Here we go....
First, I'm speaking through 36 young but very diverse years of experience, from being raised in the U.K. and Germany with socialized democracy to being an American. I have lived in London, Munich, Barcelona, N.Y.C. (home), San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, upstate NY (other home) - I have had the benefit of experiencing many different cultures...
So you grew up in a monarchy and your heritage is one of deference to the state? Dont think I needed the laborious origin tale to understand this. Your ability to take up space in various places is not a testament to anything. Also, I didn't ask... don't care. A few trendy cities, nice but narrow, most of the planet is not those. I said you seem to be a little too heavily invested in TV over books, because you were parroting a lot of really cliché and contradictory party politics, which is delivered at a 4th grade level, 24/7/365 on the stupid tube.
Socialism is just a fancy word for monarchy. State/king decides whats best, individual rights exist at the whim of the ruling elite. A pretty important humanistic thing happened in the 18th century in regards to that kind of thinking, and its probably mankinds greatest achievement, youd be wise to spend some time learning about it. You've already spent too much on the drunken loser German philosopher, realize that he just stole all that stuff from Catholicism (the champions of European monarchies).
Second, you are very incorrect. The U.S. system may be a Capitalistic "free market" system in theory, however government and the corporate sect have become so intertwined it is ludicrous and naive to believe they are not one and the same. Special interest groups, campaign contributions, lobbyists all impact political elections and policies from the Federal to the State level. Money talks, b.s. walks. If you truly believe government is "evil" and "corrupt" then by proxy you are stating corporations are "evil" and "corrupting". Freedom is an illusion my friend. At one point in American politics and government, one could state the opposite. Yet since the mid 20th century, the game changed.
If you think the government is corrupt, why would you support the tyranny of increased government central planning and giving up hard fought civil liberties? Freedom is inherent pal, control is the illusion, and one that is always costly to maintain and vicious to initiate. You shouldn't give up and cop out like that. Also, did you just write 'the game changed'?
Just get the government out of business and individual rights, its really simple, instead of the knee jerk emotional reaction to every perceived grievance being more government involvement, stop... breathe... think. There are always better solutions, by spending a little more mental effort than running to mommy. You will still have the inherent risks, but by retaining the responsibility, you preserve your rights and power personal conviction. If businesses screw over people, let the courts work it out, thats what they are for. You said you were a liberal, get on board, this is liberalism 101. Cowing to the power elite, thats something entirely different from any kind of liberalism... and very 12th century.
One might site the GM and mass transit scandal (the "
Great American streetcar scandal") as a crucial tipping point. The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many American cities. Between 1936 and 1950... yet we are still paying the price as pollution, traffic congestion and environmental disasters have resulted from this new capitalist approach that bought politicians and votes in order to "pave the way".
Wait, a second there with the earth mother religious condemnations... How do you think electric trains get their power? Go back three spaces, lose one turn.
The railcars could barely keep up with the area population of the LA area in the 1930 of about 2 million, never mind today's 22 million residents (excluding visitor and commercial transportation traffic) and vastly expanded residential/commercial/industrial area. You're missing a lot of history in the development of the LA trolleys, and assuming that the government litigation was warranted and legitimate. What if they were wrong or overly reactionary? Might want to play devil's advocate on this, but that will be hard if you're looking for configuration bias thru some notion of an environmental spiritual crusade.
Pop quiz:
What works better in any kind of stormy weather?
A. Fragile yet complex tangles of wires above a bunch of streets
B. Autonomous, self powered vehicles.
This is what buses replaced, which would be strung over the streets in all those cities you list:
Trolleys... not a winning combo for these really big spread out western states. I've been on tour buses, trains and vans over most of the country, and once you leave the original 13, public transportation is just a fiction for sheltered urbanites. It's a big, big country
Couple this with Frank Lloyd Wrights contributions to fleeing over crowded cities for a new American suburban dream and Levittown, NY, and it was only a matter of time for the automobile industry and real estate and banks working with federal and local governments in pushing a new automotive and oil and gas economy.
Um, oil was pretty useful for providing heat, no corporate conspiracy needed to popularize that. Do you have any idea of what life was like before? Oil didnt need cars to be important, its amazing stuff, kerosene was pretty vital. Frank Lloyd Wright made art, he didnt give most people a reliable way to light and heat their homes at night. That was big oil, baby. Gas replaced oil for obvious reasons (instead of having an oil pipeline to your oven). You probably should study the history of this a bit more, might demystify and remove some of goblins you're seeing.
