4 ms·

I would like to see some less idealistic economists take over on these issues. One interesting option is creating a fake "currency" for fast lanes. If poor peo

by harryh 9y ago

I would like to see some less idealistic economists take over on these issues. One interesting option is creating a fake "currency" for fast lanes. If poor people don't have enough money, then we should give them money instead of fake currency. Giving them fake currency reduces utility. If we give them money they can buy whatever they want/need the most. If we give them scrip that can only be used on one thing then they have to buy that even if they would value it less than something else.

dredmorbius 9y ago
If it is some fake currency, say, HOV-credits, that is distributed on a monthly basis, equally, to everyone, then to a first approximation, you're providing for equivalence in capacity to pay. You can choose to spend, or not spend, your HOV-credits, on any given day. This also offers the opportunity for rationing, as it's possible to increase or decrease the allocations based on net usage. If the credits expire after some time, say a few months, then there's the ability to bank them, but not indefinitely. This is not a form of perpetual wealth accumulation. The argument could be made for either making the credits transferable, so that those less wealthy in other regards could sell them for other units of trade, or not, and/or to set limits on such transactions. All of this occurs independent of actual currency, though there would be an overall budget to the programme. And it accomplishes the goal of setting an opportunity cost to highway travel, and congestion, which could itself be varied according to circumstances (higher charges at peak hours / during high-congestion events, lower off-peak or when uncongested). Then there's the question of interactions with alternative transit, telecommute, or similar schemes.
- harryh 9y ago
  1) If your roads are being overused you can easily ration that by raising the dollar price. 2) What is wrong with wealth accumulation? If credit recipients would rather do that than drive on roads they should be able to do so. They's how they get less poor! 3) If they credits are transferable then you are effectively giving people money. Just in an ass-backwards and overly confusing way.
  - pas 9y ago
    Setting up a traffic-ration system fairly is probably a lot simpler than giving poor people money.
    - harryh 9y ago
      I disagree. We have all the technology and processes we could ever need to distribute and charge people dollars for things. Creating a whole new kind of currency with its own special rules is a huge undertaking. Not to mention the ongoing pain-in-the ass cost to every citizen when they have to carry around and think about a new special kind of money that can only be used for one thing.
      - thatcat 9y ago
        The tech isn't the problem, it's that the avalibility distribution that is imposed on roads is the same as the income distribution. In a way it creates the same problems as removing net neutrality. If you did that with roads, what's stopping the upper income distribution from excluding everyone else from entire cities? A gated community concept might scale to an entire upperclass city with a private airport, hostpital, and 1000$ entry fee to keep out the poor. This might even effectively reduce overall costs for the municipality since homeless and property crime would be greatly reduced. On the other hand if other currency is used, it makes everyone easily trackable. I think the dumb pipes model still has some advantages.
        pas 9y ago
        > it makes everyone easily trackable. zkSNARKs for the rescue! It's surprisingly easy to roll with that. (See Zcash, Monero, ETH and whatever.)
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      There are simple and effective (from a traffic-flow-control perspective) solutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramp_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramp_meter I'd focus more on one of my other punts above: ways of drawing a correspondence between traffic and congestion, on the one hand, and alternative transit options (buses, rail, cycling, telecommuting, etc.) on the other. Market pricing signals fail to provide the coordination many of these options require. Typically, planning-based approaches are required.
dalbasal 9y ago
The problem in this case is not really "not enough money" in an absolute sense. To use the fast lane in a floating price system, you need to outbid the rest of the people. IE it's a function of income distribution. You'd need to solve inequality. That's a great thing to do, but meanwhile we can just fix fast lanes separately. ...just in case inequality still exists in 10 years.
- harryh 9y ago
  The issue here is that you are prioritizing using "the fast lane in a floating price system" as the most important thing when for a lot of people that will not be the case. They might rather spend that money on housing, or education or chewing gum or who the hell knows what. The utility maximizing choice it to let them make their own decision as they know more about their preferences than you do. You making that decision for them destroys utility.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    (op) I don't know why the downvotes, you make valid points. I think what you say is true, but not in the context of this specific scenario. This scenario starts with a public good that is freely available to all. In the free-for-all, everyone has equal access to the good. The total value of that is somewhat diminished in theory, because the lack of a price system causes overconsumption ... traffic jams. In the price system, there is a luxury option. In principle, options are good. If you really want to travel fast, you can for a price. In practice though (because income distribution), most of that negotiation does not happen within one person debating if he really wants that fast lane today. There will be some people (wealthy) for whom it is almost always worthwhile and others for whom it is never worthwhile. What I am arguing is that calling this highest value use is just false. Choice here does not extend to substitutes. You don't get anything for taking the slow lane. This is why I'd like to see some less theoretically pure economists tinker with this. It's possible to create a system where what you say is true. This one is impractical, but one example could be a system where fast lane drivers pay slow lane drivers. Ie, negative pricing. Maybe you earn fast lane credits for taking the slow lane, to be used in lieu of £40. That way all commuters get a taste.

