7 ms·

$272,000 cars are not really serious road going vehicles. Emissions per mile travelled may be atrocious, but adjusted for how far it will actually travel in its

$272,000 cars are not really serious road going vehicles. Emissions per mile travelled may be atrocious, but adjusted for how far it will actually travel in its lifetime, it's probably no worse than a Nissan Leaf.

lasc4r 5y ago
If we're getting technical I think spending $272,000 on anything is going to have some environmental costs in line with spending $272,000.
- teruakohatu 5y ago
  Spending that much money on a truck probably generates no more emissions than a basic Ford F-150. Would an iPhone Pro Max produce much more emissions than a iPhone SE? But from an environmental, not spending the money in the first place (not upgrading a car or phone) in both cases would be a net win for the environment.
  - eru 5y ago
    What do you mean by not spending? If you just take the money and bury it in your backyard forever, the central bank will just replace it after a while. (Assuming a typical inflation targeting central bank. And also in aggregate, because the central bank doesn't know exactly how much money is getting buried; but they do monitor total spending in the economy.) If you leave the money in the bank, the bank invests it. If you want to make a positive difference, you can use the money to contribute to eg carbon reduction efforts. The rest of what you are saying is right: there's better and worse ways to spend that money. (In the worst case, you could buy a few tons of coal and just set them on fire.) I'm just saying that earning money and not spending it at all, doesn't automatically mean zero net emissions.
    - hgomersall 5y ago
      Loans create deposits, not the other way around. Your broader point that in a rational society money will never be a limiting factor is good though.
      - eru 5y ago
        It's good we agree on the main point. But since we are at it: loans create deposits only in some narrow technical sense, but not in practice. You are right than in the logical second when a bank makes a loan, they just create a pair of accounting entries out of thin air. One entry in your checking account, and one entry to record the loan. I hope you agree that most people don't take out loan to let the money just sit in their account: they spent it. For simplicity, let's assume the common case that the people the debtor spends their money at, don't have an account with our bank. Our bank loses reserves, when people spend deposits. It doesn't matter whether they spend via withdrawing as cash first or whether they make a bank transfer. A bank can not operate with negative reserves. They get more reserves by either accepting deposits or by borrowing them. Does this make sense to you? If not, where am I going wrong? and why do you think banks accept deposits in the first place or issue bonds in their name etc? (For simplicity, let's assume no (positive) legal minimum reserve requirements. But also let's assume that banks need a positive level of reserves to operate; eg to pay out withdrawals and net-settle interbank transfers. If you want to challenge those assumptions, we can do that, too. But please say so explicitly. Thanks!)
        hgomersall 5y ago
        In the UK there are no legal reserve requirements on lending. Similarly in the US for business lending. Basel III makes no mention of reserves, but it does talk about liquidity. Liquidity can be and is met through interbank lending, with the center bank filling in as necessary. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/ http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcaval... https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10/ https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10... A nice bonus link on interest rates not necessarily controlling inflation in the expected way: https://new-wayland.com/blog/interest-price-spiral/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/interest-price-spiral/
dtgriscom 5y ago
Why wouldn't such a car get driven every day? If you can afford it, surely you'd want to drive it?
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  Even if you are not that rich, it's not impractical to have 2 cars if you have the space to park them and the need. A smaller everyday vehicle that is easy to park in the city and the family mover for weekend activities.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  95E10 is well over 2 €/L (like 7.57 $/gallon?) everywhere now. If it keeps the same 125-litre tank as the normal TRX, it'll cost you >250 € to fill it completely up.
- bradlys 5y ago
  People with this much money don’t drive the same cars everyday. They have like 10 of these and don’t even drive them that often - instead going with their Mercedes or whatever instead because it’s more practical. These are fun weekend/special occasions vehicles.
Maursault 5y ago
- deelowe 5y ago
  It totally depends on the individual. I use my giant pick up truck every single day. I’ll also be the first to get a viable electric when there’s one available. I get groceries in a Nissan Leaf. Cars and trucks aren’t the issue we should be arguing about. Nothing is being done about shipping, cruise lines, and big industry. It’s a classic tactic for corporations to focus the government on individuals instead of themselves. Here you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    I concede that personal vehicles aren't the bigger problem, and I agree that something should be done about shipping, cruise lines, cement, glass, coal power, etc., before we worry about the small fries. The situation is kind of ridiculous, as by now everyone knows what the problem is, and yet there is no control over our own interests to survive, and our elected government intervenes to allow a bunch of people that need jobs to work and a few to get rich off of something that is literally killing nearly everything slowly but no longer slowly enough.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Companies aren't informing anecdotal observations. I would have no issue if pickup ownership was regulated.
    - deelowe 5y ago
      I do because it's arbitrary and senseless. Gas mileage is already regulated. It's the main reason my giant truck is a turbo v6 instead of a v8.
  - eru 5y ago
    > Nothing is being done about shipping, cruise lines, and big industry. Not sure what you mean, there's plenty of regulation on those. Eg most of the world has just recently gotten much stricter about what fuels you can burn in ocean going vessels. Though maybe not as much regulation as you want? Or the wrong kind? In any case, I mostly agree with you. And regulation shouldn't focus on micro-managing individual people or even individual industries: just tax emissions, and let people sort it out according to their own preferences.

