linguistics, metonymy refers to the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity and is one of the basic characteristics of cognition. It is common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use that aspect to stand either for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it.
Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 am
If you seriously believe you can create a “model” of the real world in which the average benefit of travel does not increase with the distance traveled, then do so.
Jack, this sentence makes perfect sense if you replace the word “benefit” with “cost”.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
The “goalpost” is where it always was:
Nonresponsive. Answer the questions: How much of their income do they actually spend on housing? How does their spending on those other things influence where they live, and how much time and money they spend on traveling? You seem to seriously believe that your ridiculous fantasy world is telling us something useful. Show us how it tells us something useful.
They were always spending money on a bundle of things, remember? We called it a “house”.
No, you pretended it was a house. It’s not a house.
The exact proportion of their (potential) income they divide between the house and other things isn’t important, though.
Of course it’s important. It influences the size of their house, and thus, under your premises, the length of their commute, among other things.
1) Jacks have greater earning power, thus higher overall utility, and therefore trips they take will have higher utility than trips Steves take. 2) Both Steves and Jacks prefer shorter trips, but Jacks have a greater ability to pay for them (by, for example, living closer to work). If both of those conditions hold, the regression line will always point downward.
Neither condition holds, and the slope of the regression line would not be predictable even if they did. The issue is the relationship between trip length and trip benefit, not the “overall utility” of a trip, so your first “condition” is irrelevant. And a “preference for shorter trips” doesn’t tell us anything about the relationship between trip length and trip benefit either, so your second condition is also irrelevant.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 am
If you seriously believe you can create a “model” of the real world in which the average benefit of travel does not increase with the distance traveled, then do so.
Jack, this sentence makes perfect sense if you replace the word “benefit” with “cost”.
Oh, he’s confused as heck no question. And you’re exactly right, it’s trivially true with that replacement. But I think he really does think he means benefit.
He thinks you can extend that (true) thing explained before, about the fact that someone travels to a further place indicating they value that place over a closer one, into a general “law of averages”: that out of all the trips, taken by everyone, the longer ones are the more valuable ones.
To him, I think they are somehow the same statement. It’s just “obvious”.
He’s not quite comprehending why it’s important to remember that everyone has different travel cost functions, and different utility functions, and in particular, that people with higher earning power have generally bigger utilities AND travel costs, and that this will bias the whole scatterplot downwards.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
Hey,
Notice that Mooxner has dropped the DMonteith=jack lecou idiocy? Progress!
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 am
He’s not quite comprehending why it’s important to remember that everyone has different travel cost functions, and different utility functions, and in particular, that people with higher earning power have generally bigger utilities AND travel costs, and that this will bias the whole scatterplot downwards.
Yep. WAY too much algebra.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 am
No, it really COSTS me less.
No, you SPEND less.
Look, if Warren Buffet goes to a restaurant 10 miles away rather than 5 miles away, he values that one more than the closer one. Same as anyone. However, HOW MUCH he values it is very different, because, just like the Jacks vs the Steves, Warren Buffet has tremendously higher opportunity costs.
How many more dozens of times do we have to go over this? On average, longer trips cost more than shorter trips and must therefore provide a greater benefit to offset that greater cost. It is irrelevant to this fact that a particular trip provides more benefit to one particular person than to another particular person. Just as the fact that a particular woman is taller than a particular man is irrelevant to the fact that on average men are taller than women.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:45 am
No, you pretended it was a house. It’s not a house.
It’s not called “pretend”, it’s what people call a “symbol”, or if you’re fancy like DMonteith, “metonymy”. It’s a really important tool to help conceptualize the world around us and how it works.
See, if you try to keep all the details about everything (”how do people eat?”) in your head all at once, you won’t be able to figure out the parts that are important. It’s just a jumble.
It’s important to learn how to group related sections of that jumble into easier to handle objects, so you can see just what’s really important, and then see how those higher level objects interact with each other.
———————-
Anyway, this is enough trying to be patient today.
Mixner, I think that, if you are really not a parody, you must be a high-functioning young adult or adult with some kind of neurological disorder.
