Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw

What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
government is very sad.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw

>What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
>Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
>major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
>so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
>been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
>government is very sad.

Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.

Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
in his yout'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU

He tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late '40s, heh, according
to his Wikipedia page. It also said he had been a Democrat but renounced
political parties with the presidential election of 1972. He also isn't
exactly a libertarian. (Have you ever seen them eat?) He calls himself a
classical liberal, which is entirely unacceptable in politics today.

Here's a video of his that I'm not the least bit satisfied gives a full
explanation. He's sort of talking about sprawl without saying "sprawl"
and isn't talking about transportation subsidies at all, and not
directly explaining the direct relationship between transportation and
land value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghDEU2PJ4w

He's not speaking in the video. Someone is reading from his book.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>. . .

>Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
>in his yout'?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU

Sorry. I meant this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw
>
> >What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
> >Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
> >major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
> >so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
> >been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
> >government is very sad.
> Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
> Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.
>
> Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
> in his yout'?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU
>
I had not seen those two specific videos before but already knew most of the things Sowell mentioned.

Peter Robinson asks Sowell about why he was a Marxist as a young man and why he left Marxism in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE

The fact that the statistics he requested were not forthcoming is a very telling indictment of the government. They didn't WANT to get to the truth, they just wanted to perpetuate their jobs.

He gives an abbreviated version of the story in this video, which is clearly the one that one of the videos you cited was excerpted from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCm6mOu0MU

> He tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late '40s, heh, according
> to his Wikipedia page.

> It also said he had been a Democrat but renounced
> political parties with the presidential election of 1972. He also isn't
> exactly a libertarian. (Have you ever seen them eat?)

Now you've lost me. What is the relevance of the eating habits of libertarians?

> He calls himself a
> classical liberal, which is entirely unacceptable in politics today.

A lot of people who get labeled "conservative" by the left will tell you that they are really classical liberals but no one ever seems to listen to them so they keep getting called conservative or "far right" or even "fascist" depending on how extreme their accuser is.

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 4:45:02 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >. . .
> >Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
> >in his yout'?
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU
> Sorry. I meant this one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE

Damn! I should have read ALL your replies before attempting to answer the first ;-)

Rhino <frank.lee.speeking.2152@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:

>>>Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:

>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw

>>>What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
>>>Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
>>>major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
>>>so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
>>>been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
>>>government is very sad.

>>Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
>>Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.

>>Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
>>in his yout'?

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU

>I had not seen those two specific videos before but already knew most of
>the things Sowell mentioned.

>Peter Robinson asks Sowell about why he was a Marxist as a young man and
>why he left Marxism in this video:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE

>The fact that the statistics he requested were not forthcoming is a very
>telling indictment of the government. They didn't WANT to get to the
>truth, they just wanted to perpetuate their jobs.

>He gives an abbreviated version of the story in this video, which is
>clearly the one that one of the videos you cited was excerpted from:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCm6mOu0MU

>>He tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late '40s, heh, according
>>to his Wikipedia page.

>>It also said he had been a Democrat but renounced
>>political parties with the presidential election of 1972. He also isn't
>>exactly a libertarian. (Have you ever seen them eat?)

>Now you've lost me. What is the relevance of the eating habits
>of libertarians?

It's a movie line about how uncouth actors are.

Libertarians are... noisy.

>>He calls himself a classical liberal, which is entirely unacceptable
>>in politics today.

>A lot of people who get labeled "conservative" by the left will tell you
>that they are really classical liberals but no one ever seems to listen
>to them so they keep getting called conservative or "far right" or even
>"fascist" depending on how extreme their accuser is.

That's why I call myself a liberal. It pisses off conservatives who like
to use the word as an epithet, and it pisses off progressives and those
to the left of progressives.

The word "liberal" is much maligned in US politics. Nevertheless, even
conservatism (when we knew what that was a decade ago), grew out of
liberalism. In economics (political economy before the 20th century),
Adam Smith and the other Scottish intellectuals were liberals.

