5 ms·

You can't make this up. We currently have two problems: 1: Inflation is rampant because the governments spent so much on fighting Covid. 2: Covid variants ar

by TekMol 4y ago

You can't make this up. We currently have two problems: 1: Inflation is rampant because the governments spent so much on fighting Covid. 2: Covid variants are still spreading. What shall we do? Let's spend more government money! On what? A free ticket, so people will cram into buses and trains together!

nerdponx 4y ago
Somehow I doubt that temporarily subsidizing transit is going to have a big effect on inflation, nor is it going to have a noticeable crowding-out effect. Also this particular spending is subsidized with a tax. This is income redistribution, not printing money.
jkukul 4y ago
Isn't inflation only caused by governments spending money only if money is printed in the process? Otherwise, it's just a re-allocation of money within a fixed budget. E.g. instead of money being allocated to building a new road it is allocated to subsidising train rides. The supply of money doesn't increase.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Increasing subsidies that are used by poor and middle-class households seems to have a stronger effect than subsidizing rich people. Their money tends to have higher velocity (instead of throwing it into the stock market and waiting, they will use it to buy necessities), which leads to more total dollars spent per year from $1 of subsidies.
  - jkukul 4y ago
    You're right. The point I was trying to make is that subsidising poor and middle-class by re-allocating resources is better than printing money to give stimulus checks.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    Maybe people in poverty are different where you live. Where I am it's a lifestyle, where every spare dollar is spent on drugs, alcohol, and gambling at the nearby casino. I guess it helps the economy, but probably not the parts of the economy society should be investing in.
    - manuelabeledo 4y ago
      Where do you live? It sounds like they are having a lot of fun there and you don’t like it.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Increasing subsidies that are used by poor and middle-class households seems to have a stronger effect than subsidizing rich people. Subsidising rich people increases asset prices, share prices and house prices, and affects us all
- capableweb 4y ago
  Inflation happens because of many reasons, not just one reason, or "only". Which ones are currently affecting is, is up for debate, but it's surely not just one reason. You can start diving deeper into the subject at Wikipedia that has somewhat of an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes
midasuni 4y ago
You’re begging the question
eynsham 4y ago
There are other problems, including the cost of living crisis. This is an attempt to fix that. Maybe the tradeoff isn’t worth it, but it’s not very constructive to just deny that there’s one worth analysing. This sort of policy, if implemented effectively, can help to mitigate high diesel prices. (Plausibly it won’t, by overcrowding the system to the point where it’s counterproductive.) It also helps to approach better pricing of externalities, since generally taking the train is more socially useful. Covid is a problem, but, post-vaccination, it’s roughly as bad as flu, and the combination of flu and public transport is not really that much of a problem, from past experience.
11235813213455 4y ago
3. pollution/climate?
- germandiago 4y ago
  Spain contributes a 0.7% of the CO2. A huge mark...
  - 11235813213455 4y ago
    By your reply it wouldn't be worth minimizing my own single lifestyle, but in reality it definitely is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox), because all we hope is more people start reducing their impact. It's like vote, each one is important even if each account for 0.000001% and second thing is pollution is also local (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)
antaviana 4y ago
I presume quality of public transportation will certainly degrade but by maximizing its usage (more people using it) will probably reduce energy consumption for transportation overall. Reducing energy consumption should be a priority. If our energy consumption was 1/10th of what it currently is, all of a sudden all these inflation issues would be gone. Current inflation is a butterfly effect, caused primarily by the increase in energy costs.
roystonvassey 4y ago
While it will benefit travelers, it’s likely to be used by a large number of people as an economic necessity - travel for work, study , selling and buying goods and services. The combined net economic impact is what I assume the govt hopes will offset the inflation burden to some extent. Covid transmission on the other hand is essentially endemic at this time and we have to manage it, rather than try to prevent it, especially in such a globalised world as ours
pvaldes 4y ago
This is not a ticket for tourists. People eligible are frequent travelers that were yet using trains full of people six days a week. The covid risk has not changed so much really. A full occupied train can't be filled with more passengers. Everybody in Spain had the opportunity to access free Covid vaccines several times yet. If denialists keep ignoring science, is very sad, but is their choice, they will die more often. Maybe they should reduce the risk and abstain to use the train. The rest of the people needs to move on and keep with their lives. If we discuss the solution as not valid, we should pick the correct reason to do this. The goal is to reduce our gas/car dependency exceptionally and temporarily in some big cities. Is a dumb idea? Well, promoting public transport in the middle of an energetic crisis does not seem so dumb to me, but better ideas are always welcomed.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Covid showed us cramping many people together creates opportunities for disease to spread quickly. Science has shown the vaccine once had an effect but that is no longer the case. You can't take a booster and expect not to get covid. Those hoping to stop the spread of covid are at odds with those trying to cramp people together. Just like those in hollywood who speakout against gun culture while appearing and promoting firearm use in the entertainment they produce.
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    > Those hoping to stop the spread of covid That sail has shipped many months ago
manuelabeledo 4y ago
I would say that switching from private cars to public transportation may actually decrease inflation. Would you rather have the citizens spend more on gasoline, thus potentially increasing the price of it? Also, as far as I understand, governments spending money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Inflation was rampant between 1998 and 2006 too, while the Spanish government was selling ownership on arguably most of their national industries.
vkou 4y ago
Clearly, what we should do is to cram more cars onto roads. After all, cars and roads and gasoline are all free, and increased demand for all of them in face of limited supply does not cause inflation...

