The assumption is that cars will be with us forever. And they better be since most of the economy is dependent on them in one way or another. So, the general wisdom is that they are good for the economy and we can’t live without them. And, they are a defining and central indicator of the status and distinction we hold in this world. So, whats to get uppity about the car for?
Yves Engler and Bianca Mugyenyi are co-authors of Stop Signs: Cars and Capitalism on the Road to Economic, Social and Ecological Decay. Although they are coming out of the dissident and somewhat marginalized left, they are important voices who offer some compelling arguments about the alienating and destructive impact that automobiles have had on a global scale.
Yves Engler:To garner positive attention, car manufacturers have penetrated nearly every known form of communication. Ever read a book about cars? It was probably financed by the industry. Automakers have also funded films, architects and urban planners. But, the industry’s main influence within the media is its reach into the newsroom….
…Dependent on advertising for most of its revenue, the Detroit News must be responsive to the auto industry. As much as one-in-seven advertising dollars come from car companies. At $18 billion a year, auto advertisers in the U.S. spend twice the next industry, retail. Not for nothing has it been said that Sunday papers are car advertisements surrounded by casual journalism. As a result, automakers are a powerhouse of colossal proportions in their dealings with the media.Read More:http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/car-companies-control-media-content/
“In a Sept. 2010 article for Counterpunch, the authors wrote, ‘Nearly three-quarters of U.S.households earning less than $15,000 a year own a car, and in an extreme example of auto dependence, tens of thousands of “mobile homeless” live in their vehicles. The poor purchase cars because there is no other option in a society built to serve the needs of the automobile. If you want to work you need a car. If you want to visit your friends you need a car. Car-dominated transport eats up a disproportionate amount of working-class income. At the same time, the automobile is an important means for the wealthy to assert themselves socially. A luxury vehicle lets the whole world know that you have arrived, both literally and metaphorically.’ Read More:http://thewmeacblog.org/2011/05/27/potluck-discussion-with-the-authors-of-stop-signs-cars-and-capitalism/
But….dies all their reasoning go for naught, or is it reinforced by the emergence of driverless cars? An event that will undoubtedly be deflationary and create unemployment among the semi-skilled who earn a living with driving and delivery? The technology is getting quite warm and in the near term the snags, pricing and safety considerations will make the scripted driving scenario an economically jarring event for many.
ADDENDUM:
any move to curtail car domination is an attack against the little guy because automobiles give everyone equal access to mobility. In a Wall Street Journal opinion article, Stephen Moore captured the essence of this argument. “The car allowed even the common working man total freedom of mobility — the means to go anywhere, anytime, for any reason. In many ways, the automobile is the most egalitarian invention in history, dramatically bridging the quality-of-life gap between rich and poor.”…
…The car’s proponents invoke class even though all other forms of land transportation are eminently more accessible. Shoes, a bike, or a metro pass are all cheaper than a car with its gas, insurance and upkeep needs. According to the American Public Transportation Association, individuals who get around with a bus pass instead of a car can save a whopping $8,368 annually.
When the automobile is used as the primary mode of mass transit, the poorest are hardest hit. In 2008, for instance, the poorest fifth of Americans spent 13 per cent of their income on gas. The top fifth spent 3 per cent. In Highway Robbery: Transportation, Racism and New Routes to Equity, Robert Bullard notes: “Those earning less than $ 14,000 per year, after taxes, spend approximately 40 per cent of their take-home pay on transportation expenditures. This compares to 22 per cent for families earning between $27,177 and $44,461 annually, and 13 per cent per year for families making more than $71,900 per year.” Read More:http://www.counterpunch.org/engler09102010.html
——————————–
Michael Ferguson: primary impact of robotically driven vehicles is not in cars, but rather in transport trucks, buses, etc. This is about 2.5 million jobs in the U.S. that are just going to go away. That makes everything cheaper. As I discuss in The Future 101 and further in The Future 501, the central banks will inflate the currency to compensate and the result will be increasing incomes.
As to homes, yes, they will become highly automated and cooking, cleaning, dishwashing, laundry, lawn care, etc. will become a thing of the past. This will decrease our domestic workload and create time for more actualizing activities.
I have been following Dr. Behrokh Khoshnevis since he first proposed his ‘printed’ house. I was skeptical from the beginning and he has repeatedly missed his deadlines. I don’t think this is very practical. However, well within current technology are siding robots, roofing robots, millwright robots, tile laying robots, painting robots, etc. I do not think we are far from a time when one person will arrive at a construction site and deploy an army of robots that construct the house.
Of course, much more at http://thefuture101.blogspot.com/