From: Joseph Marsden <marsden.joseph@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Bill Larson
"Answer me this. If they had not built roads and bridges for the increased number of poeple back then, what whould they have done for work?"
I think they would have worked less, and had more free time. Is this a bad thing?
"How would they have sold their cars?"
I think very few people had cars back when they built the highways, and that's part of my point: they were building something that would be more useful to subsequent generations than to them.
"What type of manufacturing could they do or agricultural activity to support themselves?"
Again, with all the effort of building the highway system devoted elsewhere, they could have done any number of things. They could have built magnificent gardens in every town and city; they could have increased production for export; they could have stayed home and written the great American novel several times over.
"Increased productivity put them to work."
So what? Rational people work to live; they do not live to work.
"In fact the only way to justify the interstate highway system was defense. The money spent could not justify be justified by transporting goods. In fact railroads are far more efficient (energy, safety, etc) than roads. There are many thoughts on why and who got roads built. The simple fact is in many ways it has cost us dearly."
This is all certainly true. In fact, GM and a couple of other companies actually conspired to destroy the well-developed light rail system that most cities had back then. But the highways were built, and because of them, we now have a fantastic amount of freedom of movement. We do not have to make reservations with anyone to cross the country, and we can do it on the spur of the moment. This is just one example of the possibilities created by the legacy left to us in the form of the highways.
"Please try again."
Why are you acting as if your perspective is the only one possible for anyone who has considered the facts? Are you that arrogant?
