"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:


"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people on
the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation started
in the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't believe
me, just read a history book.

Why.
They don't agree with what you say.
After all we aren't talking about 2000 year old civilizations here,
unless you have evidence of broadband in the pyramids.

This is trying to hit a moving target. One minute you are talking about
civilisation, then when you start losing the argument, you change the
subject back to broadband.

I have not started to lose.
You are the one that states that the rural society is not subsidised by
cities.
However it costs more to provide the services to the rural parts and you
don't pay more.
That means you are subsidised more.
Its quit simple.


As I suggested, just take a look at page 8 of:
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Pu...licFinance.pdf

I suggest you look at it as nowhere does it make any inference about rural
and city spending.
It talks about regional spending.
Maybe you think the SE is all city and the North west is all farms?

This is a message near the bottom of this thread together with my comment.

I look at your arguments rather like listening to the co2 deniers or the
Victorian Punch cartoon of the man in the zoo standing next to a giraffe
saying 'there is no such animal'. As I said, read a history book about
what enabled the growth of cities. Particularly why they started to grow
exponentially after the introduction of better farming methods 200 years
ago.

Again, what has that got to do with the argument?
Nobody has said that growing food is not required and farmers get paid to do
so.
All of the major advances have been made as the population grows and it
doesn't grow without cities.
You need a minimum population density for innovations to happen.
Even tractors were developed in the city.

As it happens I fail to see what your arguments are based on and you don't
appear to be able to state what.