by TekMol 4y ago

nerdponx 4y ago

Somehow I doubt that temporarily subsidizing transit is going to have a big effect on inflation, nor is it going to have a noticeable crowding-out effect. Also this particular spending is subsidized with a tax. This is income redistribution, not printing money.

jkukul 4y ago

Isn't inflation only caused by governments spending money only if money is printed in the process? Otherwise, it's just a re-allocation of money within a fixed budget. E.g. instead of money being allocated to building a new road it is allocated to subsidising train rides. The supply of money doesn't increase.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Increasing subsidies that are used by poor and middle-class households seems to have a stronger effect than subsidizing rich people. Their money tends to have higher velocity (instead of throwing it into the stock market and waiting, they will use it to buy necessities), which leads to more total dollars spent per year from $1 of subsidies.
- jkukul 4y ago
  You're right. The point I was trying to make is that subsidising poor and middle-class by re-allocating resources is better than printing money to give stimulus checks.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  Maybe people in poverty are different where you live. Where I am it's a lifestyle, where every spare dollar is spent on drugs, alcohol, and gambling at the nearby casino. I guess it helps the economy, but probably not the parts of the economy society should be investing in.
  - manuelabeledo 4y ago
    Where do you live? It sounds like they are having a lot of fun there and you don’t like it.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Increasing subsidies that are used by poor and middle-class households seems to have a stronger effect than subsidizing rich people. Subsidising rich people increases asset prices, share prices and house prices, and affects us all
capableweb 4y ago
Inflation happens because of many reasons, not just one reason, or "only". Which ones are currently affecting is, is up for debate, but it's surely not just one reason. You can start diving deeper into the subject at Wikipedia that has somewhat of an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Causes

midasuni 4y ago

You’re begging the question

eynsham 4y ago

There are other problems, including the cost of living crisis. This is an attempt to fix that. Maybe the tradeoff isn’t worth it, but it’s not very constructive to just deny that there’s one worth analysing. This sort of policy, if implemented effectively, can help to mitigate high diesel prices. (Plausibly it won’t, by overcrowding the system to the point where it’s counterproductive.) It also helps to approach better pricing of externalities, since generally taking the train is more socially useful. Covid is a problem, but, post-vaccination, it’s roughly as bad as flu, and the combination of flu and public transport is not really that much of a problem, from past experience.

11235813213455 4y ago

3. pollution/climate?

germandiago 4y ago
Spain contributes a 0.7% of the CO2. A huge mark...
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  By your reply it wouldn't be worth minimizing my own single lifestyle, but in reality it definitely is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox), because all we hope is more people start reducing their impact. It's like vote, each one is important even if each account for 0.000001% and second thing is pollution is also local (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)

antaviana 4y ago

I presume quality of public transportation will certainly degrade but by maximizing its usage (more people using it) will probably reduce energy consumption for transportation overall. Reducing energy consumption should be a priority. If our energy consumption was 1/10th of what it currently is, all of a sudden all these inflation issues would be gone. Current inflation is a butterfly effect, caused primarily by the increase in energy costs.

roystonvassey 4y ago

While it will benefit travelers, it’s likely to be used by a large number of people as an economic necessity - travel for work, study , selling and buying goods and services. The combined net economic impact is what I assume the govt hopes will offset the inflation burden to some extent. Covid transmission on the other hand is essentially endemic at this time and we have to manage it, rather than try to prevent it, especially in such a globalised world as ours

pvaldes 4y ago

This is not a ticket for tourists. People eligible are frequent travelers that were yet using trains full of people six days a week. The covid risk has not changed so much really. A full occupied train can't be filled with more passengers. Everybody in Spain had the opportunity to access free Covid vaccines several times yet. If denialists keep ignoring science, is very sad, but is their choice, they will die more often. Maybe they should reduce the risk and abstain to use the train. The rest of the people needs to move on and keep with their lives. If we discuss the solution as not valid, we should pick the correct reason to do this. The goal is to reduce our gas/car dependency exceptionally and temporarily in some big cities. Is a dumb idea? Well, promoting public transport in the middle of an energetic crisis does not seem so dumb to me, but better ideas are always welcomed.

ipaddr 4y ago
Covid showed us cramping many people together creates opportunities for disease to spread quickly. Science has shown the vaccine once had an effect but that is no longer the case. You can't take a booster and expect not to get covid. Those hoping to stop the spread of covid are at odds with those trying to cramp people together. Just like those in hollywood who speakout against gun culture while appearing and promoting firearm use in the entertainment they produce.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > Those hoping to stop the spread of covid That sail has shipped many months ago

manuelabeledo 4y ago

I would say that switching from private cars to public transportation may actually decrease inflation. Would you rather have the citizens spend more on gasoline, thus potentially increasing the price of it? Also, as far as I understand, governments spending money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Inflation was rampant between 1998 and 2006 too, while the Spanish government was selling ownership on arguably most of their national industries.

vkou 4y ago

Clearly, what we should do is to cram more cars onto roads. After all, cars and roads and gasoline are all free, and increased demand for all of them in face of limited supply does not cause inflation...