That's not the point though.
The point of threads like this is to raise issues that we may or may not have thought, [b]in a polite and respectful way[/b].
It's not a fight to force people to see the world the way you do.
Almost everyone else treats it this way, it's just you that marches in here and complains that no-one listens, when we ARE listening full well, but simply disagreeing. Like any good discussion we take your points and then reason forwards from them as part of an ongoing discussion.
What do you want us to do? "Yes sir Mr TJ sir, you are right of course!" All threads would be over on the first page.
there was an exodus during the industrial revolution, for nearly similar reasons; mechanisation of farming meant that jobs dried up, forcing people to leave for the towns and the jobs
That's not what happened. The major rural to urban migration took place [i]prior [/i]to the Industrial Revolution as a result of the enclosure of the commons and the shift from arable to livestock farming. Beer St/Gin Lane, transportation to America and Australia etc all began before the Industrial Revolution had had much of an effect.
What kind of mechanisation in agriculture was there before the 20th century anyway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
awhiles - on that one. We have a situation in fife where the urban workers live in the villages and commute to the towns and the rural workers live in the towns and commute to the villages. This is because the urban workers have priced the rural population out of the villages.so actually a pricier commute will see a shift in the relative price of these homes allowing the rural worker to live in the villages again
Or, alternatively, it will lead to the continuation of the, better paid, urban workers commute, and the closure of the rural firms, as their low value production is replaced by cheaper imports - cheaper food from abroad, cheaper timber imports etc.
So, maybe not as simplistic a calculation as you initially claim!
Molgrips - that is laughable coming from you. You have a very closed mind and I could point to many places where you simply have refused to even listen to points made.
It was pointed out to me by Druidh that [i]everyone [/i]comes to threads like this with their own fixed ideas and nothing will dissuade them from that position. Therefore the debate is pointless as it will not achieve anything as no one will change their mind.
I was a bit bored and allowed myself to get sucked into two contentious threads recently
It was foolish of me to do so thus I will back away from it.
You have a very closed mind and I could point to many places where you simply have refused to even listen to points made
I have a very open mind. Taking a position counter to yours does not mean a closed mind. You're often wrong or poorly informed (as am I) but you simply cannot handle the concept at all.
Since we're on the subject, I'd like to see some of these places please.
Therefore the debate is pointless as it will not achieve anything as no one will change their mind
THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THESE THREADS OR THIS FORUM!
But, you haven't included total revenues to the country of private motoring have you, you see if you want to play with ethereal "total costs" then you have to think about the effect of tourism on local areas, the effect of mental health of people being able to do stuff in their cars, like visiting family for example, you need to include the expansion of sports like mountain biking, since people use private motoring to go to trail centres and things - if you want to play the "total cost" then you cannot only include "money raised in motoring taxes" you have to compare it to "total beneficial value to the country of private motoring" which goes far, far beyond fuel duty and VAT
If you want to do that, then you'd also have to take into account the negative effects too. The communities cut off and destroyed because they were on the wrong side of the motorway (ever heard the expression wrong side of the tracks? The same happens with large/busy roads). The additional stres and mental health issues caused by the congestion and stress of driving. The removal of tourism from local areas due to people travelling farther away.
There's no easy answer, I've had this debate many times and nobody has been able to say definitely one way or the other, so everyone stays convinced they're correct.
TJ is right, no one will be convinced they are wrong.
The major rural to urban migration took place prior to the Industrial Revolution
Ah yes.. Enclosure act. Interesting, but what did people do when they came to the city? The big growth of cities and towns was surely due to factories needing workers, wasn't it?
Molgrips this post is a classic example. You are argueing against things that are not a part of my proposals. You don't want to accept the case thus invent loads of nonsense to argue your side
i continually reiterate this change needs to be done over a generatation. thus all of your counter arguments are invalid. You claim its all stick no carrot. is cheap efficient public transport not a carrot?
molgrips - Memberratchet up the cost of motoring which in itself will slowly push change and use the money raised to subsidise public transport
That's not a very social policy though is it? It'll make a lot of people very depressed and miserable as they struggle to adapt. It's the policy of the breadline again - if you make things people want progressively more expensive people will only change when they absolutely cannot afford it any more, which means that most people will be hovering around that threshold ie be strapped for cash all the time.
