9 ms·
But that’s because there wasn’t widespread acceptance that there was a shared social cost. It was just the wealthy spending their money as they saw fit. Now th
by qeternity 5y ago
But that’s because there wasn’t widespread acceptance that there was a shared social cost. It was just the wealthy spending their money as they saw fit.
Now that the world (mostly) accepts the tragedy of the commons that is GHG emissions, it’s not so easy to justify.
- zokier 5y ago> Now that the world (mostly) accepts the tragedy of the commons that is GHG emissions, it’s not so easy to justify. Which circles back to my original comment > Their existence doesn't really hurt anyone, I do genuinely believe that supercars are not factor in the larger climate change
- amelius 5y agoEverybody is port of a minority in some way. That doesn't mean that everybody can do what they want. Letting rich people ignore rules is sending the wrong message.
- qeternity 5y agoYou're missing the point: in a tragedy of the commons, the precise market failure is that small, individual actions (i.e. on Lambo) does not materially impact the common goods. Any single automobile is not a real factor in climate change. But all automobiles (including supercars) are.
- orangeoxidation 5y ago> But that’s because there wasn’t widespread acceptance that there was a shared social cost. If they were taxed high enough to offset that shared cost completly or even more than that it would be fine. ... but that doesn't seem to be the plan here.