I want to come back to this real quick because it's indicative of an extremely common error in economic reasoninghttps://twitter.com/380kmh/status/840232233621442560 …
-
-
The question is never "is the USA too big for a railway network;" some tiny countries have no rail at all, while Russia has its vast network
-
The question is "why don't American cities have modern rail networks and industries?"
-
Correcting the question doesn't immediately shed light on an answer--there are MANY reasons for poor rail service in US cities--but it helps
-
If nothing else, it avoids unhelpful analogies and specious reasoning
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Economic growth is primarily tied to increased energy availability, which is not necessarily urban.
-
harnessing and developing new energy sources is an exclusively urban activity which only gets ruralized later to scale up
-
maybe. another way to look at it: increased energy availability allows for urban development. urban economy 2ndry to energy
-
precisely backwards--urban development increases available energy per capita (same way it did for food in Neolithic)
-
agriculture was an urban invention, which later moved into the countryside to scale up--the way energy does now
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.