3 ms·
The proposed price signal is "the more expensive, the better". So forbidding car ownership, in other words. A deeply destructive point of view.
by baggy_trough 2y ago
The proposed price signal is "the more expensive, the better". So forbidding car ownership, in other words. A deeply destructive point of view.
- PreInternet01 2y agoNah, not destructive, if I say so myself. More like: disruptive. Which should be a pretty popular concept around here? To elaborate, maybe: I would fully support a robo-taxi scheme to ferry people to and from their job, shopping, or whatever. Where I live, shared e-vehicles are as good as it gets right now, but that's definitely a promising step already.
- otterley 2y ago> forbidding car ownership No need to be dramatic here. First, it's not "forbidden," just expensive. And the cost reflects the level of risk. Insurance companies aren't charities, and the marketplace is competitive, at least.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- BeetleB 2y agoDeeply destructive, perhaps, but the norm in European countries. They prefer making driving expensive (be it via taxes, or import duties, etc). The US is still far cheaper to drive in, by comparison.
- baggy_trough 2y agoThere are European countries that forbid car ownership?
- BeetleB 2y agoNo one in this thread is advocating forbidding car ownership.
- baggy_trough 2y agoThe original comment I responded to does, which is why I called it an astonishing statement.