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Here's a video of his that I'm not the least bit satisfied gives a full
> explanation. He's sort of talking about sprawl without saying "sprawl"
> and isn't talking about transportation subsidies at all, and not
> directly explaining the direct relationship between transportation and
> land value.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghDEU2PJ4w
>
I didn't hear anything I would passionately disagree with but yes, it's not a complete analysis of sprawl either. Mind you, that would have to take into account a lot of factors and take much longer. Perhaps he deals with that in more detail in one of his books?

In any case, I deeply appreciate the fact that he's bringing history into the discussion. Too many people think that the world has always been pretty much the way they've seen it in their lifetimes. NYC is a great example. We know that it's this great metropolis that covers Manhattan and much of the area to the west of the island and tend to assume it's always been that big since it's been of similar size our entire lives, even if we've only ever seen it in movies. But Sowell correctly points out that it used to be MUCH smaller.

A few years back, I read David McCullough's book on the building of the Panama Canal, which was originally an Anglo-French initiative headed by Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had spearheaded the building of the Suez Canal. At some point in the late 1800s, De Lesseps visited NYC and was taken to the tallest building in NYC to view the city. That building was FOUR storeys high! That's practically inconceivable to most people. I expect some people would scoff and say that was ridiculous and they should have taken him to the Empire State Building; they would presumably be embarrassed when someone pointed out that the Empire State Building wasn't finished until 1931. Even the Flatiron building, which some deem the first-ever skyscraper, was only completed in 1902 and was only 22 storeys (after being built up from its original 20 storeys).

Sowell correctly points out how the city was built north only gradually and had initially been limited to the southern tip of the island; the rest was pretty much just farmland. This kind of perspective is valuable in understanding how the city grew.

Speaking of growth, I remember being surprised to learn that Barcelona and Madrid were major cities in Columbus' day just as they are now but there was one big difference: the population of each of those cities was only 40,000-50,000 back then. Of course they grew over time but people who visit these cities will need to appreciate that most of the modern versions of those cities was not in existence when Columbus visited them. You see this all over Europe: city cores that really are walkably small (if you can walk without much effort) with occasional remnants of city walls close by but a whole lot of newer construction beyond that.

> He's not speaking in the video. Someone is reading from his book.

That's clear from the beginning: it's a noticeably different voice (or voice synthesizer).

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 4:25:21 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <frank.lee.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:
>
> >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw
>
> >>>What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
> >>>Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
> >>>major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
> >>>so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
> >>>been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
> >>>government is very sad.
>
> >>Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
> >>Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.
>
> >>Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
> >>in his yout'?
>
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU
>
> >I had not seen those two specific videos before but already knew most of
> >the things Sowell mentioned.
>
> >Peter Robinson asks Sowell about why he was a Marxist as a young man and
> >why he left Marxism in this video:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE
>
> >The fact that the statistics he requested were not forthcoming is a very
> >telling indictment of the government. They didn't WANT to get to the
> >truth, they just wanted to perpetuate their jobs.
>
> >He gives an abbreviated version of the story in this video, which is
> >clearly the one that one of the videos you cited was excerpted from:
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCm6mOu0MU
>
> >>He tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late '40s, heh, according
> >>to his Wikipedia page.
>
> >>It also said he had been a Democrat but renounced
> >>political parties with the presidential election of 1972. He also isn't
> >>exactly a libertarian. (Have you ever seen them eat?)
>
> >Now you've lost me. What is the relevance of the eating habits
> >of libertarians?
> It's a movie line about how uncouth actors are.
>
> Libertarians are... noisy.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

> >>He calls himself a classical liberal, which is entirely unacceptable
> >>in politics today.
>
> >A lot of people who get labeled "conservative" by the left will tell you
> >that they are really classical liberals but no one ever seems to listen
> >to them so they keep getting called conservative or "far right" or even
> >"fascist" depending on how extreme their accuser is.
> That's why I call myself a liberal. It pisses off conservatives who like
> to use the word as an epithet, and it pisses off progressives and those
> to the left of progressives.
>
> The word "liberal" is much maligned in US politics. Nevertheless, even
> conservatism (when we knew what that was a decade ago), grew out of
> liberalism. In economics (political economy before the 20th century),
> Adam Smith and the other Scottish intellectuals were liberals.