Please, if you have not already seen doctors about it, you should. It’s noticeable, and they might be able to help.
If you have, and this is your way of coping with it, or working it out, I wish you all the best.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
He’s not quite comprehending why it’s important to remember that everyone has different travel cost functions, and different utility functions,
You’re not quite comprehending that you haven’t produced any evidence that “different travel cost functions and different utility functions” are relevant at all, let alone “important.”
Yet another rendition of “Specific trip X may provide more benefit than specific trip Y even though X is shorter” will not serve to demonstrate the relevance of these “functions.”
and in particular, that people with higher earning power have generally bigger utilities AND travel costs, and that this will bias the whole scatterplot downwards.
People with higher earning power have higher travel costs largely because they travel further and get more benefit from travel, so your observation above is also utterly irrelevant.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 am
Hey, metonymy isn’t “fancy”, it’s one of the basic characteristics of cognition.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 am
Oooo! (or should that be “Mooo!”?) We’re so close!
On average, longer trips cost more than shorter trips and must therefore provide a greater benefit to offset that greater cost. It is irrelevant to this fact that a particular trip provides more benefit to one particular person than to another particular person. Just as the fact that a particular woman is taller than a particular man is irrelevant to the fact that on average men are taller than women…
… and because benefits average out in the aggregate in just the same way that heights do, the important variable in determining averagenet benefit is transportation cost!
Woohoo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:06 am
It’s not called “pretend”, it’s what people call a “symbol”,
No, it really is called “pretend.” You treated all the other goods and services as if they were part of a house. They’re not part of a house, and their influence on travel behavior would not be the same as the influence of a house. This is but one of the numerous absurdities in your “model.” Not “simplifications.” Absurdities.
Mixner, I think that, if you are really not a parody, you must be a high-functioning young adult or adult with some kind of neurological disorder.
DMonteith, I think you have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Whether it’s actually a clinical condition or not, you are clearly obsessed with me.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 am
Notice that Mooxner has dropped the DMonteith=jack lecou idiocy? Progress!
…
DMonteith, I think you have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Whether it’s actually a clinical condition or not, you are clearly obsessed with me.
Sigh.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
Oh, he’s confused as heck no question. And you’re exactly right, it’s trivially true with that replacement.
Hilarious. Since the quoted sentence, with or without the suggested “replacement,” wasn’t a proposition at all, it cannot be either true or false. You’re not merely confused, “jack,” you are hopelessly confused. Even really straightforward English sentences seem to confuse the heck out of you.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 am
DMonteith,
In the strange world you have invented for yourself, there is an inverse correlation between costs and benefits not just for transportation but for all other goods and services people consume too, right? Houses, furniture, TVs, cars, vacations, health care, phone service, whatever. You seriously believe that, on average, the more people spend on these goods and services, the less benefit they get, right?
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 am
Hilarious. Since the quoted sentence, with or without the suggested “replacement,” wasn’t a proposition at all, it cannot be either true or false.
The proposition isimplicit in your use of “model” rather than model.
You’re right that what follows the word “hilarious” in the quote above is, indeed, hilarious.
Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
In the strange world you have invented for yourself, there is an inverse correlation between costs and benefits not just for transportation but for all other goods and services people consume too, right? Houses, furniture, TVs, cars, vacations, health care, phone service, whatever. You seriously believe that, on average, the more people spend on these goods and services, the less benefit they get, right?
(Since this is actually not a bad question, I’ll go ahead and answer it, in the hopes it’ll help you figure this puzzle out.)
No, of course not. Most of these goods (houses, furniture, cars, phone service, etc.) are goods for which you hand over money only and receive your item. People obviously receive at least as much “utility” as the money they pay for the item.
The other sort of analysis only really comes into play when there is a significant time cost to the consumption.
For example, watching television.
You could truthfully say that the benefit from a single “tv watching session” must increase with the its duration. If I sit and watch tv for 2 hours, it must be because I got more benefit than if I had switched it off after 1 hour.
