1. One of the reasons that i love talking about planning and infrastructure so much is because a lot of folks don't realize how certain municipalities are planned out and zoned to intentionally heighten segregation and disparities. When suburbs were originally formed, they were

2. Planned around the automobile, because that made it easier to keep certain demographics (i.e. Black, Brown and Native) from moving there. There were and still are zoning laws that would only allow only one house per developer lot to be built, which means a limited stock of
3. Housing, which makes affordable housing hard to find. Additionally, things like height requirements (not being allowed to build above a certain number of feet) was another method of limiting housing. These were some of the reasons that a lot of suburbs remained very white up
4. Until the 1980's/1990's. Once homes in suburbs became accessible due to policies becoming lax in regards to affordable housing, one would think that the problem of exclusion via planning has been solved, but you start to run up against a whole slate of new problems. As Black
5. And brown folks moved into innner-ring suburbs, white folks would tend to move even FARTHER out into the exurbs, which meant the tax base which supported these first ring suburbs would close to. This meant that businesses would leave too because of course they're going to
6. Follow the money, which means less jobs, which also leads to more social issues ie petty crimes, more predatory housing situations like shady apartment complexes springing up, more predatory businesses like pawn shops, check cashing places, etc. And also, going back to how
7. Suburbs were initially planned around the automobile, this means a good bit of people end up being literally trapped in the suburbs with no way to get around due to how poor public transit often is. So while they may have moved there and got a job at the local restraunt, that
8. Restraunt may have packed up and moved 30 minutes away to follow the folks who fled from the inner-ring suburb, but you can't get there, because you don't have a car. If we are going to a effectively address institutional racism, it has to start on the local level, as opposed
9. To the federal. This start by making many of these cities which were planned to exclude, find a way to be inclusive for folks of all economic backgrounds and demographics. This means we need to not only promote things like expanding public transportation, but we also have to
10. Promote concepts such as multimodal transportation. This means more sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and finding ways to connect subdivisions so that people can move from place to place easily. This also means getting rid of single lot zoning so that developers aren't
11. Prohibited from building multihousing units. It's going to take a long time to get things right to address these issues, But we have to start soon.

More from Economy

What do a Tory Peer, Selwyn Gummer (Lord Chadlington), David Sumner ( Sumner Group Holdings) and the Sanchez Perez family (drugs money, laundered through Gold mines) have in common?

It’s another company-saving a £50 million PPE contract shaggy dog story

Connections, connections


What a start to the story

“A bulletproof truck trundled down the road in downtown Lima, guarded by 18 policeman
They were wearing body armour & wielding high velocity rifles

No-one was taking any chances
This was a Special delivery for Peruvian Prosecutor for an anti drug trial


That was in 2011, the same year that Lord Chadlington’s daughter got married in Chadlington to Henry Allsopp.

Who was there?
Yes Kirstie Allsopp of Location, location, location and all this Covid nonsense fame) is his sister

Camilla, his Godmother

Jeremy Hunt

Cameron


Well. Come on. Lord Chadlington had been chair of the local Witney Conservative Association. It’s only fair.

Hang on. Julian Wheatland, Director of SCL Group/ Cambridge Analytica had also been chair of Witney Conservative Association...and campaigned for his mate Cameron

Are we sure Julian Wheatland and his side kick Alexander Nix were not there too @JolyonMaugham ?

I mean. They move in the same North Oxford circles.
Let's discuss how little you actually understand about economics and energy.

The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.


In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:

Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.

You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?

"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"

Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?

Well that's exactly what some have done.
It's always been detached, and it's always made the real economy worse.

[THREAD] 1/10


What is profit? It's excess labor.

You and your coworkers make a chair. Your boss sells that chair for more than he pays for the production of that chair and pockets the extra money.

So he pays you less than what he should and calls the unpaid labor he took "profit." 2/10

Well, the stock market adds a layer to that.

So now, when you work, it isn't just your boss that is siphoning off your excess labor but it is also all the shareholders.

There's a whole class of people who now rely on you to produce those chairs without fair compensation. 3/10

And in order to support these people, you and your coworkers need to up your productivity. More hours etc.

But Wall Street demands endless growth in order to keep the game going, so that's not enough.

So as your productivity increases, your relative wages suffer. 4/10

Not because the goods don't have value or because your labor is worth less. Often it's actually worth more because you've had to become incredibly productive in order to keep your job.

No, your wages suffer because there are so many people who need to profit from your work. 5/10

You May Also Like

I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.