Skip to main content

View Diary: Public transit won't revive GM (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Y'know what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So let's not pretend that GM can succeed building stuff that some yuppie idealists (almost always childless) think people should want, even though they don't.

    Y'know what?  I really hope you're a lot younger than I am.  I really hope you're around long enough to see the end result of this attitude.  And I hope that when that time comes, you are intellectually honest to admit to yourself that you were as big a jackass as you so obviously are.

    Because cute little hybrids are not going to actually save the planet, and anyone who believes they could is, frankly, in just exactly as much denial as everyone was about the dot com bubble, and the housing bubble, and the 19th century idea that we can pour sewage into our rivers forever and not face any consequences, and so forth.  With even more evidence to the contrary than any of those things.  And anyone who has actually paid any attention to climate science in the last two years knows this.

    But it's awfully hard to change your lifestyle... it's much easier to just close your eyes and pretend the problem will go away, and that only 'yuppie idealists with no children' could possibly think it won't.

    Mass transit probably still could significantly mitigate the damage, but we aren't going to go that route, because of people like you.  Instead, we will literally murder billions (with a 'b') of people via global warming, just so that people like you can have your precious convenience for another couple of decades.


    •  You're terribly unrealistic (0+ / 0-)

      Actually, Mr. Fnord, I'm probably a lot older than you.  I remember the mass transit boom that followed the 1973 oil embargo.  And one good thing that came of that era was the beginning of the end of most urban decay.  Before 1973, everyone who could afford to leave the cities (including New York) was leaving; you could buy a house in Manhattan for something less than a king's ransom.  Higher gas prices were a market wake-up call, and the trend changed.  In the 1970s, the term "gentrification" became important.  Old tenements became new condos.

      BUT while those houses were largely attractive to singles, young couples and some retirees, families who could afford to continued to stay in single-family homes with cars.  Core-city school districts didn't become very attractive.  Cars continued to be important for most people.

      You can go all ad-hominem about how American middle-class families are ruining the planet, but their houses already exist.  If you think this past year's housing decline was steep, what would happen to the economy if the suburbs were abandoned in droves and everybody and their kids had to pack into an Asian-style high rise flat?  Even if Americans could stand it (and even most New Yorkers don't tend to raise kids in Manhattan), the loss of equity in existing suburbia would doom the economy.

      I'm all for "smart growth" and "new urbanism", but I know better than to expect public transit to replace the cars in existing suburbs.

      •  You're Terribly Ignorant. (0+ / 0-)

        But then, a little bit of knowledge often results in certianty independant of reality.

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:04:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site