Please read on the rent of the land by Smith, and anything by Henry George.

You appear to be advocating for anarchist concepts of free association and contract theory, but I've seen no specific citations. Are there any you'd reccomend?

Given that you claim schools of economic theory no longer exist, hypotheticals should prove useful (this is a silly thing to say).

Let's say you do ascribe to the theory that UBI under democratic socialism is an effective means of decreasing human suffering. What would stop landlords from simply increasing rents in proportion to incomes, as they are seen to do in places like SF, LA, and Seattle for example?

A policy reccomendation like a land value tax is something I think may possibly enable said ideological position, but you don't appear to be advocating for that.

Also, claiming that critics of rent control universally "feel" bad for the people they are rent seeking from is a strange position.

Opponents of rent control include the most dastardly machinations of corporate rent seeking. Opponents of rent control include real estate speculators who benefit from ever increasing property values due to artificial scarcity. Opponents of rent control include bloodthirsty businessmen who seek to pay unlivable wages lest the poorest worker be made homeless by the reserve army of labor.

Rent control makes it such that the only way a developer may increase their profits is to build more housing, a thing I believe you want to have happen.

You claim to talk about economic orthodoxy, yet you haven't even read Adam Smith?

There is a real difference between classical economics and neoclassical economics, and the disagreements between Smith and modern economists is one of the best examples of this contradiction.

So what gives? Where's the piss?

To quote the economist J.W mason from this article (its not dense like the smith quote, I swear) from 2019... In direct response to articles like the ones you quoted from the 70s and the 90s.

https://jwmason.org/slackwire/considerations-on-rent-control/

Among economists, rent regulation seems be in similar situation as the minimum wage was 20 years ago. At that time, most economists took it for granted that raising the minimum wage would reduce employment. Textbooks said that it was simple supply and demand — if you raise the price of something, people will buy less of it. But as more state and local governments raised minimum wages, it turned out to be very hard to find any negative effect on employment. This was confirmed by more and more careful empirical studies. Today, it is clear that minimum wages do not reduce employment. And as economists have worked to understand why not, this has improved our theories of the labor market. Rent regulation may be going through a similar evolution today. You may still see textbooks saying that as a price control, rent regulation will reduce the supply of housing. But as the share of Americans renting their homes has increased, more and more jurisdictions are considering or implementing rent regulation. This has brought new attention from economists, and as with the minimum wage, we are finding that the simple supply-and-demand story doesn’t capture what happens in the real world. A number of recent studies have looked at the effects of rent regulations on housing supply, focusing on changes in rent regulations in New Jersey and California and the elimination of rent control in Massachusetts. Contrary to the predictions of the simple supply-and-demand model, none of these studies have found evidence that introducing or strengthening rent regulations reduces new housing construction, or that eliminating rent regulation increases construction. Most of these studies do, however, find that rent control is effective at holding down rents.

EDIT_01: also, the hostility is because not everybody is a bystander in arguments like this. Some people are forced to live a grusome and crushing existence under our system of landlords rights to profit over peoples right to live.

EDIT_02: typos, apologies

Straw man go brrr.

Oh that's excellent news. I hope this won't be used an excuse to neither lower vehicle speeds nor improve the places that we live. I also don't know if this will offset the doubling or tripling of the average automobile in terms of weight that is happening. Also, I fear that if these tires are even slightly less profitable to create, they will not be adopted, rendering fixation on them worse than useless.

It's also a massive issue that some tires and asphalts are far quieter than others, which makes the people forced to live near high speed car infrastructure substantially less miserable. Noise induced stress is one of those health effects that I'm personally too anxious to read in detail about, as it scares the hell out of me. It'd be wonderful if quieter asphalt and tires were also the same kind that were less polluting, but I have learned that tech brained ideas pitched by car companies claiming to solve their massive problems rarely do.

Also, perhaps "EV magazine" has a vested interest in portraying inherent problems with automobiles as non-inherent?

I don't want less car induced lung cancer, I want no car induced lung cancer.

Halving vehicle weights or ranges or top speeds would also nonlinearly decrease tire wear while also decreasing vehicle cost and danger to others, but here in the US none of those things are happening. Instead, every possible negative attribute is worsening, along with corresponding fluff pieces and propoganda to convince truck owners that they aren't doing the harm that they are doing. I also feel terrified that these fluff pieces are poisoning wells of activism around the world, harming the entire human species rather than just the imperial core.

It's true that smaller, two wheeled vehicles are drastically better for the environment, and the fact that so many cities in europe and southeast asia are able to exist with so few "cars" is a disagreement I have with your last, excellent sentence. I very much wish I posessed the intelligence to separate Private automobile ownership from Commercial automobile ownership, but I forget to most of the time. I do genuinely believe that private automobile ownership should be as rare as policy can make it, just like it is (kind of) for airplanes in the US.

Thank you for the excellent link.

Wear is nonlinearly dependant on number of cycles, materials, and load. I've not seen anything in the litterature that indicates rubbers can maintain safety while decreasing their amount of particulate pollution. In fact, ive seen that they are a direct trade with one another.

Lighter cars being forced to drive slower, would do something about it. Also, simply restricting the number of cars in a city the same way we restricted the density of coal burning power plants in a city would also solve the problem in the exact same way.

Non-rubber materials such as steel do not have this problem, which is why trains are good.

As long as you dont drive a deathmachine through a populated city, nonconsentually transfering risk from yourself onto others, nobody ought care my friend. We all need farmers and miners and whatnot. Y'all could drive a turbo boosted afterburning steamroller with JATO assist as an emergency break for all we care, as long as its not harming others.

Most of the buddies I have who are both bike commuters and motorheads have their fun at the track or on the mountain roads. I'd take a 3000$ beat up Miata over these land yachts any day. I don't understand the kind of people who roll coal to the whole foods parking lot in their spotless F690-compensator-edition. It seems as antisocial as it is unfun.

But thats my personal frustration you see. I can't drive fun cars like that anymore because selfish pricks have made the roads less safe for everyone other than themselves.

As a FOSS fem developer, I disagree with this. Extremely complex tools like Aster, openfoam, calculix, and even now openradioss all exist under open source licenses.

All of these tools are built on state funded research that belonged to the people already, but has been enclosed by capital.

Look at nastran and dyna as the examples of this.

For CAD, Freecad exists and is quite good.

If these volunteer developers had even one hundredth the capital that firms who purchase enterprise CAE tools spend, I bet they would be better than even the things that money currently buys. Look at prepomax, developed by one man to support calculix and its easier to learn how to use than ansys workbench.

Blender is the exception that proves the rule.

thank you for the link