3 ms·
At first, I thought that. Why wouldn't they just take their money and use it to subsidize more for the public? But then, I thought that maybe, they are thinkin
by molmalo 11y ago
At first, I thought that. Why wouldn't they just take their money and use it to subsidize more for the public?
But then, I thought that maybe, they are thinking something like this: If smog is not a problem anymore for the rich, because of these devices, there would be less incentive to stop producing it, and go green.
I thinks that it's something similar to public school or public health. If the rich have access to private alternatives, their concerns about the quality of the public offering is reduced. In this case, if they are not the ones breathing smoggy air, their concern about air pollution (in poorer zones) is significantly reduced.
- Pyxl101 11y agoOr the increased demand will make them cheaper to produce and the consumption will justify further investment into making them better. No, seems pretty shortsighted to me not to work with developers. That kind of attitude tends to be reflective of being dogmatic (screw the rich), rather than taking a rational approach designed to maximize public value (willing to admit that it could be the case that the rich will be early adopters whose consumption benefits everyone).
- MichaelGG 11y agoYou can buy something with equivalent throughput and functionality for $5000 off Amazon (16 * 1000CFM filters). There's no way these will make smog not a problem for the rich outside of closed, indoor environments.