3 ms·

Yeah, we don't just burn gas driving everywhere. "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin w

Yeah, we don't just burn gas driving everywhere. "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin with, and this outcome is damaging or ugly. "Permanently reduce consumption" would be more worthy of an academic setting, that title is clickbaity. Perhaps some will overdo avoidance of something because of fear of expense. Better than masses overdoing from building their lives around unsustainable inexpensive consumption. Look where we are for sprawl and emissions.

cs137 4y ago
Plus, a lot of that gas consumption is spent commuting, which makes people miserable. Murdering the daily commute is a good thing Covid-19 did, although I don't expect it to last long (WFH-ers will get fewer promotions, despite working harder, and eventually RTO fetishists will rule the roost). Very few people want to "consume gas". They want to be able to live decently and have meaningful jobs. Unfortunately, in today's market, that usually means a shit-ass load [1] of driving. ---- [1] You don't want to know how much time I spent deciding whether to use the more conventional hyphenization ("shit-ass-load") or the version with better cadence.
- quantified 4y ago
  Hopefully a lot less than you spend behind the wheel getting anywhere.
- mistersquid 4y ago
  > You don't want to know how much time I spent deciding whether to use the more conventional hyphenization ("shit-ass-load") or the version with better cadence. It’s not a question of “cadence” but of grammar. “Shit-ass“ is an adjective modifying the noun “load”. Your choice is grammatically correct.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    Could there not be a noun, "ass-load"?
    - mistersquid 4y ago
      > Could there not be a noun, "ass-load"? Absolutely. Had the GGP wrote “shit-ass-load” the whole hyphenated string would be a noun, which is also grammatically correct. But “shit-ass load” is a bit more evocative and digestible than “shit-ass-load”. I would have gone your direction with “assload” (no hyphen) which is a satisfying single noun with no adjective.
- ackfoobar 4y ago
  > a lot of that gas consumption is spent commuting, which makes people miserable. Murdering the daily commute is a good thing Covid-19 did I guess this applies more to those who drive from the suburb. I lived in a dense city with great transit. I miss the commute, which forces me to walk a bit, starts myself up, and helps me compartmentalize my time.
  - quantified 4y ago
    I myself would ealk or bike to the train. My tolerance for walking is 2.5 miles each way and I've been fortunate to have spent all but about 9 months of my career like that. So many can't or don't, though.
    - ackfoobar 4y ago
      Your tolerance is very high! More than one hour of walk per day is not what I meant.
      - quantified 4y ago
        It's so good for the body and has opportunities for stopping at stores, pubs, etc.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
heartbeats 4y ago
> "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin with, and this outcome is damaging or ugly. Well, not really. The basic problem is that production has to equal consumption. And so there are three possibilities: 1. People consume all of their income 2. People work less 3. People work, but get paid less In a fair economy, the third point won't happen. In a country that wants an internationally competitive economy, the second point can't happen. And so people have to consume 100% in order to work 100%; this choice maximizes tax revenue.
- quantified 4y ago
  If people consume less, they'll produce less. Not really a problem, certainly not for gasoline. You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that?
  - heartbeats 4y ago
    If people produce less, the tax intake will be lower, which makes the country less competitive internationally. In particular, the smaller the GDP, the less military spending the country can support. If the country can not support a sufficient military spending owing to a lack of consumption (production), it will be conquered by someone who can, a bit like private equity buying out an unprofitable company with good potential. (c.f. Ukraine - very poor GDP, but decent possibilities for growth w.r.t. arable land, supply of young human capital, seaports, industry etc, thus currently undergoing hostile takeover) > You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that? There's no such thing as saving; if I save money, it's to consume it in the future eventually. So this has to cancel out over the long term. If people are saving money and never withdrawing (e.g. never using the freedom bought by the past work to avoid future work), that's fine too, but if they withdraw it, it decreases national production, so it only works if people are prevented from withdrawing savings, at which point nobody would keep them. Basically, people have to work, and this is the fundamental premise. That being said, the basic nature of the consumption is irrelevant. This is why digital services, gambling, and financial services are so important - it's much more socially efficient for people to dispose of $100 worth of money through slot machines or Netflix subscriptions or overdraft charges (all of which are effectively free to "produce" in terms of national resources) than by e.g. buying a new car, which requires actual steel and semiconductors and rubber and ... which require the expenditure of resources (land, labour, capital) in order to produce.