A better question is that with oil, railroads, steel, banking and then electric 'monopolies' at each other's throats, which resulted in the greatest period of progress for basic human needs, did the government need to step in? Assuming control over those industries and literally freezing their progress while binding people to these now crippled dinosaurs sentenced to stagnate? Monopoly is often the excuse given by government for why they need to take power, I submit that you and many others, too easily accept that without the thinking caps firmly on. The reactionary masses fall time and time again for the fabricated narrative of some evil rich guy, whose greed will prove the ruin of us all. I don't know if you've noticed but as government has seized more power, politicians have lined their pockets. 7 of the 10 richest counties in the US surround Washington DC, and are feed almost exclusively on no industry other than political graft and outdated government bureaucracy. That's a tragedy and a farce. Remember that when some political party clown is talking about the economy and outsourcing, and I guarantee you'll want to vomit in your mouth.
Now imagine how many people might use their Apple products for their livelihood, families, etc. and witness these clueless planners entertain retards over a entirely trivial and worthless decorative, but non functional, illegal for any public use, drinking fountain. Its a joke.
Los Angeles was hit the hardest as it had the best electric mass transit system in the nation, only to be dismantled when GM partnered with oil companies to pave highways, use diesel buses and push the automobile as the new frontier. Frank Lloyd Wrights contributions to American sub-urbanism greatly influenced American topography for decades. In the mid-20th century Wright's belief that automobiles, gas stations, highways and suburban strongholds were the next frontier were laid out in his "Broad Acre City" model. Then Levittown, NY was established after WWII for war vets, followed by "white flight". Many left urban strong holds for the new American Dream, leading to a country of homogeneous denizens separated by class and race in suburban area's. The economical boom of the 1990's saw a reversal of such models, with the X generation pushing gentrification of inner cities. Many wanted to live near work, and enjoy the culture and heterogeneous population coastal cities had to offer. Boston's Back Bay and especially South End (formerly abandoned brownstones and crack houses) became multimillion dollar real estate almost overnight.
You need to get out more if you think America was ever one big, country of homogeneous denizens separated by class and race. You're also completely wrong if you think there was ever a country wide homogeneous suburban America. Yet another example of why I think you watch too much TV. American never looked like Leave it to Beaver or the Brady Bunch, yet that's what your spouting. Maybe I'm wrong and you're just sourcing abysmal books (magazines maybe?), but that's way off. There's a huge variety of suburban, urban and rural communities all across this country, since before it's inception. You're conclusion about gen x and gentrification of the cities, ignores the substantial development and much more significant changes through out this country's non-costal areas. I think you'll find the cities largely unchanged, except for the exteriors, and the real big development outside of those areas. You basically just wrote nice sounding, self affirming poetry for city types, but it's total elitist, pompous regional BS. Go to Dallas, Nashville, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Denver. Totally clueless if you point to any big urban change of the 90's as more significant than the interior. That's a clear indication that you have not been outside your relative bubble.
In today's society, the line between the corporate and government sects is a very blurred line at best. Claiming local government is to blame for urban decay is ludicrous, as cities experienced a great boom in population since the 80's, bringing business and funding to improve these area's thus requiring local oversight, the very opposite of your claims. Zoning guidelines and committees became a necessity in order to guide cities through booming populations. Without such committees, population density would negatively impact positive growth. Commercial and residential zones required severe rethinking in order to predict traffic patterns that mass transit would alleviate. Commercial (and residential) aesthetic guidelines are not simply strong arming businesses, it impacts real estate value, city image and by proxy tourism, even crime (read "Broken Windows Theory", a well established principal that a simple broken window ....
Um, you're claiming that on one hand government plans all this wonderful stuff, but on the same hand they aren't responsible for the decay. You can't have it both ways. How did anyone on earth ever make a place to live without zoning? You realize that most people are smart enough not to build their stuff stupidly, but sometimes people screw up? You also realize that even with zoning authority government screws up? Regularly? There's no real accomplishment here, government just takes credit for reality and overcharges for it and gets in the way.