It's a shame when perfectly good words get distorted to the point where they've degenerated into insults. I wish I knew how to rehabilitate them but maybe we just have to accept they're unusable and come up with new words to express the key concepts....

Rhino <frank.lee.speeking.2152@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Here's a video of his that I'm not the least bit satisfied gives a full
>>explanation. He's sort of talking about sprawl without saying "sprawl"
>>and isn't talking about transportation subsidies at all, and not
>>directly explaining the direct relationship between transportation and
>>land value.

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghDEU2PJ4w

>I didn't hear anything I would passionately disagree with but yes, it's
>not a complete analysis of sprawl either. Mind you, that would have to
>take into account a lot of factors and take much longer. Perhaps he
>deals with that in more detail in one of his books?

I think that's from one of his books that I'd read a few years ago. I
haven't read all of his books; he's written four dozen. I've read two or
three of them.

>In any case, I deeply appreciate the fact that he's bringing history
>into the discussion. Too many people think that the world has always
>been pretty much the way they've seen it in their lifetimes. NYC is a
>great example. We know that it's this great metropolis that covers
>Manhattan and much of the area to the west of the island and tend to
>assume it's always been that big since it's been of similar size our
>entire lives, even if we've only ever seen it in movies. But Sowell
>correctly points out that it used to be MUCH smaller.

In the class I teach, we use a similar example about the growth of New
York. It's a well-known example.

>A few years back, I read David McCullough's book on the building of the
>Panama Canal, which was originally an Anglo-French initiative headed by
>Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had spearheaded the building of the Suez
>Canal. At some point in the late 1800s, De Lesseps visited NYC and was
>taken to the tallest building in NYC to view the city. That building was
>FOUR storeys high! That's practically inconceivable to most people. I
>expect some people would scoff and say that was ridiculous and they
>should have taken him to the Empire State Building; they would
>presumably be embarrassed when someone pointed out that the Empire State
>Building wasn't finished until 1931.

Modern society should be embarassed. Construction began a little more
than a year earlier.

>. . .

Nothing to do with what we're discussing, but you'll get a kick out of
this list:

https://patrickcollison.com/fast

On 2023-07-13 20:25:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> Rhino <frank.lee.speeking.2152@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Thomas Sowell explains why intellectuals love socialism:
>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugKl9JtKtrw
>
>>>> What a wise man Sowell is! This guy should have been nominated for the
>>>> Supreme Court or even been a Presidential nominee for one of the two
>>>> major parties. Unfortunately, he's 93 and I can't find any recent video
>>>> so I'm inclined to suspect he's not up to a job like that now. But he's
>>>> been wise for a long time and the fact that he hasn't had a major job in
>>>> government is very sad.
>
>>> Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
>>> Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.
>
>>> Have you seen his videos with a bit of self criticm as he was a Marxist
>>> in his yout'?
>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWJDGiD1OqE
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5f_3BPKrsU
>
>> I had not seen those two specific videos before but already knew most of
>> the things Sowell mentioned.
>
>> Peter Robinson asks Sowell about why he was a Marxist as a young man and
>> why he left Marxism in this video:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8lzi3t-GTE
>
>> The fact that the statistics he requested were not forthcoming is a very
>> telling indictment of the government. They didn't WANT to get to the
>> truth, they just wanted to perpetuate their jobs.
>
>> He gives an abbreviated version of the story in this video, which is
>> clearly the one that one of the videos you cited was excerpted from:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCm6mOu0MU
>
>>> He tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the late '40s, heh, according
>>> to his Wikipedia page.
>
>>> It also said he had been a Democrat but renounced
>>> political parties with the presidential election of 1972. He also isn't
>>> exactly a libertarian. (Have you ever seen them eat?)
>
>> Now you've lost me. What is the relevance of the eating habits
>> of libertarians?
>
> It's a movie line about how uncouth actors are.
>
> Libertarians are... noisy.
>
>>> He calls himself a classical liberal, which is entirely unacceptable
>>> in politics today.
>
>> A lot of people who get labeled "conservative" by the left will tell you
>> that they are really classical liberals but no one ever seems to listen
>> to them so they keep getting called conservative or "far right" or even
>> "fascist" depending on how extreme their accuser is.
>
> That's why I call myself a liberal. It pisses off conservatives who like
> to use the word as an epithet, and it pisses off progressives and those
> to the left of progressives.
>
> The word "liberal" is much maligned in US politics. Nevertheless, even
> conservatism (when we knew what that was a decade ago), grew out of
> liberalism. In economics (political economy before the 20th century),
> Adam Smith and the other Scottish intellectuals were liberals.

