Potholes

Doki said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village
who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes, in
winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

Why are they living in a tent? At a guess it'll either be a) because the
govt won't let anyone build houses, so house prices are ridiculous, or b)
the local govt are useless and can't allocate them a council house.

Or other reasons...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2007/03/02/homeless_couple_feature.shtml

Read the responses to this couple, who have been on my local radio station and
TV over the last week.
Today they said they were being victimised and won't talk to the press. Ah
diddums.

Should these be housed?

John B

Anthony said:

I don't see poverty in this country either, compared to other
countries we are rather well off. Where my parents come from there is
no state help, if you don't work you don't eat.

Given the current state help (such as benifits and housing) seems to
encourage those who are unable to support children to have them, it will
make us all poorer (both finanically and as a society).

It's something that needs to be there for when you're stuck, but it
shouldn't be a way of life.
--
Chris Johns

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
Anthony ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> On 11 Mar, 13:40, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we /can/ have perfect roads. But they're extremely expensive to
>> maintain, and in a country with as much poverty as we have, is it good
>> use of public funds?
>
> I don't see poverty in this country either, compared to other
> countries we are rather well off. Where my parents come from there is
> no state help, if you don't work you don't eat.

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village
who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes,
in winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

Why are they living in a tent? At a guess it'll either be a) because the
govt won't let anyone build houses, so house prices are ridiculous, or b)
the local govt are useless and can't allocate them a council house.

(a).

However, building more houses really isn't going to solve the problem,
since the problem is the disparity of wealth between urban and remote
rural areas. You could cover the countryside with houses, and there would
still be white settlers willing to pay more than the local economy will
support for them.

There are only so many people living in towns who want to move to the
country and then deal with a long commute. More houses would reduce prices -
demand outstrips supply near enough everywhere apart from the odd sink
estate. If they simply can't find employment that pays in the countryside
then perhaps they should consider moving somewhere they can.

Den 2007-03-11 23:56:58 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke wrote on 11/03/2007 20:02 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this
village who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes,
in
winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

Has your compassion offered them your spare room?

Handouts and compassion can only be a temporary solution. The best thing
is to find them jobs. That way they can pay tax so the council can fix the
roads. (Functioning society? What's that?)

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2007-03-11 14:40:38 skrev Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

To be perfectly honest, when I see potholes of that severity, I think
'I'm
glad my council is spending my money on things like social services and
education and not squandering it on over-pristine roads'.

Yes, we /can/ have perfect roads. But they're extremely expensive to
maintain, and in a country with as much poverty as we have, is it good
use
of public funds?

I read that once holes reach the size of these ones, they get larger very
fast because water gets in under the tarmac. This causes the surrounding
part of the road to come apart, especially if the temperature drops below
zero.

You can see from the pictures, there appears to be a top layer covering a
rougher underlying layer of tarmac. The top layer needs to be intact.

I used to live in Canada, and in the spring you could see the progression
from the holes like in the pictures, to the large potholes which actually
look like a pot.

So there's a point where you actually save money from preventative
maintenance.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Anthony said:

Yes you are right, there is poverty in this country, BUT compared to
other countries the vast majority of us are well off. Generally, we
have the state help us out if we are in need, not everywhere has that
luxury. Remember also what we can earn in a day, it takes other
people a month to earn in some other countries.

Or even a year.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Doki said:

There are only so many people living in towns who want to move to the
country and then deal with a long commute.

How long is a long commute? The utterly selfish side of me would gladly
move to the countryside so that a Manchester-bound commuter could live
in Preston. I cannot afford to do so, but I earn a heck of a lot more
than most of those who work in the countryside.

In actual fact, if I moved somewhere equidistant from my own and my
wife's places of work, I would probably be living in some marvellous
countryside.

Quoted message said:

More houses would reduce prices -
demand outstrips supply near enough everywhere apart from the odd sink
estate. If they simply can't find employment that pays in the countryside
then perhaps they should consider moving somewhere they can.

And who would then work in the countryside?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Handouts and compassion can only be a temporary solution. The best thing
is to find them jobs.

Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't have
all of;

a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption

Currently the solution is not to have c), but...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Sunday, March - a weekend.

Den 2007-03-13 13:59:05 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Handouts and compassion can only be a temporary solution. The best thing
is to find them jobs.

Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't have
all of;

a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption

Currently the solution is not to have c), but...

