4 ms·
I suppose that without cars, there would be less economic productivity outside cities. You would not have mass transit in the countryside, so you'd be limited t
by avidiax 3y ago
I suppose that without cars, there would be less economic productivity outside cities. You would not have mass transit in the countryside, so you'd be limited to horse and carriage, rickshaws, etc.
- kelipso 3y agoAnd since cars increase economic productivity, car insurance should be subsidized.
- avidiax 3y agoThe status quo is not that the insurance is subsidized, however. The negative externalities are being born by individual victims. A subsidy would be that the government pays for all those unfunded individual externalities out of taxpayer money, which means that every driver has effectively infinite coverage but pays only the state minimums.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoState insurance tax would be nice, but only cover to median car amount. Everything over it - insure yourself if you wish to.
- fulafel 3y agoIs this an externality? It benefits people who own cars. (It's far from clear of course that public transit would be missing, there used to be public transit in small towns before everybody got cars in many places. Horses are also unlikely to replace bikes.)