🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael Malak" <malak@claygency.com> wrote in message
news:8c3d3t$tdf$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <fVUE4.522$Oc2.28373@monger.newsread.com>,
> russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> > In article <8c0g4f$ofv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com> wrote:
> >
> > }Suppose everyone had personal jets. Then the greens would be
> > }clamoring for personal jet owners to preserve the ozone. And then
> > }people like you would be complaining that the Mayo Clinic was not
> > }accessible on a daily basis. It is normal for people to live in the
> > }DC area and make semi-weekly quick trips to get dialysis at the Mayo
> > }Clinic, after all.
> >
> > So you're agreeing that a necessary consequence of your plans is a
> > reduction in mobility?
>
> Yes, but mobility could be the wrong metric, like "lines of code" or
> Internet bandwidth.  Which would you rather have: a T1 on a 1991
> Internet or a 56K on a 2000 Internet?
>
> Here's an irony for you: I doubt that city dwellers consider themselves
> immobile.  It is the suburbanites that feel immobile, despite a higher
> number of cars per family, free parking, and -- at least in the DC
> area -- more expressways.  Perhaps if all the suburbanites gave away
> their cars they wouldn't feel immobile anymore.
>
>
> > }OK, I'll admit it. There is a lifestyle change involved. You'll
> > }have to use Crest instead of clear-tube-Aquafresh-plus-red-gel.
> >
> > I'll also have to pay SuperGiant prices when I could drive to a
> > Martins and pay far less, if my local store happens to be a
> > SuperGiant.
>
> Actually, in a walkable community you'd probably have a choice of
> food stores.  In the absence of monopolies, capitalism breeds
> competition that way.

The problem is, however, in a walkable community the density wouldn't be
high enough to support more than one or two corner markets.  And these size
markets still wouldn't be able to stock more than one or two choices of
brands or products.