That’s fine.
Where one would get into trouble is if one made the claim that “the benefit of tv watching sessions is correlated with their length”.
It’d be the same problem as with travel: Now we have millions of tv watching sessions. Some long, some short. Some conducted by relatively wealthy people, some by relatively poor people.
The thing is, it is people whose time is of little value, and who will therefore also be receiving the least benefit for an hour of TV, who are going to be the ones who watch it for many hours on end - some hours of which they do not even find useful or enjoyable, and during all of which time they are not displacing any very valuable alternative activity.
People whose time is of relatively greater value, on the other hand, will watch only as much as they need to watch, no more. And only when watching tv will be of very great great benefit - greater than the other very valuable ways they could spend that time.
So, as with transportation trips, when we plot all “tv watching sessions”, with duration on the X-axis, and benefit on the Y, we will tend to have two clusters: one more in the upper left, one more in the lower right.
Which implies that the correlation between benefit and the length of a tv session is actually (at least somewhat) NEGATIVE.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:02 am
In the strange world you have invented for yourself, there is an inverse correlation between costs and benefits not just for transportation but for all other goods and services people consume too, right?
What scale are you referring to? At the individual level, obviously not.
At the macro level? Here’s a useful quote:
Along these lines, try this:
If 2 societies each have a fleet of 100 cars and society A replaces theirs at a rate of 50 cars per year and society B produces only 10, you could conclude that society A is much more productive than society B or you could conclude that society A’s car fleet costs 5 times as much to maintain. If I were a car company I’d want to live in society A. If I had a prudent concern for the long term welfare of society, I’d want to live in society B. All other things equal, of course.
Oh shit. I’ve gone and done it: ceteris paribus, absurd simplifications, “meanings” of “words”, actual study of the subject, etc.
Whatever.
Moo.
ps-lots of other people live in this place too.
pps-I had a bunch of snarky and not-so-snarky links in this post, but it got flagged for moderation. The money link is here.
November 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 am
What, no response to #409? There are two possibilities:
1.Its parsimony has hopelessly confused poor Mooxner, revealing him to be flummoxed by even really straightforward English sentences.
2.Mooxner concedes the point.
Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 am
He thinks you can extend that (true) thing explained before, about the fact that someone travels to a further place indicating they value that place over a closer one, into a general “law of averages”…
Along these lines, and in the spirit of asking a cow to explain the significance of y=mx+b:
How is it, Mooxner, that a geneticist can make predictions about the behavior of genes without referencing (or even having any knowledge whatsoever about) the behavior of quarks? After all, genetic material is just a collection of quarks so an understanding of quarks should tell us a lot about the behavior of genes, right?
Hint: scale matters.
See also: Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Well, either Mooxner turns into a pumpkin whenever a thread he’s involved in reaches 409 posts or he’s discovered a heretofore undisplayed sense of shame that he’s failed to recognize the obvious truth of the following:
Propositions can be either explicit or implicit.
Cost and benefit are different things (sorry, jack, still not with you on this one).
Metonymy has been a valid form of communication and argument for millenia.
Consumption of assets reduces welfare (see cost/benefit above).
Given what we know about Mooxner, my money’s on the pumpkin.
Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
DMonteith,
No, of course not. Most of these goods (houses, furniture, cars, phone service, etc.) are goods for which you hand over money only and receive your item. People obviously receive at least as much “utility” as the money they pay for the item.
Nonsense. One person may get more “utility” than another from any product or service, not just transportation. People who really like television will get more “utility” from a TV than people who don’t. Sick people will get more “utility” from health care than healthy people. People with a lot of friends will get more “utility” from a phone than people with only a few.
Your absurd claim is that, because a given product or service provides different amounts of “utility” to different individuals, the aggregate benefit provided by that good or service does not increase with aggregate consumption and cost. Your claim is utterly idiotic whether applied to transportation or any other product.
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
DMonteith,
Anyone who reads your posts soon learns that instead of writing “X costs more than Y” you will write something like “X has greater relative disutility than Y.” When you want to say “All else being equal” you will instead write “ceteris paribus.” And when you don’t have a clue what to say, you’ll write something like “different utility functions.”