lasc4r 5y ago

If we're getting technical I think spending $272,000 on anything is going to have some environmental costs in line with spending $272,000.

teruakohatu 5y ago
Spending that much money on a truck probably generates no more emissions than a basic Ford F-150. Would an iPhone Pro Max produce much more emissions than a iPhone SE? But from an environmental, not spending the money in the first place (not upgrading a car or phone) in both cases would be a net win for the environment.
- eru 5y ago
  What do you mean by not spending? If you just take the money and bury it in your backyard forever, the central bank will just replace it after a while. (Assuming a typical inflation targeting central bank. And also in aggregate, because the central bank doesn't know exactly how much money is getting buried; but they do monitor total spending in the economy.) If you leave the money in the bank, the bank invests it. If you want to make a positive difference, you can use the money to contribute to eg carbon reduction efforts. The rest of what you are saying is right: there's better and worse ways to spend that money. (In the worst case, you could buy a few tons of coal and just set them on fire.) I'm just saying that earning money and not spending it at all, doesn't automatically mean zero net emissions.
  - hgomersall 5y ago
    Loans create deposits, not the other way around. Your broader point that in a rational society money will never be a limiting factor is good though.
    - eru 5y ago
      It's good we agree on the main point. But since we are at it: loans create deposits only in some narrow technical sense, but not in practice. You are right than in the logical second when a bank makes a loan, they just create a pair of accounting entries out of thin air. One entry in your checking account, and one entry to record the loan. I hope you agree that most people don't take out loan to let the money just sit in their account: they spent it. For simplicity, let's assume the common case that the people the debtor spends their money at, don't have an account with our bank. Our bank loses reserves, when people spend deposits. It doesn't matter whether they spend via withdrawing as cash first or whether they make a bank transfer. A bank can not operate with negative reserves. They get more reserves by either accepting deposits or by borrowing them. Does this make sense to you? If not, where am I going wrong? and why do you think banks accept deposits in the first place or issue bonds in their name etc? (For simplicity, let's assume no (positive) legal minimum reserve requirements. But also let's assume that banks need a positive level of reserves to operate; eg to pay out withdrawals and net-settle interbank transfers. If you want to challenge those assumptions, we can do that, too. But please say so explicitly. Thanks!)
      - hgomersall 5y ago
        In the UK there are no legal reserve requirements on lending. Similarly in the US for business lending. Basel III makes no mention of reserves, but it does talk about liquidity. Liquidity can be and is met through interbank lending, with the center bank filling in as necessary. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/ http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcaval... https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10/ https://positivemoney.org/2011/04/monetary-reform-myths-1-10... A nice bonus link on interest rates not necessarily controlling inflation in the expected way: https://new-wayland.com/blog/interest-price-spiral/ https://new-wayland.com/blog/interest-price-spiral/

dtgriscom 5y ago

Why wouldn't such a car get driven every day? If you can afford it, surely you'd want to drive it?

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
Even if you are not that rich, it's not impractical to have 2 cars if you have the space to park them and the need. A smaller everyday vehicle that is easy to park in the city and the family mover for weekend activities.
Hamuko 5y ago
95E10 is well over 2 €/L (like 7.57 $/gallon?) everywhere now. If it keeps the same 125-litre tank as the normal TRX, it'll cost you >250 € to fill it completely up.
bradlys 5y ago
People with this much money don’t drive the same cars everyday. They have like 10 of these and don’t even drive them that often - instead going with their Mercedes or whatever instead because it’s more practical. These are fun weekend/special occasions vehicles.

Maursault 5y ago

deelowe 5y ago
It totally depends on the individual. I use my giant pick up truck every single day. I’ll also be the first to get a viable electric when there’s one available. I get groceries in a Nissan Leaf. Cars and trucks aren’t the issue we should be arguing about. Nothing is being done about shipping, cruise lines, and big industry. It’s a classic tactic for corporations to focus the government on individuals instead of themselves. Here you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
- Maursault 5y ago
  I concede that personal vehicles aren't the bigger problem, and I agree that something should be done about shipping, cruise lines, cement, glass, coal power, etc., before we worry about the small fries. The situation is kind of ridiculous, as by now everyone knows what the problem is, and yet there is no control over our own interests to survive, and our elected government intervenes to allow a bunch of people that need jobs to work and a few to get rich off of something that is literally killing nearly everything slowly but no longer slowly enough.
- willis936 5y ago
  Companies aren't informing anecdotal observations. I would have no issue if pickup ownership was regulated.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    I do because it's arbitrary and senseless. Gas mileage is already regulated. It's the main reason my giant truck is a turbo v6 instead of a v8.
- eru 5y ago
  > Nothing is being done about shipping, cruise lines, and big industry. Not sure what you mean, there's plenty of regulation on those. Eg most of the world has just recently gotten much stricter about what fuels you can burn in ocean going vessels. Though maybe not as much regulation as you want? Or the wrong kind? In any case, I mostly agree with you. And regulation shouldn't focus on micro-managing individual people or even individual industries: just tax emissions, and let people sort it out according to their own preferences.