- Frank Lloyd Wright lego blocks.
- Paul Krugman has a Randian moment.
- Dan Ariely interviewed on the BBC.
Hat tip to Carl Close and Nicholas Tabarrok.
Assorted Links
Previous post: Languages in everything
Next post: In the absence of transactions costs…
Oy. Nobel prize winners should not use the word “Yay” in blog posts.
We should put a tax on sprawl because Paul Krugman does not like sprawl.
I saw a documentary on PBS recently about Portland , Oregon’s efforts to fight sprawl. Obviously, since it was PBS it moderately anti-sprawl in its depiction of the issue.
Which isn’t to say suburban development has to be sprawly, either. Plenty of small cities and suburbs that aren’t like that.
Please forgive my ignorance. In what manner and to which Rand is Krugman Randian?
Alan, aesthetic.
Urban sprawl makes the economy less efficient due to the added cost of transportation over long distances. It’s like a tax on the economy that the economies of many other countries don’t have. Not only do people pay more for transportation. But they also waste valuable time on the road every day, instead of spending that time producing some goods and services at home for themselves and their families or at work for other people.
Perhaps living in sprawling suburbs is more comfortable and pleasant than is living in high-rise condos close to work, shopping, and school. But this luxury comes at a long-term cost. Because it makes the US economy less efficient and less competitive than the economies of other countries are. And in the end, this US luxury of living in the suburbs probably will become unaffordable for most people in USA. Because being less efficient and less competitive makes you poorer in the long run.
Americans moved to the suburbs to avoid the urban underclass. When the police/housing costs force the underclass to move out of certain sections the suburbanites move back in and pat themselves on the back for being so cool.
Its not about efficiency, its about isolation from your neighbors.
Urban sprawl makes the economy less efficient due to the added cost of transportation over long distances.
But urban congestion imposes serious transportation costs as well. Shorter distances can be outweighed by congestion. What’s more efficient — a Fedex truck making deliveries in Manhattan? Or in the suburbs?
I’d bet Krugman’s intuition is orthogonal to Rand. I think Rand liked the city because it symbolized industriousness. Krugman likes the city because it isn’t a suburb.
Milton Friedman many times used the creation of modern Hong Kong as a shining example of the unregulated free market at work.
Wherever he is, I’m sure he appreciates Krugman finally coming around to appreciate it too.
Comments on this entry are closed.