Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 13:01:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
771 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Chris, you never cease to amaze me. :)
I'm thinking that's an insult. All I did was express a reasonable idea. :-)
> IMO, The automobile is arguably the greatest threat to environmental and
> social quality, and is probably one of the most subsidized sectors of
> the world's economy.
I think Shiri suggested that she'd like to see PT subsidized ahead of cars.
That is _so_ the wrong way to handle this. We just need to unsubsidize cars:
manufacture, operations, roads, gas, everything. Then, it would be fair. I
don't care whether cars win over trains or not, I just want it to be fair. And
you know what...I'll keep my cars because I love to drive. My honeymoon was a
7000 mile road trip. It was a blast. We would still have done it if it had
cost double in gas.
> I was able to explain and demostrate this point to
> some of my students this past term and I had several people tell me that
> they never thought about it that way before. It gave me a glimmer of
> hope.
People don't think about it that way because it isn't normally presented that
way. Just keep teaching.
> What I would like to see is the price of car insurance included
> in the price of gas.
Not I. Pay at the pump insurance assume unreal equity of drivers. For
instance, while an SUV driver should pay more for remidiation of polution,
there is no reason they should pay more for socialized no-fault insurance. I'm
happy with insurance being private and being based on actuarial tables. I was
once a single male under 25 who had 25ish speeding tickets. Belive me when I
know how "unfair" prices can seem. But that was my tough nuggy. Insurance has
to pay for itself.
> Then it would be fairer to the person who drives a
> 100 miles a month and to the person who spends 30 times that on the
> road.
I think the disparity that you're pointing out is already covered. The person
who drives less gets fewer accidents and tickets and so has lower prices.
Further, as Tom pointed out, the cost that a driver incurs on the insurance
system is more relevant than the amount they drive.
> That would probably require some sort of universal id card
> though.
You mean like driver's licenses?
> -chris
Me too.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Big, heavy, expensive vehicle - not cheap to repair. Bad brakes, poor emergency handling, prone to heavily damaging other vehicles in accidents it caused. Not that the proper level of fees can't be handled in other ways. (...) This either (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Chris, you never cease to amaze me. :) IMO, The automobile is arguably the greatest threat to environmental and social quality, and is probably one of the most subsidized sectors of the world's economy. I was able to explain and demostrate (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
