couchrock’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Calling school lunches an example of market failure is like calling bread lines in the Soviet Union the fault of capitalism. Even though a number of private sector vendors compete to serve schools, at the end of the day, decisions about the range of choices are generally made by a central committee (the school board) rather than by producers competing to serve individual consumers. Of course, it's well-recognized that kids often need someone to make wise decisions on their behalf. What would be really interesting is to compare the ways that public and private schools respond to parental demands for good nutrition (taking into account income, demographic, and other variables).On Is privatization the answer to the school lunch mess? posted 1 month, 1 week ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Don't fight markets, use them!

  A common thread that runs through many of these postings is hostility to market economics and the laws of supply and demand.  The environmental movement would be much more effective if it dropped the discredited Marxist rhetoric and focused on policies that impact supply and demand, as may be desirable.  

  If Americans eat too much meat, it's because meat is cheap.  The crops that feed livestock are subsidized to be cheap, the cost of agricultural water doesn't reflect its true cost, and farming operatons are largely exempt from air pollution standards (esp. SOx, methane, and particulate matter).  Americans are further insulated from the effects of excessive meat (and sugary and fried foods) consumption because they don't have to pay the full cost of their bad eating habits when it comes to healthcare (that's what taxpayers and healthy insurance customers are for).  

  What to do?  Reduce crop subsidies.  Require farmers to participate in a cap-and-trade emissions scheme that has not been implemented but would do more to cut overall emissions than all of our current laws.  Implement a modest tax on water, or at least make the beneficiaries pay for the costs of water diversion projects.  

  I could go on, but I think I've made my point.  Reducing various subsidies and increasing the cost of damaging practices can do a lot to improve from where we are now.  Market forces are something the environmental community should learn to use.  On A food-politics writer expresses angst at the obscurity of his topic posted 3 years, 7 months ago 24 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Too much government?

  I got into this issue in college, when I was irritated at the high cost of student housing.  Now that I live in the DC area, that seems like a bargain.  Anyway, these are a few things I've learned about it.

  The driver for sprawl and developments is indeed economics, but a very distorted sort.  As a previous poster noted, various subsidies and policies prevent suburban homeowners from paying all of the costs associated with their lifestyle.  And yet the core problem is elsewhere.  

  One word: zoning.  Local governments create incredibly repressive zoning laws that restrict the size and shape of buildings, depending on how the property is zoned.  If anyone hasn't come across this before, a typical town is divided into commercial, residential, manufacturing, and mixed-use zones, which are then subdivided into two or more categories.  

  Each category then has restrictions on what can be built there.  R-1 (Residential Class I) is often zoned for single family homes, R-2 for anything in R-1 plus duplexes, etc.  Even the most lenient residential zone (high-rises) limits the footprint relative to the size of the lot and height.  Sometimes these are further restricted by required that parking for tenants be located on the lot.  

  In my city of residence (Arlington, VA), building height seems to top out around 13 or 14 stories, tapering down fast as a metro stop becomes further away.  Why are there s  An awful lot of development is happening, but it's not enough.  Prices are crazy here.  

  The result is that people move to the suburbs where land is cheaper, and businesses pop up to support them.  Keep in mind that the suburbs are also highly zoned, often to keep the buildings short, so driving is the only convenient option.  

  The simple solution: bigger buildings closer to transit and enhanced mass transit systems.  This wouldn't eliminate the suburbs, but it could check their continued growth.  On Why isn't there more new urbanism? posted 3 years, 8 months ago 28 Responses