I think I need a more concrete example. In many distributed networks, you can add a new path to it, and if that path is cheaper, then neighboring entities will (gradually) adopt it for cost savings. So if I developed a way to transport material between Seattle and NYC more efficiently, a bunch of individual actors will gravitate toward using that route. In a distributed system, I wouldn’t need any external approval to do that, and other participants would be free to choose to interact with me: it’s not political so much as it is markets.
Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?
How are you going to transport materials more cheaply? I work in manufacturing and a large part of the ultimate bill is S&H. We need to pass that onto our customers. Shipping is bearable outside of the US but as soon as you enter into the US it will eat your margins and leave nothing.
As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services.
> As I understand it the main cost in S&H is personnel, as with most businesses. So either you need more automation or higher wages for the people who need to buy S&H services.
You just highlighted one opportunity for a technological improvement ("automation"). Warehouse automation: a decades-long trend which -- while it can be slowed -- so far seems to be unstoppable by political force. Driverless vehicles and drones: which, which technical solutions, and contingent upon political outcomes. OTOH 90% of the politics is around how these will be deployed on public land and air space, and those politics could be avoided if the players decided to build their own infrastructure like the big railroads did back in the day. Etc.
Yes, but you're handwaving away the complexity of actually doing it. The article, to me, seems to be approaching this from a "earth shattering revelation" viewpoint where people think we can fix systemic issues we have suffered for decades and just make houses cheaper. The only viable solution either of us has so far is not immediately viable.
I’m not focused right now on how complex the solutions will be: I’m focused on whether they’re solvable technologically, or only politically.
People like to dodge problems by saying “high housing cost is a political problem, therefore engineers cannot improve the situation because they’re ill-equipped to solve problems that are political in nature”. That’s a rephrasing of what OP said and IMO it’s throwing the towel in too soon. This problem has political components and technological components. There are enough technological components that’s I think engineers can have a positive impact. No, I’m not saying that implementing those improvements is simple. Just that those technological improvements are possible.
> Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?
In the United States, most centralized authorities do not make decisions in the way you imply. There isn't a single decision maker, from President Biden down to any particular state Governor that is able to exercise authority to materialize an infrastructure project. Thus regional governments are themselves highly political in their decision making; you cannot simply get the local magistrate to buy into the project and suddenly the coast is clear.
Let's take a concrete example that is strictly easier. Let's consider broadband internet connectivity. Google attempted to disrupt local internet providers via Google Fiber. They failed at that attempt. [1]
Not only did Google face issue getting approval from municipal governments, they were opposed by entrenched existing interests and faced continuous lawsuits attempting to delay their efforts and increase their costs.
Now consider that any new transportation network would face the same political opposition and be even more controversial. After all, fiber optic cable is a proven technology and there were no technical challenges to deploying it - all of the issues were purely political. Those issues would be an order of magnitude greater with any significant new transportation network.
You're right for Google Fiber's failure being political, but that article is pretty garbage, mainly points 2 and 3 being price and 'partnerships'.
Google's entire plan wasn't to make an insanely popular internet offering that generated an overall profit within 10 years, it was to make internet itself better for _everyone_ so that they can make profit via their other products over the next 10 years - and that meant going into every single market possible and becoming a competitor. They were ready and willing to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in actually getting their network deployed, but at a certain point the lawsuits against incumbents indeed squeezed way too much out of them that it would be truly reckless to continue fighting them in more suburban markets. In this vein, they did succeed in making a lot of people's internet better across the board as ISPs know that municipalities could greenlight access to new ISPs easily or make their own. Now all they need is Starlink to take the bill for rural internet.
The fifth point about outages is also terrible as the example of the world series outage was a problem on the network's end with blown generators[0]. It doesn't seem like outages are any more rare on GFiber.
It's complicated. Here in southwest, we have suitable (clayish) soil for building adobe with all over the place. Very little transportation in terms of miles compared to lumber, bricks etc.
However ... extremely labor intensive and compared to stick framing, relatively slow. So, despite its local-ness, huge thermal mass and excellent karma, adobe loses out and stick-framed OSB sheathed things that look like adobe win.
But perhaps that's exactly where we need investment - to figure out a way to apply automation to adobe type building?
Unfortunately this isn't the kind of thing the market is good at sorting out, but there could well be some breakthrough tech that makes adobe building cheap. We just don't look for it.
There have been attempts over the centuries. Rammed earth walls attempt to do away with the "dealing with lots of relative small pieces" problem (adobe bricks). But they require form building, which adds a significant labor component that isn't there for the "lots of small pieces" approach.
Two sides of the same coin, no? You can lower the transportation costs of materials either by doing less of it (as you suggest), or by decreasing the cost per weight/volume/distance (my earlier comment).
Is your claim that any improvement to the system will inevitably conflict with a centralized authority — like a regional government that has to approve commerce or land use? Is your argument that it’s a political problem because it’s not, actually, distributed?