everything the car industry has ever said about itself has always been a lie and using the passive voice to hide the fact that you fell for it *again* is the real story here
- cars can mix with pedestrians, horses, streetcars, and bicycles: lie
- drunk driving is safe: lie
- humans and bicycles don’t belong on the street: lie
- leaded gas is fine: lie
- seatbelts don’t save lives: lie
- it’s not our fault cars explode: lie
- speeding is safe: lie
- cars are more affordable than trains: lie
- highways pay for themselves: lie
- everyone can afford a car: lie
- this car makes women/men/non-binary humans attracted to you: lie
- you need a bigger car to be safe out there: lie
- we didn’t cheat on those pollution tests: lie
- we can only make the cars consumers demand: lie
- we’re making tons of electric vehicles to solve climate change: lie
- next year all cars will be driven by robots: lie
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Something that's struck me as strange about the discourse about "the groups" and "billionaire oligarchs" is that basically every leftist non-profit and socialist-coded organization is funded at some level by capitalist billionaire tech oligarchs.
Why don't we talk about that? 🧵
In my personal case, as someone who worked in philanthropy for many years, we didn't used to have an unhinged leftist movement spreading lies and focusing on defeating Democrats. Even the most far-left groups, like Greenpeace or ACLU, pretty much stuck to empiricism.
But something changed around ~ 2012-2014 when a new cohort of activists started rising through the ranks.
I specifically recall a trip to New York when I was starting a climate science organization. We met with a bunch of younger activists ...
Trump's call for price controls on cars -- which came right after he effectively put the US Government in charge of car production quotas -- is interesting if you unpack the politics of it.
Yes, it is a transparently communist policy. But so is everything about cars in the US.
American drivers now have multiple generations of acculturation to price controls, quotas, and mandates when it comes to cars; they are fully adapted to communism, even though they still laugh when you point it out.
And this is not a Republican thing. It's bipartisan.
Multiple US Presidents have made taxpayers bail out domestic carmakers after poor management drove them to bankruptcy. That's not something capitalists do -- if you run an unprofitable enterprise that fails, you close.
We've never let capitalism anywhere near the car industry.
For folks new to Abundance discourse you may notice that its critics are, almost to a person, the same people who, about 10 years ago, started opposing YIMBYism because YIMBYs want more homes.
A thread about what's happening 🧵
For the last ~ 40 years, housing policy in US cities has been largely determined by a coalition of NIMBY homeowners and left-leaning non-profits that lean pretty socialist. NIMBYs got what they wanted -- little to no housing -- and leftie non-profits got what they wanted: grift.
So when YIMBYs showed up it was natural for that coalition to not just hang together, but go to war:
YIMBYs are a threat to their ideology. YIMBYs properly diagnosed the problem -- a housing shortage -- that they mutually caused, and maintain for their profit and enjoyment.
The current meltdown in California insurance market — which is one of the major factors behind the number of homes built in extreme high fire hazard zones — dates to 1988.
That’s the year California voters passed Prop 103.
A political 🧵
Initially proposed by California drivers angry over having to pay cost of crashing their cars, Prop 103 was written broadly enough to cover all insurance:
It made it illegal for insurance premiums to adjust based on risk, banned the use of forecast models…
… and instituted price controls on premiums, requiring insurers to petition state every time they wanted to raise rates.
It essentially killed the primary purpose of insurance, which is to signal to market the degree of financial risk someone was taking with a house or car.
… they explained that most of the local bandwidth that provided communities with local news and programming was about to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
It wiped local radio off the map.
In those days, same as today, the highest bidders were right-wing nut jobs.
For reasons I still do not understand, the major progressive/left/Democratic donor class simply do not care about owned media.
And so, rather than robust ecosystem of media supporting a broad, progressive, Democratic agenda, we have small outposts of lefty shitposters, whose …
The thing that most autonomous vehicle advocates get simply wrong, and seem to have created an ideological barrier against understanding, is the intractable relationship between mobility mode (car, bus, walk, bicycle) and land use (where homes are located, at what density).
Autonomous vehicles, at root, are still just cars. There is talk about expanding to vans/jitneys — and this is, from a mobility perspective, by far the most interesting possible application.
But they still only work in cities.
US land use is designed to maximize sales of cars.
IOW, the *current* spatial pattern of suburbs is such that you can’t live in most of them unless every adult in that home has their own car. Otherwise it’s just about physically impossible for them to go anywhere.
There are huge exceptions: “Inner ring” suburbs built …