And no, the answer cannot be public transit. Public transit won't be a valid response to the next Pearl Harbor.
And no, the answer cannot be public transit. Public transit won't be a valid response to the next Pearl Harbor.
How about we make it so that only 50% of the residential land is zoned for single family homes and let people build whatever they want on the rest of it? The newly rezoned land will be worth more, so if you want to live in a single family home, sell yours at a profit and buy one in the area still zoned for it.
IMO yes it will, because it just makes sense. Denser cities are more efficient for everyone, normal people included. Transport price per unit drops, rent drops, all infrastructure costs per unit drop. I think most people will happily take a reduction in expenses in exchange for density.
No they don't, all that stuff is cheaper out of the city. People move to a city because their income also goes up, services (such as those you listed, but also others) are more expensive in a city, but goods are the same price, i.e. relatively cheaper compared to what you can earn out of a city.
So people in a city can, and are, far more wasteful of purchased goods because the price is effectively lower for them.
And some places have more space and cars work fine there.
You have some areas that are kind of a middle between the two, those have some trouble.
bro was talking about public transit & Chinese cars, my guy.
There are probably plenty of ways to ensure a manufacturing base, but having a robust auto industry is one way that is pretty well understood.
I don’t like the amount of inefficiency caused by protectionism, though.
Go reshore the military. Yes, the Americans and Western Europe lost in EVs. Though, I only ever see Americans turn this event into losing a war.