Living Car Free - P.J. O’Rourke - The End of Our Love Affair With the Car

I think the fact that you picked the last eight years to make your argument about regulation of financial markets is telling. Please tell me what regulations were gutted in that time that exacerbated the economic downturn. It's not all about party politics and you discredit your arguments when you try to make it so. If I've misread your reason for picking that period of time, please correct me.


lol. It's not all about party politics. It's only mostly about party politics.

As you probably know, but don't necessarily want others to know, much of the deregulation of financial institutions and markets was done in the "Reagan Revolution." The Bush administration and it's GOP congress only had to tie up a few loose ends.

As with agricultural inspection, Republican administrations also made it easy for Wall St. to cheat by cutting back on the numbers and authority of inspectors. They also opened the revolving door between Washington and Wall St., where "helpful" inspectors and regulators are rewarded with cushy private sector jobs, and top financiers volunteer for "public service" to ensure that regualtions continue to favor those who are being regulated. At the same time, financiers were feverishly inventing new instruments--swaps, default investments, security bundling, etc.--that weren't within the purview of what few regulations remained.

Still consider the tone of the debate, nothing personal against people that decided the tradeoffs are worth it. It just seems as if 50 to 100k is about as big as a friendly place to live can be. ( arbitrary number on my behalf.)

I understand there are tradeoffs but it is the chances to be accosted in that same park that have always disturbed me. Let me assure you I am always happy to increase my securities rather that decrease it.

In Detroit people are 5.16 times more likely to be murdered by a neighbor than the national average. They are 2.41 times more likely to be raped, 2.86 times more likely to be robbed, 3.49 times more likely to be assaulted, 4.56 times more likely to get their car stolen than the national average. That isn’t like being bothered by something I don’t understand. In the small city I now live in and the city I moved from they had exactly one murder last year. And they had 1/5 the national average of that particular crime. **** is on par with the national average, robbery is less than the national average. Assault is slightly above average but I am less likely to get my car stolen and just above average when it comes to arson. I grew up in Orange county living close to Disneyland and yes I got flack for it growing up. But not one category of crime was above national average. One hour north of where I grew up was LA and every category of crime is above the national average. :(

I could never expose my children to the increased violence I have viewed as big inner city living. Now that I don’t have children at home big cities are just too crowded and dirty compared to the burbs and small cities. Yes Atlanta seems to be an exception but like I said before, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, LA and Miami all have crime rates far in excess of the national average. I will admit I don’t understand the high **** and arson rate in Portland that otherwise seems pretty safe. I wouldn’t consider Detroit, Chicago or Cleveland even if they were safe because of the snow but still it shows the problem.

Besides riding a bike where I live is less of a battle with traffic.:lol:

The crime thing is much less of a concern if you analyze the statistics. At this point, most crime rates are down to about the levels of the early 1960s. Certainly, my hometown of Detroit ( afailed city, alas) is a ridiculous comaprison.

Anyhoo, we'll never agree on which is "best". I certainly don't begrudge your desire to live in the suburbs. I might live there if I had young kids and a couple cars. But I stand by my point that the suburbs are part of the city. Treating them as such would go a long way to solving the different problems that both cities and suburbs have these days.

The crime thing is much less of a concern if you analyze the statistics. At this point, most crime rates are down to about the levels of the early 1960s. Certainly, my hometown of Detroit ( afailed city, alas) is a ridiculous comaprison.

Anyhoo, we'll never agree on which is "best". I certainly don't begrudge your desire to live in the suburbs. I might live there if I had young kids and a couple cars. But I stand by my point that the suburbs are part of the city. Treating them as such would go a long way to solving the different problems that both cities and suburbs have these days.

You may have a point. And it is all in what we prefer. There are big cities with single family dwellings that make up most of the living population. But that is one of the reasons I have said all along that any attempt at mass transit has to deal with these different living preferences.

While I now tend to prefer to ride my bicycle for small errands and for social riding I believe cars gave people a personal freedom they never had before. Yes I understand they have had a greater influence than many would want. As city flight took place retail operations moved to try and take advantage of that flight. Supercentres popped up to replace the small family downtown business and to a degree the large city department store. But that was simply changing the face of society and how we lived.

I also have no intention to denigrate anyone for living in a big city. I am just expressing the common concerns many have for not living, “down town”. They also include traffic, parking, crowding and noise. Some seem to be able to ignore these concerns but the ones that left seem to think they are a problem with no solution. And maybe some of that is the fault of our dependence on the car. I just don’t see a solution on our horizon.

Nobody wants to live in the city, it's too crowded. :D

nobody wants to live in the city, it's too crowded. :d
lol