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume. We could stop
using fossil fuels, and instead have nice bicycles and windpower. We could
build homes that require no heating. I can't think of a more spectacular
growth industry than insulating all the buildings in Europe. I'd rather
insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory, wouldn't you?
Imagine what the car industry could do, if they were to do something
worthwile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house

As I wrote earlier, a TGV from Paris to Marseille is twice as fast as
driving and consumes a third of the energy (with one person in the car).
http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

So heating, power and transport could all be zero-emissions within a
generation. It's very exciting. It makes the end of the cold war seem like
a yawn!

What are you waiting for?

Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies

In article <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-03-13 13:59:05 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't have
all of;

a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption

Currently the solution is not to have c), but...

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume. We could stop
using fossil fuels, and instead have nice bicycles and windpower.

Which would put a load of people in the fossil fuel and ICE business out
of work, reducing their capacity to consume.

Quoted message said:

We could
build homes that require no heating. I can't think of a more spectacular
growth industry than insulating all the buildings in Europe.

Once done there wouldn't be much maintenance involved - lots of heating
manufacturers and engineers out of work, less capacity to consume.

Quoted message said:

I'd rather
insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory, wouldn't you?
Imagine what the car industry could do, if they were to do something
worthwile.

Having worked in building and engineering, I have to say I preferred the
engineering.

Quoted message said:

As I wrote earlier, a TGV from Paris to Marseille is twice as fast as
driving and consumes a third of the energy (with one person in the car).
http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

So put six people in the car and you have twice the time but half the
energy, and a lot more flexibility in where you go.

Quoted message said:

So heating, power and transport could all be zero-emissions within a
generation. It's very exciting. It makes the end of the cold war seem like
a yawn!

What are you waiting for?

The perfect mousetrap?

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Handouts and compassion can only be a temporary solution. The best thing
is to find them jobs.

Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't have
all of;
a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption
Currently the solution is not to have c), but...

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume.

We _cannot_ have ever-increasing consumption. Something's got to give. You
list some (genuinely useful) things we should do over the next couple of
decades, but (for example) if we can somehow make train travel completely
free of long-term consequences, that doesn't mean we want to all spend
eight hours a day travelling by train and eight hours a day working as
ticket inspectors.

The eventual solution is to drop b) and recognise that once we increase
production efficiency without constantly thinking up more junk to buy,
most of the people can be idle most of the time, and that that state
should not be a miserable one.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Sunday, March - a weekend.

Den 2007-03-13 16:38:33 skrev Rob Morley <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Den 2007-03-13 13:59:05 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't

have

Quoted message said:

all of;

a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption

Currently the solution is not to have c), but...

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume. We could stop
using fossil fuels, and instead have nice bicycles and windpower.

Which would put a load of people in the fossil fuel and ICE business out
of work, reducing their capacity to consume.

No, it would put them to work building windpower and bicycles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We could
build homes that require no heating. I can't think of a more spectacular
growth industry than insulating all the buildings in Europe.

Once done there wouldn't be much maintenance involved - lots of heating
manufacturers and engineers out of work, less capacity to consume.

Yes, just like all the steam engine drivers are out of work because of
electrics.

Frankly you're making a very fundamental error in your economic theory,
namely, efficiency is not a zero-sum game: where do you think all the
people in the IT industry came from? I'll tell you, it's the steam engine
drivers, the horsemen, the cooks and housewives who now use microwave
ovens and supermarkets to feed themselves. They now have time for other
things, such as getting an education and working on innovations like
mobile phones.

Since 1925, British GDP has increased 2700%, despite (because of) all the
efficiency gains made in that period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Macro-economic_trend

Most people employed in Britain actually don't make anything, yet Britain
is richer than at any time in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Services

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd rather
insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory, wouldn't you?
Imagine what the car industry could do, if they were to do something
worthwile.

Having worked in building and engineering, I have to say I preferred the
engineering.

Moving rocks or building a cathedral?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I wrote earlier, a TGV from Paris to Marseille is twice as fast as
driving and consumes a third of the energy (with one person in the car).
http://recherche.sncf.com/uk/dossiers/energetique/quizz12.html

So put six people in the car and you have twice the time but half the
energy, and a lot more flexibility in where you go.

Sure. The trouble (and opportunity) is that people average 1,6 people per
car. So shifting to high-speed rail lets you go twice as fast at half the
energy expense. Bicycles are even better from an energy point of view, of
course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So heating, power and transport could all be zero-emissions within a
generation. It's very exciting. It makes the end of the cold war seem
like
a yawn!

