A simple economics question:

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
As an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Bronx_Expressway

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, are you using Robert Moses as an example of what you WANT to happen??? He's the embodiment of everything that is WRONG with "planned" growth.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But a free market society will tend to allocate more of its resources on the goods that richer consumers will buy than is warranted by any reasonable estimation of utility

[/ QUOTE ]

I dissagree, the % of the population that is "rich" isn't huge so I dont believe this to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't look at it as a micro question, think of it as a macro one. Look at the world, a disproportunate amount of capital is centered in the US. Along with that we consume a disproportunate amount of the worlds resources.

Probably 85% of Americans are "rich" when compaired to the rest of the world so it's hard to see this at work.

So mrgold is correct. Why are we using the world resouces to produce DVD players while people are starving? Simple, because in a free market, people work to benefit themselves and there is no monatary benefit in feeding starving people.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would help if you could further explain what you mean by "disproportunate." I don't quite understand your argument.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So all that and you give me a strawman and an irrelevant question.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, it's not a strawman and it's not an irrelevant question. You assert that there is "no available land" to build roads, and even if there were, it would be too expensive. The fact that it's too expensive at market prices to justify building a road means that the owners of the road value it more than the potential road builders. Undeterred, you decide that you know better and that a road is needed, so you have to steal the land (emminent domain is repugnant enough, but you're blantantly going to provide less-than-market-price compensation?).

The question is entirely relevant. The value of land is directly impacted by the utility one can derrive from it. Therefore landowners have a interest in making sure there is road service (or some other form of transportation availability) to their property, else it's not very usable, and therefore not worth much.

Look, I know the comment about curing AIDS vs. curing impotence is witty, but that's all that it is. It makes a bumper sticker point that's not a good one anyway.

The impotence curing drugs were discovered as side effects of other drugs that were being tested. At this point, they were then marketed as impotence drugs.

I think it's foolish to deny that millions and millions of dollars have been spent on trying to find a cure / vaccine for AIDS.

Clearly it's EASIER, medically, to cure impotence rather than AIDS.

[Triumph36]

My point is not that government 'steals' the land at less than market price - though it may have done so and may continue to do so. My point is that once it is made clear that highway developers wish to buy the land, they will have to buy the land in bulk - and as a result, the market price skyrockets. Not only do highway developers have to get a great deal of highly developed land, they have to get it all in a relatively straight line.

I will say it again - I was *not* talking about local roads which are clearly of utility. I am talking about superhighways which may have little or *no* utility to local residents - they may not even have an exit into the community which they cut through, and the community may not even want one.

So I ask again - how are these superhighways, clearly beneficial to interstate trade, going to be built without eminent domain and 'more' efficiently than government?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Markets make no value judgments.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that once it is made clear that highway developers wish to buy the land, they will have to buy the land in bulk - and as a result, the market price skyrockets. Not only do highway developers have to get a great deal of highly developed land, they have to get it all in a relatively straight line.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the price "skyrockets" and the project is no longer economically feasable, the market is trying to tell you something - the current owner of the land values the land more than the potential buyer. If someone in another state is going to benefit from the road, let them pay the price for it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about superhighways which may have little or *no* utility to local residents - they may not even have an exit into the community which they cut through, and the community may not even want one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, sounds like a great thing to force down someone's throat. You don't want it, you won't even get to use it, but somebody else (might) benefit from it (but is unwilling to pay for it), so we're taking your land. Yay.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Markets make no value judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]
The hell they don't.
Requires new thread.