|
|
|
|
|
|
by emp_zealoth
3934 days ago
|
|
|
Thats exactly analogous - both oversized parking lot and burning down forests for few years worth of farming are profitable, yet highly undesirable. If you'd stuff european cities with low density parking lots it would make car owners life not FUCKING SUCK
At the cost of ruining the "ecosystem" - everything is spaced out by parking lots, so more and more people are using cars in turn needing more parking lots, hardly desirable outcome for a city, which would be better served by good public transport, which would be made less desirable if everything was distanced by parking lots A simple metastable suboptimal state example is extreme income inequality - it took years to get out of another metastable state - more sensible income distribution. Now, it would take a lot of effort/change/work/whatever to switch the states. |
|
|
I specifically talked about an oversized parking lot getting reduced due to it not being a good investment, so no, not exactly analogous.
The point is that the allocation of anything that's privately owned and used in/for some sort of production will get adjusted as necessary, purely out of its owner's self-interest.
But for starters, burning down a forest would not be a productive endeavour, and as such, not in its owner's interest. Already we can see you're not quite clear on what the problem is.
On the other hand, cutting down a forest to make room for a farm might well be a good idea, but probably not for only "a few years worth of farming".
Why would someone operate a farm for only a few years when it could produce him wealth indefinitely? Again, it's not clear what problem you're seeing here.
> everything is spaced out by parking lots, so more and more people are using cars in turn needing more parking lots
Here you're assuming that people will buy more cars if there's more parking space. I can't see how that would be the case.
If people notice that there are more bicycle parking spaces, will they buy more bicycles? If someone brings you an extra coat hanger, will that make you buy a new coat?
I don't see the connection. Can you point out a real problem related to any of this?
> hardly desirable outcome for a city, which would be better served by good public transport
Now you're talking about something that's not determined by market forces, but by government. Public transport is irrelevant to the earlier discussion. If bad decisions are made in that sphere, blame it on the government.
> A simple metastable suboptimal state example is extreme income inequality - it took years to get out of another metastable state - more sensible income distribution
"Metastable" sounds like a term some academic self-proclaimed philosopher might use. That means it's probably nonsense (or pointless).
> Now, it would take a lot of effort/change/work/whatever to switch the states.
I'm not sure what sort of effort you're imagining, but all it would take is for governments to not dictate what currency we're allowed to use.