What are you waiting for?

The perfect mousetrap?

It's staring you in the face :-)

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2007-03-13 16:55:55 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:
> Handouts and compassion can only be a temporary solution. The best
> thing
> is to find them jobs.
Eventually in the West we're going to have to admit that you can't have
all of;
a) increasing efficiency of production
b) low unemployment
c) not ever-increasing consumption
Currently the solution is not to have c), but...

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume.

We _cannot_ have ever-increasing consumption. Something's got to give.
You
list some (genuinely useful) things we should do over the next couple of
decades, but (for example) if we can somehow make train travel completely
free of long-term consequences, that doesn't mean we want to all spend
eight hours a day travelling by train and eight hours a day working as
ticket inspectors.

Actually that's in effect what you're already doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Services

Quoted message said:

The eventual solution is to drop b) and recognise that once we increase
production efficiency without constantly thinking up more junk to buy,
most of the people can be idle most of the time, and that that state
should not be a miserable one.

There are only two things we need to stop doing:

1. stop emitting greenhouse gasses
2. stop using non-renewable resources.

Beyond that, anything is possible.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

in message <[email hidden]>, Erik Sandblom

(') said:

Den 2007-03-13 16:38:33 skrev Rob Morley <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume. We could stop
using fossil fuels, and instead have nice bicycles and windpower.

Which would put a load of people in the fossil fuel and ICE business out
of work, reducing their capacity to consume.

No, it would put them to work building windpower and bicycles.

This is madness. We don't want work for the sake of work; we want an
equitable distribution of income. If there isn't enough work around for
everyone to work forty hours a week isn't it better for most people to
work only twenty than for half the population to be either unemployed or
on artificial 'job creation' schemes?

For heaven's sake, if there's less work to do, shouldn't we all cheer?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

Den 2007-03-13 21:25:13 skrev Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom

(') said:

Den 2007-03-13 16:38:33 skrev Rob Morley <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom
[email hidden] says...
>
> Yes we can, we just need to think about what we consume. We could stop
> using fossil fuels, and instead have nice bicycles and windpower.

Which would put a load of people in the fossil fuel and ICE business
out
of work, reducing their capacity to consume.

No, it would put them to work building windpower and bicycles.

This is madness. We don't want work for the sake of work;

Who says anything about working for the sake of work? I thought we were
talking about working to meet people's need of sustainability. It's a
great shame if there's a perception that sustainability is not something
that can be sold and packaged as any other product. Don't you ever buy
organic food, choose to holiday without flying, or buy bike parts? Those
things don't happen without someone being employed to do it.

The climate issue creates lots of opportunities for anyone who cares to
take them. Outdated industries will die off, and new ones will replace
them. That's the way it's always been, so no change there.

Quoted message said:

we want an equitable distribution of income.

Fine. No problem there, except maybe trying to prop up industries whose
time is past.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Simon Brooke said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes, in
winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

I'd like to be convinced that either of these cases is through necessity.

John B said:

Doki said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village
who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes, in
winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

Why are they living in a tent? At a guess it'll either be a) because the
govt won't let anyone build houses, so house prices are ridiculous, or b)
the local govt are useless and can't allocate them a council house.

Or other reasons...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2007/03/02/homeless_couple_feature.shtml

Read the responses to this couple, who have been on my local radio station and
TV over the last week.
Today they said they were being victimised and won't talk to the press. Ah
diddums.

Should these be housed?

I suggest that the brat is handed to 'respectable' guardians when it is
born, in order that it does not turn out like its parents.

Thus endeth the need for state intervention on their behalf.

Erik Sandblom said:

I'd rather insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory,
wouldn't you?

No. 3000 screws don't itch half as much as a bag of fibreglass.

Anthony said:

Yes you are right, there is poverty in this country, BUT compared to
other countries the vast majority of us are well off. Generally, we
have the state help us out if we are in need, not everywhere has that
luxury. Remember also what we can earn in a day, it takes other
people a month to earn in some other countries.

When we bought into the idea of 'relative poverty', we ensured that it
would never go away. And before you define 'absolute poverty', perhaps
a reading of Thoreau's Walden Pond would help.

Chris Johns said:

Given the current state help (such as benifits and housing) seems to
encourage those who are unable to support children to have them, it will
make us all poorer (both finanically and as a society).

It's something that needs to be there for when you're stuck, but it
shouldn't be a way of life.

Well said.

We are diluting the strain by our economic policies.