And in this case you have the additional issue that it's often very difficult for people to move. You're forcing them to either a) take a crappier job and/or b) move away from their friends or family, both of which can have serious negative implications for quality of life.
It's all stick, no carrot. I think it's much better to provide incentive for change by making the alternative better in real terms FIRST, not just making it appear better by making the original worse.
I agree with everything you say about the problem, I just don't agree with that particular solution.
And there are also inherent problems with public transport. The feasibility of public transport depends on population density. Densely populated areas are already pretty well served, and it'd be (relatively) easy to lay on more busses or increase train capacity etc. However for the more lightly populated areas it becomes EXPONENTIALLY more expensive to cover fewer and fewer people. So there is a practical limit on who can be covered even with big subsidies.
what did people do when they came to the city
Mostly they sat around and waited for the Industrial Revolution...
Peyote - I agree, you have to include [b]both[/b] sides, which was my point - the calculation of "total costs" and "total benefits" is so wildly complex so as to be little more than guesswork.
Molgrips this post is a classic example. You are argueing against things that are not a part of my proposals
Hang on - my posts are not always directed at your posts - often directed at no-one in particular, rather the subject in general.
Thanks for quoting my post so I don't have to look for it.
I did say I agreed with you in principle, but I thought your solution was not very progressive.
If you'd have said something like "I think the negative impact would be acceptable if it was done over a long enough timescale" then I'd have agreed. I was simply voicing my concerns.
I'm not actually arguing against you in principle. My most recent disagreement with you on this thread is about the claim that the government subsidises private motoring. I'm sceptical about this, but fair enough - neither you nor I or really anyone else has incontrovertible facts about this since it's all so complicated.
I'm happy to discuss with you TJ but PLEASE be frigging reasonable and not go off at the deep end all the time with all the personal insults.
I do not have a closed mind, anyone who actually knows me well will agree.
[i]It was pointed out to me by Druidh that everyone comes to threads like this with their own fixed ideas and nothing will dissuade them from that position.[/i]
Well i disagree with both of you then. There are a number of threads i have read where they have made me think i may well not have the full picture. The good thing about these forums is you get people from all walks of life so you may be having a discussion on policing and you get policeman posting with their point of view. Not to say you simply have to accept but surely worth a listen ?
If you really believe that no one ever changes their mind then perhaps that is more a reflection on you than it is on others. You have one point of view but is it really inconceivable to you that you just might be wrong now and then or that others may have something to say you could learn from ?
Mind you, i do agree with much of what you say in this post, just not the way you say it 🙂
konabunny - MemberThe major rural to urban migration took place prior to the Industrial Revolution as a result of the enclosure of the commons and the shift from arable to livestock farming. Beer St/Gin Lane, transportation to America and Australia etc all began before the Industrial Revolution had had much of an effect.
What kind of mechanisation in agriculture was there before the 20th century anyway?
er, dunno? - you raise lots of interesting things for me to think about/do some homework on, thankyou!
🙂
Sorry - didn't mean to sound snippy (if I did, like usual!). The whole process was a lot more nasty and forceful than just country folks shrugging their shoulders and saying to each other, "well, there's not much for us to do here any more, I suppose we might as well go into town and get job at t'mill". You have a whole social system that is displaced from the land and the introduction of new property laws to stop landless people taking the bounty of the land, and that directly leads into the perception of lawlessness, and transportation, and the workhouse and bulging prisons, and the rise of sociology, penal reform etc etc...
It's really interesting. Actually Tony Robinson did a really good docco which covered all of this in 90 mins but I have no idea what it is called (think it was part of a series) bc I missed the start!