I actually agree with you - the people who are the problem these days
are *leftists*. No one should call them "liberals", because they aren't
that at all.

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
> Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
> Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.
>
I meant to comment on this before but focused on other issues....

I know that Sowell is an economist but have Supreme Court justices ALWAYS been lawyers? I expect they have been in "modern times" but was it a rock-solid requirement from the beginning of the institution?

It seems to me that wisdom is more important than a specific profession. I think I - and many others - would have higher regard for Sowell simply on the basis of his huge level of experience than I do in many contemporary justices.

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 4:53:14 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <frank.lee.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:46:25 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
> >>Here's a video of his that I'm not the least bit satisfied gives a full
> >>explanation. He's sort of talking about sprawl without saying "sprawl"
> >>and isn't talking about transportation subsidies at all, and not
> >>directly explaining the direct relationship between transportation and
> >>land value.
>
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghDEU2PJ4w
>
> >I didn't hear anything I would passionately disagree with but yes, it's
> >not a complete analysis of sprawl either. Mind you, that would have to
> >take into account a lot of factors and take much longer. Perhaps he
> >deals with that in more detail in one of his books?
> I think that's from one of his books that I'd read a few years ago. I
> haven't read all of his books; he's written four dozen. I've read two or
> three of them.
> >In any case, I deeply appreciate the fact that he's bringing history
> >into the discussion. Too many people think that the world has always
> >been pretty much the way they've seen it in their lifetimes. NYC is a
> >great example. We know that it's this great metropolis that covers
> >Manhattan and much of the area to the west of the island and tend to
> >assume it's always been that big since it's been of similar size our
> >entire lives, even if we've only ever seen it in movies. But Sowell
> >correctly points out that it used to be MUCH smaller.
> In the class I teach, we use a similar example about the growth of New
> York. It's a well-known example.
> >A few years back, I read David McCullough's book on the building of the
> >Panama Canal, which was originally an Anglo-French initiative headed by
> >Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had spearheaded the building of the Suez
> >Canal. At some point in the late 1800s, De Lesseps visited NYC and was
> >taken to the tallest building in NYC to view the city. That building was
> >FOUR storeys high! That's practically inconceivable to most people. I
> >expect some people would scoff and say that was ridiculous and they
> >should have taken him to the Empire State Building; they would
> >presumably be embarrassed when someone pointed out that the Empire State
> >Building wasn't finished until 1931.
> Modern society should be embarassed. Construction began a little more
> than a year earlier.
>
There wasn't nearly as much government in those days so therefore way fewer people that you had to persuade (or bribe) to get the necessary permits and permissions. Nowadays, it can take a decade or more to get permission to build something.

