Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

imagenotfound.writeas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#111

Post by _DeadFred_ »

vlovich123 wrote: post #27
dacops wrote: post #20

I look around and see work that needs doing all the time. Potholes, park maintenance, housing shortages, pollution. As long as we're have unsatisfied needs, there's work to be done. I also see unemployment. What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs... it's a world where work is not focused on satisfying our needs but rather focused on maximizing profit. As long as we're choosing to make work about m…

Or we’ve invested far too much money in building a road network and the economic value from it either isn’t captured to sustain it OR it’s insufficient to cover costs and it’s being subsidized. Potholes being a “need” to be fixed is an interesting take when we had cobble streets and people survived fine. Pretending like capitalism is the thing that creates economic tradeoffs is incorrect and it’s just scapegoating ca…

Commerce drives the economy, and commerce needs roads. Even ancient Rome understood this. Once Rome could no longer protect the roads and travel ranges became shorter the economy declined much more quickly.

If society can't afford roads and therefor can no longer afford to conduct commerce, society can't afford to exist.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#113

Post by pc86 »

forshaper wrote: post #102
pc86 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take a sledge hammer to the street a block over. Repeat. Profit. You do a bad job filling the hole. Some hits it and their car breaks. They sue you and the city. The city attorneys successfully push the blame onto you since you're a contractor. You have no liability insurance because you're not a professional because that's the whole point of this thing, right? You're on the hook for the car, a few grand for a me…

Taking a sledge hammer to a street is a crime.

Yes, it is, and this is a financial incentive to commit a crime.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#114

Post by adampunk »

kjs3 wrote: post #88
adampunk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so we’re clear, “screw them” in this case means spray painting holes in the road. Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here. I find it very hard to fault that person coming to the meeting wanting their street fixed early. What real sin are they committing except noticing that there’s a piece of infrastructure that they depend on that’s messed up? The city does not get a pass just because it cl…

Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here. I never said a single word about painting the pothole; I think it's a clever hack. I should have tried that when we were negotiating with the city about scheduling our much needed street repaving. But since you clearly assume whatever your opinion is is sacrosanct, I suppose it's not surprising you would assume I agree you are unquestioningly correct. The…

>At least for the adults in the room.

I think the idea that the city is already allocating resources optimally is pretty historically contingent, to put things mildly. Even in cases where it is, it's making *choices* about what to allocate and where and citizens are allowed to think those choices are wrong. In fact, well functioning cities use that information to better understand where those choices are wrong.

If you want to be mad at someone who is annoying at city meetings because they can't see your picture that's fine, but don't conflate that with adulthood. It's certainly not the only bigger picture to have.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#115

Post by amavect »

tmoertel wrote: post #109
amavect wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment and venture capital, so the rich can grow their wealth faster than the poor, while creating a job market. Compare that to spending wealth on luxuries, a money sink that also creates a job market and grows the economy (people have to make the luxuries). The former creates more liquid assets (stock) with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. The l…

> Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment and venture capital, so the rich can grow their wealth faster than the poor, while creating a job market. You forgot the most important part. Let me add it for you: "Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment..., while creating a job market, [and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole]." > The former creates more liq…

>[and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole].

I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel this out, muddying the connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. For example, we needed cap-and-trade to internalize the costs of acid rain back onto power plants.

>These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits.

I think my rhetorical bait worked: you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)? Adam Smith argues to take that vanity and drive it towards public recognition. For example, many universities put the names of rich donors on the opulent buildings they donate to build. That's good! (My college's music building was amazing!)

>In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?

I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game? Money supply is a zero-sum game (I think), and I want money sinks to spread the money. We want them to spend their stored money to generate more tangible wealth for all. Luxury goods often push the limits to what can be done, advancing technology and generating wealth while also depleting their money stores. But while investments and venture capital might also advance technology and generate wealth, they continue to concentrate the money supply to the rich. Not good!

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#116

Post by tmoertel »

mmooss wrote: post #105
tmoertel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but you didn't refute the line of reasoning. You called it "the same old talking point" and then jumped to the conclusion that "the only thing these policies deliver on reliably is the 1st order effect - helping the wealthy." But you didn't show that your claim was true. Or that the claim you were responding to was false. Can you offer a substantive argument that getting the wealthy to invest their wealth inste…

You might have overlooked this part: "I'm not taking a test (feel free to answer yourself)".

I didn't ignore that part. I interpreted it as your way of saying that you intended to state your opinion without offering supporting argument.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#117

Post by tmoertel »

amavect wrote: post #115
tmoertel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment and venture capital, so the rich can grow their wealth faster than the poor, while creating a job market. You forgot the most important part. Let me add it for you: "Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment..., while creating a job market, [and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole]." > The former creates more liq…

>[and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole]. I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel this out, muddying the connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. For example, we needed cap-and-trade to internalize the costs of acid rain back onto power plants. >These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no t…

> I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel [general societal benefits] out.

While I agree that the factors you cited are drags on the economy, I think historical evidence suggests strongly that they do not cancel out net benefit to society in general. The fact that poor people today benefit from refrigeration, air conditioning, electronic computers, vaccinations, safe anesthesia, cancer drugs, dialysis, HDTVs, cell phones, and a host of other things that the wealthiest people of yesteryear could not have purchased with all their wealth, suggests that the net trend of the economy has been to produce benefits for all of society, including regular people.

> you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)?

No, that is the opposite of my original claim. My claim, put simply, is that a low capital gains tax shifts the economy's output away from luxuries and toward meeting the needs of regular people.

> I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game?

But resource allocation is a zero-sum game. In any given year, there are only so many productively employable atoms and human hours. If less of those resources are being used to produce luxuries for wealthy people, they can be employed to produce goods and services for regular people.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#119

Post by ethersteeds »

> A few neighbours who told us “nothing will change” went quiet. A few said “OK, but this was a fluke.”

Are they wrong? This is the equivalent of getting customer support from an otherwise unreachable tech company because your story went viral. It's the exception that proves the rule, not the status quo.

Undeniably it's a good reminder of the power of publicity for accountability, but at some point the news media won't be interested in airing another "neighbors taking action" human interest story.

Re: Cursing the government does not fix potholes. Spray-painting them does

#120

Post by sshine »

> A pothole on a road is a pothole on a road. But a pothole sprayed bright, photographed, shared, and laughed at, is something else. It is a small proof that the citizen and the system are not as far apart as we like to think.

Next to where I live there is a sign to caution drivers because of kids playing. The sign was very worn to the point that it’s just white from the distance of a driver. So I repainted it with an ink pen, making the kid’s head into a balloon. It draws a lot of attention now. I think the speed bumps in the road probably do more for the safety, but the sign does more for laughs.

Post reply on HN