by harryh 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

If it is some fake currency, say, HOV-credits, that is distributed on a monthly basis, equally, to everyone, then to a first approximation, you're providing for equivalence in capacity to pay. You can choose to spend, or not spend, your HOV-credits, on any given day. This also offers the opportunity for rationing, as it's possible to increase or decrease the allocations based on net usage. If the credits expire after some time, say a few months, then there's the ability to bank them, but not indefinitely. This is not a form of perpetual wealth accumulation. The argument could be made for either making the credits transferable, so that those less wealthy in other regards could sell them for other units of trade, or not, and/or to set limits on such transactions. All of this occurs independent of actual currency, though there would be an overall budget to the programme. And it accomplishes the goal of setting an opportunity cost to highway travel, and congestion, which could itself be varied according to circumstances (higher charges at peak hours / during high-congestion events, lower off-peak or when uncongested). Then there's the question of interactions with alternative transit, telecommute, or similar schemes.

harryh 9y ago
1) If your roads are being overused you can easily ration that by raising the dollar price. 2) What is wrong with wealth accumulation? If credit recipients would rather do that than drive on roads they should be able to do so. They's how they get less poor! 3) If they credits are transferable then you are effectively giving people money. Just in an ass-backwards and overly confusing way.
- pas 9y ago
  Setting up a traffic-ration system fairly is probably a lot simpler than giving poor people money.
  - harryh 9y ago
    I disagree. We have all the technology and processes we could ever need to distribute and charge people dollars for things. Creating a whole new kind of currency with its own special rules is a huge undertaking. Not to mention the ongoing pain-in-the ass cost to every citizen when they have to carry around and think about a new special kind of money that can only be used for one thing.
    - thatcat 9y ago
      The tech isn't the problem, it's that the avalibility distribution that is imposed on roads is the same as the income distribution. In a way it creates the same problems as removing net neutrality. If you did that with roads, what's stopping the upper income distribution from excluding everyone else from entire cities? A gated community concept might scale to an entire upperclass city with a private airport, hostpital, and 1000$ entry fee to keep out the poor. This might even effectively reduce overall costs for the municipality since homeless and property crime would be greatly reduced. On the other hand if other currency is used, it makes everyone easily trackable. I think the dumb pipes model still has some advantages.
      - pas 9y ago
        > it makes everyone easily trackable. zkSNARKs for the rescue! It's surprisingly easy to roll with that. (See Zcash, Monero, ETH and whatever.)
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    There are simple and effective (from a traffic-flow-control perspective) solutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramp_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramp_meter I'd focus more on one of my other punts above: ways of drawing a correspondence between traffic and congestion, on the one hand, and alternative transit options (buses, rail, cycling, telecommuting, etc.) on the other. Market pricing signals fail to provide the coordination many of these options require. Typically, planning-based approaches are required.

dalbasal 9y ago

The problem in this case is not really "not enough money" in an absolute sense. To use the fast lane in a floating price system, you need to outbid the rest of the people. IE it's a function of income distribution. You'd need to solve inequality. That's a great thing to do, but meanwhile we can just fix fast lanes separately. ...just in case inequality still exists in 10 years.

harryh 9y ago
The issue here is that you are prioritizing using "the fast lane in a floating price system" as the most important thing when for a lot of people that will not be the case. They might rather spend that money on housing, or education or chewing gum or who the hell knows what. The utility maximizing choice it to let them make their own decision as they know more about their preferences than you do. You making that decision for them destroys utility.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  (op) I don't know why the downvotes, you make valid points. I think what you say is true, but not in the context of this specific scenario. This scenario starts with a public good that is freely available to all. In the free-for-all, everyone has equal access to the good. The total value of that is somewhat diminished in theory, because the lack of a price system causes overconsumption ... traffic jams. In the price system, there is a luxury option. In principle, options are good. If you really want to travel fast, you can for a price. In practice though (because income distribution), most of that negotiation does not happen within one person debating if he really wants that fast lane today. There will be some people (wealthy) for whom it is almost always worthwhile and others for whom it is never worthwhile. What I am arguing is that calling this highest value use is just false. Choice here does not extend to substitutes. You don't get anything for taking the slow lane. This is why I'd like to see some less theoretically pure economists tinker with this. It's possible to create a system where what you say is true. This one is impractical, but one example could be a system where fast lane drivers pay slow lane drivers. Ie, negative pricing. Maybe you earn fast lane credits for taking the slow lane, to be used in lieu of £40. That way all commuters get a taste.