Quantifying Local Economic Losses

I am a proponent of the Strong Towns idea, that we should be making decisions of local policy based on the quantifiable and sustainable best interests of the local population. It seems like a no-brainer, but the policy decisions that have typified the American experience since 1960 give the lie to that.

   

I particularly enjoy this video because it demonstrates the lack of understanding, the lack of even the basics of critical thinking, on the part of local officials. I'm not claiming that Huntington could be or ever has been the Paris or London of America: but how can someone look at the "old, outdated" city and consider it inferior to the blight that they're building now?

I was thinking about that one day while driving. I was stopped at a traffic light, actually, and began to count the cars and think about the amount of money that is lost to the local economy when people spend money on their cars. Now, this is debatable; there are a lot of local people who work on cars, sell car parts, sell insurance, or sell the cars themselves. There is definitely money circulating in the local economy that can be directly attributed to the automotive industry. The question is one of magnitude.

Let's simplify the problem by talking about a gallon of gas. The average price, as of February 10, is about $3.30. Generously, we'll say that convenience store franchisees make about five cents per gallon. Now, imagine that you live in a moderately-sized city, similar to Greensboro, NC. About 150,000 people work in the city. Two-thirds live inside the (expansive) city limits; one third live outside them. We'll be generous and say that it averages out so that everyone lives about five miles from work. We'll also suppose that everyone drives a reasonable car for their commute, and gets 30 miles per gallon.

So, how many gallons are required per day, assuming that these mythical Honda Civic commuters drive only to work and back home?

 $$\frac{150000 \times 5 \times 2 }{30} = 50000$$

Fifty thousand gallons of gas. How much are we paying for that?

$$50000 \times $3.30 = $165000.00$$

Okay, so we're spending a lot on gas.  Well, someone has to be making money, right? How much do the filling stations make in profit on those commuters' fuel? (Keeping in mind that the filling station is the only step in the supply chain of gasoline that actually contributes to the local economy.)

$$ $165000.00 \times $0.05 = $8250.00 $$

So, every day, the filling stations where these commuters are filling up their cars make $8250 in profit off them. Meanwhile, the local economy is losing about $156,750 per day. Or $783,750 per work-week.

A cool $39 million a year.

"The Cloud" (sans Hype)

At this point, I think we've all been inundated with advertisements and promises about cloud services and the like (iCloud, Google Docs, DropBox, etc.); some of these have proven useful, while others have... not. All of these are missing the point; "cloud," in this context, is meaningless, just another marketing buzzword like social media or gamification.

"The cloud," more properly, could be represented as infrastructural automation. Whereas traditional servers, even when they were sitting in data centers, generally represented a "computer" in some sense, cloud servers are usually virtual computers that run within a software product that itself is running on a physical server. That is to say, a very powerful computer pretends to be multiple smaller computers. Thus, if you buy an "Amazon EC2 Instance," you're buying a virtual machine running on a server in Amazon's data centers.

This, coupled with Amazon's service infrastructure, means that you can create utilities that handle creating these virtual machines whenever you need them. Instead of having a sysadmin look at a PC and click around a user interface to set up a machine, you can set up automation so that you can type create-server -image websvc -git-rev a325afg and create a virtual machine that is already running the desired version of your software.

This is the power of cloud computing that matters. User-facing services aside, this is the attraction of THE CLOUD for software companies, and it's the reason that Microsoft has just named Satya Nadella, formerly of their cloud computing division, their new CEO.

The Reading List (2014)

This year, I'm making an effort to extend my knowledge of functional programming and computer science, so my non-fiction reading list is a bit heavy:

• The Little Schemer (in progress)
• The Seasoned Schemer
• The Reasoned Schemer
• The Haskell Road to Logic, Maths, and Programming
• The Annotated Turing

These books are primarily aimed at the gaps in my knowledge that I still have, despite being a "working programmer" for several years now, as a result of my lack of CS education. I've also got a couple of (very heavy) stretch goals waiting in the wings: Design Concepts in Programming Languages and Types in Programming Languages. I don't really expect to get to these this year, but... maybe.

My fiction reading list is a good bit lighter.

• The Land Across (Wolfe) (in progress)
• If on a winter's night a traveler (Calvino)
• A Time of Changes (Silverberg)
• The Fifth Head of Cerberus (Wolfe)
• Glasshouse (Stross)
• The Well of Ascension (Sanderson)

Of course, either list is subject to change, and I expect I'll finish these six books before the end of February, but we'll see: there are always surprises, either way.

Writing

It's been a long time since I had any kind of blog; Jus Gladii has been dead for years, I started a tumblr but despised the interface, and couldn't work up the motivation to put up a blog on my NearlyFreeSpeech account (since I got a "real" job, I don't really enjoy doing server/software maintenance). I'm missing the act of writing, though, without a prompt or defined audience. Something about it is cathartic, and I'd like to spew my opinions out into the howling dark again. Aren't you happy, mythical reader?

The title of the blog, nghĩ về không, probably means "thinking about the unknown" in Vietnamese. Or maybe "thinking about nothing."

Probably.