New York City's "Time Square" was not the Disney owned tourist attraction of today. Prostitutes and bars lined the once well regarded theatre district for decades. Then mayor Rudolph Giuliani "partnered" (rather, was bought off by) ABC and Disney, selling real estate to those businesses which lead to a mass gentrification of the area, paving the way for others. However, crime was a major issue, especially in the residential "Hells Kitchen" area. Giuliani approved a police task force to strong arm residents out of the area as well as (questionable) businesses such as porn stores and bars. It was widely known he was paid handsomely as large conglomerate businesses took over the area. It "cleaned up" Times Square, yet many begrudge this time in New York City's history as it took away the character and grit that many loved. Soon, other area's followed, with small mom and pop businesses that defined neighborhoods being replaced with "BestBuy's" and "GAP's". The Upper West Side especially experienced a major turn around, with Broadway and Amsterdam becoming a bland canvas of corporate American blocks and glass and steel buildings replacing the brick and mortar buildings that gave New York such character for decades. New York has experienced so much growth so quickly, places one would never walk alone in the day time let alone live have become prime real estate.
I think youve got an overly simplistic, incomplete and incoherent appreciation of Times Square history about this.
Might of missed ---> Mayor Koch ... city commissions... eminent domain... Mayor Dinkins, more city commissions .... rezoning.... court battles... couldnt sell it off... Mayor Giuliani... more city commissions... more court... just decades long city government clownery. Such amazing planning!
What changed? 90s tech bubble put a lot of money on Wall St., NYC starting getting an overall facelift as that money got spent, and a lot going to the immediate area and Times Square to develop more much needed commercial real estate. May have heard about the high pricing and demand in the area? The multiple administrations across multiple parties were fundamentally all the same bureaucratic road block.
None of this is purely the result of capitalism or state/urban funding, but the working of both systems, many unethically. Stating the government is corrupt in the U.S. is one thing, claiming capitalism is the answer is completely ignorant. So you want to talk about my inexperience some more or do you want to admit you may have your belief system a bit backwards?
Statements! Capitalism! Boogey boogey boo! I'm starting to suspect there's a hint of class warfare and cultural bigotry going on with you...
I claimed individuals are the answer, not government. Individuals powered by their inherent rights, not by governmental whim. People are always better than government authority.
*Aside from studying neuropsychology, I also studied urban planning and architecture, T.A.'ing courses at the University of Rochester and Columbia. I'd be more than happy in PM'ing you my dissertation on these matters, "Segregation, Isolation and Fear - The Plight of Modern Urbanism". So to counter your point that I receive my information from television and pop culture, thus I must be naive, I have real life experiences coupled with book smarts to make a rather informative and accurate depiction of the American topography over the last century. Why not discuss the matter intelligently with facts instead of passing your opinions as truth? Please don't attempt to claim I do not know what I write.
Thought you might say Neurology, but instead went all psychy there, shame. Afraid Im the type of girl more impressed by the hard sciences. Your thesis? Dude, theres just no way youre getting my digits with Segregation, Isolation and Fear - Plight of Modern Urbanism. Flattered, but might be one of those rare cases where its better to wait and hope the movie will be better.
Also be careful invoking the concept of 'segregation', you havent spent enough cycles on this rock to have any idea of what that really was. Theres no real modern equivalent anywhere you stated you've been.
It would benefit you greatly if you knew what you were discussing and you addressed others such as "infinitech" and "AidenShaw" with respect and common courtesy.
You posted a rude picture as a response to my first post, and now call for civility when you dislike basic critiques of holy central planners. Then try to call for backup? Um... yeah... no... Wheres Rolly when you need him?... there he is ---->
People respond in kind. I took the time in addressing your claims with facts, events, and sources, try to do the same with others. This is a subject matter of which I am very passionate and well versed, I do not take personal insults lightly and will take the time in addressing relevant points as necessary.
You started with a personal insult, so don't patronize me. All you've basically done is squid the issue of a stupid fountain and the blatantly obvious stupid bureaucracy blocking a useful retail enterprise for millions of annual visitors.
Not to mention one of the few technical support service centers for anyone with a Mac in the downtown business district of SF. I guess you missed the giant useless concrete square in the middle of this area, that's an established and perfectly viable, sizable place for government to engage in feigning cultural patronism, rather than the small steps behind the former clothing shop.
You've cited questionable sources, confused facts, cherry picked events and yet somehow manage to prove my point by saying that the government is corrupt (regardless of whether you got the sequencing or parties even remotely correct) but that you also think they are THE ANSWER for planning any civic human activity. So good job, thanks for the help, hope you learn something. We're done here.
