When every insurance company is doing it, they will all continue to keep the premiums of bad drivers higher than those of good drivers so that the reward is worth the risk.
The poor tend to be the source of their own pollution moreso than suffering other people's pollution.
Why is that relevant in any discussion about whether the rich should pay their fair share for the pollution they cause?
Also, in the US at least, the poor do not pay their medical bills.
Again, not relevant, unless you are arguing that welfare should pay the poor's medical bills and not those who injure the poor.
Yes, it will mean their electricity is turned off...
Or they spend the day at the mall or the library on hot days. Back in the first half of the 20th century before residential air conditioners, air conditioning was a big selling point for movie theaters.
...and their ability to own a car- the one sense of freedom they might have a connection with...
In your neighborhood, can you buy a gallon of milk without driving to the store in a car? Have you ever done so? If not, you are a slave to your car, not the other way around.
The soccer mom will make two and three trips instead of one round to get the gang to their sports, music, and such because that SUV is no longer within their price range to operate.
Why drive at all when you can bike everywhere? Oh that's right, because we've made the streets faster for cars and more dangerous for bicyclists, and pushed destinations farther apart and harder to get there by bicycle in order to make room for parking. We've taken away our freedom in order to give ourselves the perception of freedom. Isn't that ironic?
you don't care if the poor are poorer as long as you can make the rich less rich.. Do I have it summed up right?
I don't think paying the poor's medical bills and lost work days will make them poorer. Nor will keeping schoolchildren healthy and able to attend classes keep them from achieving their full potential.
The fact of the matter is that we do not have the capabilities to use wind and solar for our electrical demands and there isn't sufficient storage to compete with other methods. If we could, it would be online right now without governments mandating it.
Or it would be online right now if externalities and other market failures were corrected.
More like it will allow the misfortune (probably poor) to be able to afford the products and services you just made super expensive.
Who is more likely to be injured by pollution, the poor or the rich? (The poor, because they tend to live in dirtier areas.) And therefore who stands to gain the most, relative to their discretionary income, from recouping the medical costs and lost sick days from that pollution? (Also the poor, because they have little to no discretionary income.)
So you are correct that it will raise prices, but it will also provide the poor with two benefits. Two for the price of one is a good deal, don't you think?
Of course the rich will complain about paying the full societal cost of their lifestyle because they won't see as much benefit in it as the poor, but I wouldn't worry too much about them being able to afford it. By the way, are you rich?
And no, wind and solar are not there- neither is storage capabilities.
Not much energy storage is needed to prevent blackouts, even with intermittent sources such as wind and solar, as long as electricity is always priced at market equilibrium to prevent blackouts. And since pricing something below market equilibrium is never a good long-term strategy, there's no technical reason why wind and solar cannot provide most of the nation's needs.
Once you've realized that there's no way to completely eliminate pollution, and that markets work most efficiently when negative externalities are internalized into prices, the solution becomes obvious: charge the polluters for the damage they cause, and give the revenue to those injured by pollution. This will give polluters the proper incentive to curb their emissions and it will pay the medical costs and lost sick days of those injured by pollution, all without harming the economy.
But increasing supply of an alternative is only one way to decrease demand for something. So heavy investment in hydro and nuclear isn't required to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage...
That is nonsense.
Do the math if you don't believe me. Show your work.
People with more expensive property do not use the fire department more or the police more just because it is more expensive.
Ask an insurance company whether more expensive properties are more expensive to insure than cheaper properties.
Either way, the problem with the article is that a city is not supposed to be making a profit off the people.
The word "profit" is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
But most strikingly, the cost of living is much higher in the so called profitable one. The average cost per square foot of residential space in the profitable one was $350/sq ft. All the others ranged between $89/sq ft and $113/sq ft. That's not how it should be-
So you agree that urban areas should stop subsidizing the less urban areas?
There is absolutely no correlation real or hypothetical between property value and amount of property to the use of services.
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.
We have far fewer roads shared among a smaller amount of people but they are much lower quality.
