3 ms·

If it’s truly a waste, producing no value, no one will pay for it. But obviously many, many people value things like - The time savings of direct, immediate, d

If it’s truly a waste, producing no value, no one will pay for it. But obviously many, many people value things like - The time savings of direct, immediate, door-to-door transportation - Dedicated storage capacity - Configuration flexibility, e.g. children’s car seats, foldable seats, luggage racks - Style and comfort options - Privacy …and direct their dollars accordingly.

OccamsMirror 3y ago
Except there’s an obvious failure of the market when the true cost of something is not borne by the producer or the consumer. Negative externalities lead to an overproduction and overconsumption of goods or services because the market price does not reflect the true social costs. Which can have detrimental effects on society and the environment. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that one day we may well bitterly regret.
- yodelshady 3y ago
  And you think correcting that failure will be harder when the consumer has zero personal investment (financial or emotional) in that thing?
- oldnetguy 3y ago
  you mean like public transit?
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Sure, pass a serious carbon tax.
maest 3y ago
People really enjoy not paying for externalities. Cars have utility but also disutility - a lot of the latter is not priced in.
ehnto 3y ago
The cost is not bourne entirely by the driver though, that is why it riles people up I think. Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. It also vastly degrades the usage of the space for everyone else. The fact thst the city stinks, is loud, hard to get around and real estate is more expensive can all be linked to impact of cars. I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds. I love the freedom to drive but I would rather we all have freedom of movement with mass transit and cleaner, quieter cities.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. Gasoline taxes pay for a lot of road infrastructure; except for people buying gasoline for their lawn mowers and leaf blowers (not applicable in California), the taxes are being paid by folks using the infrastructure. If no one in the household drives, they likely use taxis and delivery services, both of which depend upon road infrastructure. I've never heard of a government bus service which paid for the general (not segregated) road infrastructure they use; if some do, I'd love to be corrected. And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure. Roads are broadly used by the people. Why shouldn't the people broadly pay for it?
  - ehnto 3y ago
    You missed my point I think, which was mostly the below. > I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds. It's fine that we all pay for it, it would just be nice if that's not all we paid for. It would also be nice to slide the balance toward pedestrian focus once you get into CBDs and once you get to residential areas. You still need roads, absolutely, but we should do better at matching the roads to their spaces. > And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure This is more of an aside to be honest, but cyclists don't want to be on the road as much as drivers don't want them to be. Added bike lanes are a compromise, no one wants them, they get people mad, they get people killed. Separated bikelines is one of those "other infrastructure" pieces, which can be built next to mass transit lines for cost efficiency, everyone would prefer that.
oldnetguy 3y ago
Public Transit is a public good yet the same anti car people don't want to pay for the service.

OccamsMirror 3y ago

Except there’s an obvious failure of the market when the true cost of something is not borne by the producer or the consumer. Negative externalities lead to an overproduction and overconsumption of goods or services because the market price does not reflect the true social costs. Which can have detrimental effects on society and the environment. Not to mention the misallocation of resources that one day we may well bitterly regret.

yodelshady 3y ago
And you think correcting that failure will be harder when the consumer has zero personal investment (financial or emotional) in that thing?
oldnetguy 3y ago
you mean like public transit?
twoodfin 3y ago
Sure, pass a serious carbon tax.

maest 3y ago

People really enjoy not paying for externalities. Cars have utility but also disutility - a lot of the latter is not priced in.

ehnto 3y ago

The cost is not bourne entirely by the driver though, that is why it riles people up I think. Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. It also vastly degrades the usage of the space for everyone else. The fact thst the city stinks, is loud, hard to get around and real estate is more expensive can all be linked to impact of cars. I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds. I love the freedom to drive but I would rather we all have freedom of movement with mass transit and cleaner, quieter cities.

brightlancer 3y ago
> Taxes subsidize all the infrastructure for cars, even if the taxee doesn't drive, yet it isn't a service for everyone. Gasoline taxes pay for a lot of road infrastructure; except for people buying gasoline for their lawn mowers and leaf blowers (not applicable in California), the taxes are being paid by folks using the infrastructure. If no one in the household drives, they likely use taxis and delivery services, both of which depend upon road infrastructure. I've never heard of a government bus service which paid for the general (not segregated) road infrastructure they use; if some do, I'd love to be corrected. And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure. Roads are broadly used by the people. Why shouldn't the people broadly pay for it?
- ehnto 3y ago
  You missed my point I think, which was mostly the below. > I think people would hate on cars less if there was a fair focus on other infrastructure as well. We could have the best of both worlds. It's fine that we all pay for it, it would just be nice if that's not all we paid for. It would also be nice to slide the balance toward pedestrian focus once you get into CBDs and once you get to residential areas. You still need roads, absolutely, but we should do better at matching the roads to their spaces. > And bicyclists also use general road infrastructure This is more of an aside to be honest, but cyclists don't want to be on the road as much as drivers don't want them to be. Added bike lanes are a compromise, no one wants them, they get people mad, they get people killed. Separated bikelines is one of those "other infrastructure" pieces, which can be built next to mass transit lines for cost efficiency, everyone would prefer that.

oldnetguy 3y ago

Public Transit is a public good yet the same anti car people don't want to pay for the service.