5 ms·

I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transporta

I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?

leaflets2 5y ago
It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
- gruez 5y ago
  > It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
def_true_false 5y ago
> Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
IMTDb 5y ago
> I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment. > And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices. Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category. All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. > Those who can't will start rioting, Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. > It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can." If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. > In practice, many people just can't do that. Seems I wasn't detailed enough. There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others. But most people aren't farmers or electricians. > Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers. Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.

leaflets2 5y ago

It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors

gruez 5y ago
> It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)

def_true_false 5y ago

> Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.

IMTDb 5y ago

> I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment. > And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices. Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category. All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.

leaflets2 5y ago
Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. > Those who can't will start rioting, Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. > It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can." If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. > In practice, many people just can't do that. Seems I wasn't detailed enough. There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others. But most people aren't farmers or electricians. > Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers. Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.