cs137 4y ago

Plus, a lot of that gas consumption is spent commuting, which makes people miserable. Murdering the daily commute is a good thing Covid-19 did, although I don't expect it to last long (WFH-ers will get fewer promotions, despite working harder, and eventually RTO fetishists will rule the roost). Very few people want to "consume gas". They want to be able to live decently and have meaningful jobs. Unfortunately, in today's market, that usually means a shit-ass load [1] of driving. ---- [1] You don't want to know how much time I spent deciding whether to use the more conventional hyphenization ("shit-ass-load") or the version with better cadence.

quantified 4y ago
Hopefully a lot less than you spend behind the wheel getting anywhere.
mistersquid 4y ago
> You don't want to know how much time I spent deciding whether to use the more conventional hyphenization ("shit-ass-load") or the version with better cadence. It’s not a question of “cadence” but of grammar. “Shit-ass“ is an adjective modifying the noun “load”. Your choice is grammatically correct.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Could there not be a noun, "ass-load"?
  - mistersquid 4y ago
    > Could there not be a noun, "ass-load"? Absolutely. Had the GGP wrote “shit-ass-load” the whole hyphenated string would be a noun, which is also grammatically correct. But “shit-ass load” is a bit more evocative and digestible than “shit-ass-load”. I would have gone your direction with “assload” (no hyphen) which is a satisfying single noun with no adjective.
ackfoobar 4y ago
> a lot of that gas consumption is spent commuting, which makes people miserable. Murdering the daily commute is a good thing Covid-19 did I guess this applies more to those who drive from the suburb. I lived in a dense city with great transit. I miss the commute, which forces me to walk a bit, starts myself up, and helps me compartmentalize my time.
- quantified 4y ago
  I myself would ealk or bike to the train. My tolerance for walking is 2.5 miles each way and I've been fortunate to have spent all but about 9 months of my career like that. So many can't or don't, though.
  - ackfoobar 4y ago
    Your tolerance is very high! More than one hour of walk per day is not what I meant.
    - quantified 4y ago
      It's so good for the body and has opportunities for stopping at stores, pubs, etc.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

heartbeats 4y ago

> "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin with, and this outcome is damaging or ugly. Well, not really. The basic problem is that production has to equal consumption. And so there are three possibilities: 1. People consume all of their income 2. People work less 3. People work, but get paid less In a fair economy, the third point won't happen. In a country that wants an internationally competitive economy, the second point can't happen. And so people have to consume 100% in order to work 100%; this choice maximizes tax revenue.

quantified 4y ago
If people consume less, they'll produce less. Not really a problem, certainly not for gasoline. You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that?
- heartbeats 4y ago
  If people produce less, the tax intake will be lower, which makes the country less competitive internationally. In particular, the smaller the GDP, the less military spending the country can support. If the country can not support a sufficient military spending owing to a lack of consumption (production), it will be conquered by someone who can, a bit like private equity buying out an unprofitable company with good potential. (c.f. Ukraine - very poor GDP, but decent possibilities for growth w.r.t. arable land, supply of young human capital, seaports, industry etc, thus currently undergoing hostile takeover) > You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that? There's no such thing as saving; if I save money, it's to consume it in the future eventually. So this has to cancel out over the long term. If people are saving money and never withdrawing (e.g. never using the freedom bought by the past work to avoid future work), that's fine too, but if they withdraw it, it decreases national production, so it only works if people are prevented from withdrawing savings, at which point nobody would keep them. Basically, people have to work, and this is the fundamental premise. That being said, the basic nature of the consumption is irrelevant. This is why digital services, gambling, and financial services are so important - it's much more socially efficient for people to dispose of $100 worth of money through slot machines or Netflix subscriptions or overdraft charges (all of which are effectively free to "produce" in terms of national resources) than by e.g. buying a new car, which requires actual steel and semiconductors and rubber and ... which require the expenditure of resources (land, labour, capital) in order to produce.