by pea-jay » Sat 24 Jun 2006, 02:41:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', 'A')mericans have been voting with their dollars.....and they have voted themselves 80 million SUVs and a yearly production of 1,500,000 McMansions.
Let's not be disingenuous here. The people have voted their government's will of cheap houses and free roads for all, and they received every economic advantage to do so. Yes, people ultimately bought into it and may even describe it as their "preference", but the free market it ain't. If we can safely say that the government has had a hand in creating the problem, simply removing that heavy hand would only have a positive effect in remediating the situation. Get the government out of the highway and secondary mortgage business and then you'll see people making more rational decisions about where and how to live.
IF WE LEFT IT TO THE "FREE MARKET"
Yes, if we "left it to the market" things would be a lot different.
NO INTERSTATE PROGRAM
We would have but a few superhighways connecting some but not all of the major urban areas to each other. Some would be privately built and operated and others built by wealthier states or regions. None of the "freeways" would be free. Nor would these toll roads will serve commuters well as interchanges on toll roads are expensive to maintain (compare I-80 to the Penn Turnpike) so commuters would be left to driving the arterials or stuck with a still viable public transport system. As a consequence, passenger rail traffic would likely remained strong, esp intra-city, though airline travel still would have ended up poaching some travelers off of the longer distance rail runs. Freight traffic would likewise have remained up, with no real interstate options. And you could be assured that few of these non-federal government tollways and none of the private turnpikes would have cut through the central portion of any city due to the sheer expense of land condemnation. Tollways, where constructed would skirt the urban areas or terminate at their edges.
NO FEDERAL HOME LOAN PROGRAMS
With no loan programs, cities would have remained cities. With no guarentees, only the wealthy would have qualified and the rest would probably continued to rent. After the war, the baby boom probably would have been muted, though increased birth rates from the depression era would have forced some population growth as would limited immigration. With limited road systems and a still present transit system, any urban incremental growth would likely have been dense and walkable in nature.
So then what...what would have been the intervening 60 years been like for the US in general. We probably would be a poorer, smaller nation, living in closer quarters, more dependent on public transit. More than likely, more of us would be engaged in manufacturing activities and our overall level of education would be lower, owing to a lack of collegiate funding opportunities for the masses.
Due to the relatively high numbers of lower skill, lower paid workforce, fewer immigrants would have arrived at our shores. Those who did immigrate probably would have originated from the rubble strewn remains of Western Europe (especially if the MacArthur program never existed) as always had been historically the case, with only a limited numbers of Mexican migrants moving back and forth in the Southwest. Few if any others would have moved here due to a lack of opportunities and few immigrant connections between the US and originating states.
Technologically we would have likely progressed as a country, though innovations would be far more limited with fewer educated folks and smaller amounts of service and technological firms in existance. The US government, no doubt fearing the Soviets would still have dumped some funds into science and technology, the results of which, probably would have trickled down to everyday use regardless. Without a massive program, it would have been slow and tedious.
Finally, we would be a nation of great contrasts. Parts of the US would advance with wealth and progress while other regions would have remained mired in deep poverty. The south and the desert west would have remained relative backwaters (the West especially, due to a lack of Federal water projects being constructed) while the Northeast and Midwest the veritable powerhouse running the country. Undoubtly some parts of the old dixie would still be lynching blacks.
With that in mind, we would probably be facing peak oil maybe 75 years from now. Though few would be planning for that.
In this case, the market could have done better. Or at least less damage.