I'm sure I'm supposed to believe that various tragedies have been averted via all these regulations but I'm not really sure that I do. Obviously, we all want to avoid things like building collapses but have all these regulations actually prevented any? Or have they just provided steady work for bureaucrats?

I remember reading about engineers who were working below ground in Chicago somewhere (20 or 30 years ago), who saw signs of leakage in a tunnel and were very concerned that some major flooding was about to do immense damage underground. They reported to their supervisor who agreed. They were keen to get to work IMMEDIATELY on the repairs which would have cost something like $50,000* but the rules for their department was that any expenditure over $5,000 ** needed approval from umpteen departments, city council, etc. etc. They started to try to get all those approvals but the flooding got very bad long before they had the approvals and over a BILLION dollars of damage was done, all of which had to be borne by the taxpayers. The glacial speed of the bureaucracy proved VERY expensive.

* or a number of similar magnitude
** I could be wrong about that number but the key thing is that the number was very low and lower than they needed to do the urgently needed repairs
> >. . .
>
> Nothing to do with what we're discussing, but you'll get a kick out of
> this list:
>
> https://patrickcollison.com/fast

Some great examples there. The article mentions Philip Howard. I have one of his books, The Death of Common Sense. That's where I found the story about the flooding under Chicago. That book also contained a great counter-example. When the Glenridge Earthquake destroyed some major bridges in the LA area, the then-governor (Pete Wilson?) waived all the bureaucracy that is normally required and immediately hired a contractor. The contractor had replaced the bridges in mere DAYS, 11 if I remember correctly.

Rhino <frank.lee.speeking.2152@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:14:01 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Supreme Court? Perish the thought. He's no lawyer. He's an economist.
>>Early on, he wrote an economics textbook, which is quite good.

>I meant to comment on this before but focused on other issues....

>I know that Sowell is an economist but have Supreme Court justices
>ALWAYS been lawyers?

Yes, you're correct. It's not a constitutional requirement. There have
been non-lawyers on the Court but I don't recall.

>I expect they have been in "modern times" but was
>it a rock-solid requirement from the beginning of the institution?

>It seems to me that wisdom is more important than a specific profession.
>I think I - and many others - would have higher regard for Sowell simply
>on the basis of his huge level of experience than I do in many
>contemporary justices.

Rhino <frank.lee.speeking.2152@gmail.com> wrote:

>. . .

>I remember reading about engineers who were working below ground in
>Chicago somewhere (20 or 30 years ago), who saw signs of leakage in a
>tunnel and were very concerned that some major flooding was about to do
>immense damage underground.

The Loop flood was April 13, 1992. Yes, that's a true story.

Chicago Dock and Dredge was the contractor replacing pilings at the Kinzie
Street moveable bridge over the north branch of the Chicago River. The
replacements were supposed to be in the exact spot as the old pilings,
but they were misplaced and they failed to consult the maps of Board
of Underground.

The Chicago Loop had a massive freight tunnel network 40 feet below
grade, and one of the pilings pierced the roof of the tunnel. The tunnel
network, long out of service, was used to remove coal ash and for some
cargo deliveries. It was connected to every single downtown building of
a certain age. All their basements were flooded.

Due to Admirality Law limiting damages, Chicago Dock and Dredge was
found to be at fault; they paid $40,000.

But yes, you are correct, that the crack was spotted before it had
turned into a massive leak.

>. . .

>>Nothing to do with what we're discussing, but you'll get a kick out of
>>this list:

>>https://patrickcollison.com/fast

>Some great examples there. The article mentions Philip Howard. I have
>one of his books, The Death of Common Sense. That's where I found the
>story about the flooding under Chicago. That book also contained a great
>counter-example. When the Glenridge Earthquake destroyed some major
>bridges in the LA area, the then-governor (Pete Wilson?) waived all the
>bureaucracy that is normally required and immediately hired a
>contractor. The contractor had replaced the bridges in mere DAYS, 11 if
>I remember correctly.