What you don’t seem to realize is that this kind of pompous verbiage is a sure sign of a bullshit artist; a pseudo-intellectual gasbag who is painfully aware of his lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills, and who tries to cover for their absence with a barrage of faux erudition. You’re as transparent as glass, D, you monumental poseur.
November 23rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I see my cyberstalker DMonteith stayed up all night to feed his obsession with me, reflexively looking for new Mixner posts and entering a new one of his own every hour throughout the night.
Get help, D. Seriously. Get help now.
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I see my cyberstalker DMonteith stayed up all night to feed his obsession with me, reflexively looking for new Mixner posts and entering a new one of his own every hour throughout the night.
Non-responsive. If you’re refusing to answer because there are insomniacs on the intertubes, you should never have started posting in the first place.
Care to address anything related to 409, 412, or 414?
Moo!
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
What you don’t seem to realize is that this kind of pompous verbiage is a sure sign of a bullshit artist; a pseudo-intellectual gasbag who is painfully aware of his lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills, and who tries to cover for their absence with a barrage of faux erudition. You’re as transparent as glass, D, you monumental poseur.
Oh, snap! I used big words I must be wrong!
November 23rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Your absurd claim is that, because a given product or service provides different amounts of “utility” to different individuals, the aggregate benefit provided by that good or service does not increase with aggregate consumption and cost. Your claim is utterly idiotic whether applied to transportation or any other product.
Your error obviously still isn’t clear to you. Let’s try this one, which has nothing to do with cost at all:
We could make a statement that the heavier a person gets, the fatter they are. (Where “fatness” is defined in terms of body mass index.)
So that’s absolutely true: If I gain 10 pounds, my BMI goes up. No problem. If you lose 10 pounds, your BMI goes down.
One would get into some trouble, however, if one were to say that “heavier people are, on average, fatter”.
“But, but,” you protest, “that’s just the same as the first statement! The heavier I get, the fatter I get!”
Not so. Because now we are looking at the entire population at once. Some people are taller, some people are shorter, and this directly affects how their own BMI will relate to their weight.
It is still true that if we look at any one individual, that person’s BMI will go up as they gain weight - because they have the same height.
However, when we look at the entire population, we have short, skinny people, tall fat people, and also short fat people and tall skinny people.
In this case, I think we should probably say there isn’t necessarily any correlation between weight and BMI. Or, when there happens to be one, Sometimes it might go one way, sometimes another - but we’d actually have to measure, there’s no rule.
Although, thinking about it, there actually might be. For example, extremely short people tend to be dwarfish - with a relatively high BMIs. And tall people might tend to be gangly - with a low BMI. So in fact, the results might tend to be biased toward a negative correlation between weight and BMI.
Still, I wouldn’t say that’s a rule. There isn’t one either way. You’d have to actually measure and do a regression. Absent that, your best guess of a person’s fatness would simply be population average BMI, not to scale it based on weight.
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
jack,
A plausible preview of Mooxner’s reply:
“People like McDonald’s, therefore they want to be fat.”
“Fat is not a measure of benefit, therefore your “model” is preposterously unrealistic.”
“Incomprehensible.” (I’m always reminded of “Inconceivable!” from “A Princess Bride” when he says this.)
“Tall people play more basketball and you’ve failed to account for that. This failure obviously undermines the validity of the analogy.”
“Since, as you concede, there’s no correlation between weight and BMI, the correlation between benefit and miles traveled cannot possibly be negative.”
“I don’t like you, so you are wrong.”
“All this talk about fat is just a lie that you made up!”
“Hey! Look at that over there!”
“Moo!” (OK, this one’s maybe not so plausible…but one can hope!)
November 24th, 2008 at 12:52 am
“Incomprehensible.” (I’m always reminded of “Inconceivable!” from “A Princess Bride” when he says this.)
I have imagined exactly the same image many times!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:19 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
Incredible site!