As they should, because those with the most property benefit the most from city infrastructure, police and fire services, and national defense. Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
violation of law for pedestrian to walk against light
Yes, that is also true. But why do motorists get a yellow phase while pedestrians have no yellow phase and two red phases (flashing don't walk and solid don't walk)? This only further reinforces the motorist superiority complex.
The more fundamental problem is that traffic engineers in the USA don't distinguish between streets (short segments of road with lots of buildings and driveways) and non-street roads (connections between places). Consequently, they design these street/road hybrids that have many intersections, like streets, but also high speed limits, like roads. And then to try to overcome a limitation of the hybrid street/road design, they prioritize traffic speed and throughput over safety, where you or I would make safety the first priority. As part of that, they removed roadside trees because motorists kept hitting them. So now without trees protecting pedestrians, the same motorists hit pedestrians instead. How's that for progress?
Traffic engineers had a problem to solve: too many pedestrians were getting hit by cars while using the crosswalks at intersections because they didn't know when the 'WALK' sign would change.
No, that's not the reason. Pedestrians have the right of way when they are in crosswalks, so cross traffic must stop even if it has the green. Putting in a countdown timer to tell pedestrians to hurry up only serves to reinforce the false idea that pedestrians are inferior to motorists. So the countdown timer was for the benefit of motorists, not pedestrians.
No, pedestrians were getting hit because the motorists simply didn't obey the law. This is why some cities conduct "crosswalk stings" where a plainclothes police officer crosses a street to see if any motorists violate his/her right of way, and points those motorists out to a waiting motorcycle officer. They catch a surprising number of scofflaws this way, especially at unmarked crosswalks.
For example, IBM and Oracle contribute to Linux in the form of paying employees to add features they need. Clearly this is not charity.
Why can't something be both charitable and self-serving at the same time, like getting your name engraved on a donor wall? Arguments from Bible don't count.
That's self-contradictory. Here's a quote from the New York Police Department:
"There's no criminality," an NYPD spokesman told Metro. "That's why they call it an accident."
An alcohol-related car crash involves criminality and therefore cannot be an accident, logically speaking, if those who enforce the law are to be believed.
Don't try to grow stuff in urban environments. Growing food on a farm and trucking it in (or better yet hauling it on an electric train) is a far more efficient and greener use of land than single-family homes with back yards.
"If you love nature, stay away from it." --Henry David Thoreau
Slashdot Mirror
When every insurance company is doing it, they will all continue to keep the premiums of bad drivers higher than those of good drivers so that the reward is worth the risk.
Because that would drive away the good drivers and leave the insurance company covering only the bad drivers.
Why is that relevant in any discussion about whether the rich should pay their fair share for the pollution they cause?
Again, not relevant, unless you are arguing that welfare should pay the poor's medical bills and not those who injure the poor.
Or they spend the day at the mall or the library on hot days. Back in the first half of the 20th century before residential air conditioners, air conditioning was a big selling point for movie theaters.
In your neighborhood, can you buy a gallon of milk without driving to the store in a car? Have you ever done so? If not, you are a slave to your car, not the other way around.
Why drive at all when you can bike everywhere? Oh that's right, because we've made the streets faster for cars and more dangerous for bicyclists, and pushed destinations farther apart and harder to get there by bicycle in order to make room for parking. We've taken away our freedom in order to give ourselves the perception of freedom. Isn't that ironic?
I don't think paying the poor's medical bills and lost work days will make them poorer. Nor will keeping schoolchildren healthy and able to attend classes keep them from achieving their full potential.
Or it would be online right now if externalities and other market failures were corrected.
Who is more likely to be injured by pollution, the poor or the rich? (The poor, because they tend to live in dirtier areas.) And therefore who stands to gain the most, relative to their discretionary income, from recouping the medical costs and lost sick days from that pollution? (Also the poor, because they have little to no discretionary income.)
So you are correct that it will raise prices, but it will also provide the poor with two benefits. Two for the price of one is a good deal, don't you think?
Of course the rich will complain about paying the full societal cost of their lifestyle because they won't see as much benefit in it as the poor, but I wouldn't worry too much about them being able to afford it. By the way, are you rich?
Not much energy storage is needed to prevent blackouts, even with intermittent sources such as wind and solar, as long as electricity is always priced at market equilibrium to prevent blackouts. And since pricing something below market equilibrium is never a good long-term strategy, there's no technical reason why wind and solar cannot provide most of the nation's needs.
You pollute. Where's your "off" switch?
Once you've realized that there's no way to completely eliminate pollution, and that markets work most efficiently when negative externalities are internalized into prices, the solution becomes obvious: charge the polluters for the damage they cause, and give the revenue to those injured by pollution. This will give polluters the proper incentive to curb their emissions and it will pay the medical costs and lost sick days of those injured by pollution, all without harming the economy.
But increasing supply of an alternative is only one way to decrease demand for something. So heavy investment in hydro and nuclear isn't required to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Do the math if you don't believe me. Show your work.
Ask an insurance company whether more expensive properties are more expensive to insure than cheaper properties.
The word "profit" is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
So you agree that urban areas should stop subsidizing the less urban areas?
That's only when the property tax is based on the assessed value of the property instead of the property's burden on infrastructure and city services.
That's one reason among many why taxes should be replaced with user fees whenever it's practical to do so.
A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.
And that's how it should be, because the usual alternative is for urban areas to heavily subsidize the less urbanized areas.
Maybe the poor could afford to cover their benefits if we didn't force them to live a middle-class lifestyle.
As they should, because those with the most property benefit the most from city infrastructure, police and fire services, and national defense. Our society was built upon the understanding that those who benefit the most from something should pay the most.
No, yellow means the light is about to turn red. It is implied that a motorist may stop, but is not required to.
Those two mean exactly the same thing.
Lane splitting is legal in California. The motorcycle handbook says "Never operate directly alongside another rider" but is it illegal?
California only says drivers "shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any...crosswalk at an intersection." There may be cities in California that prohibit cars from entering a crosswalk while a pedestrian is using it, but that one's not a California law.
Yes, that is also true. But why do motorists get a yellow phase while pedestrians have no yellow phase and two red phases (flashing don't walk and solid don't walk)? This only further reinforces the motorist superiority complex.
The more fundamental problem is that traffic engineers in the USA don't distinguish between streets (short segments of road with lots of buildings and driveways) and non-street roads (connections between places). Consequently, they design these street/road hybrids that have many intersections, like streets, but also high speed limits, like roads. And then to try to overcome a limitation of the hybrid street/road design, they prioritize traffic speed and throughput over safety, where you or I would make safety the first priority. As part of that, they removed roadside trees because motorists kept hitting them. So now without trees protecting pedestrians, the same motorists hit pedestrians instead. How's that for progress?
No, that's not the reason. Pedestrians have the right of way when they are in crosswalks, so cross traffic must stop even if it has the green. Putting in a countdown timer to tell pedestrians to hurry up only serves to reinforce the false idea that pedestrians are inferior to motorists. So the countdown timer was for the benefit of motorists, not pedestrians.
No, pedestrians were getting hit because the motorists simply didn't obey the law. This is why some cities conduct "crosswalk stings" where a plainclothes police officer crosses a street to see if any motorists violate his/her right of way, and points those motorists out to a waiting motorcycle officer. They catch a surprising number of scofflaws this way, especially at unmarked crosswalks.
Why can't something be both charitable and self-serving at the same time, like getting your name engraved on a donor wall? Arguments from Bible don't count.
Does it often happen that a change to open source software benefits only one person or organization?
The article doesn't say the fish flesh has plastic bits in it.
Is it one of those things, like sex and human organs, that you can give away for free but you can't charge money for it?
Why not both at the same time?
That's self-contradictory. Here's a quote from the New York Police Department:
An alcohol-related car crash involves criminality and therefore cannot be an accident, logically speaking, if those who enforce the law are to be believed.
Don't try to grow stuff in urban environments. Growing food on a farm and trucking it in (or better yet hauling it on an electric train) is a far more efficient and greener use of land than single-family homes with back yards.
"If you love nature, stay away from it." --Henry David Thoreau