The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: The Real Bev on 10 Nov 2009 01:10 Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Mark Mathu <mark(a)mathu.com> said: > >>I don't consider the automobile to be "dark ages" technology. > > I don't consider the train or the bus to be, either. > >>Public involvement in land transportation (planning, building, >>operating) has played a big part in commerce getting to the point >>where it is today, and hence raising our standard of living well above >>what we had 1500 years ago. > > Imagine how much higher that standard of living could be if we weren't > all slaves to the automobile (not to mention dependent on oil from > unstable foreing countries that all hate our guts). I would like to believe that we're still working on neutron bomb development. The concept seems perfect. > Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year. > Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your > standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning, > licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars. And how much lower it would be if we had to spend hours instead of minutes every day traveling to essential or desirable destinations. All things considered, personal at-will transportation is easily worth a couple $thousand/year. -- Cheers, Bev ===================================================== "It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
From: gpsman on 10 Nov 2009 01:32 On Nov 10, 1:03 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Imagine how much higher that standard of living could be if we weren't > all slaves to the automobile (not to mention dependent on oil from > unstable foreing countries that all hate our guts). What would you suggest as a better alternative to the automobile? > Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year. Sure, the way you do it, mindlessly. > Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your > standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning, > licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars. So, what is driving a nice car if not part of one's "standard of living"? ----- - gpsman
From: Orval Fairbairn on 10 Nov 2009 08:28 In article <680if5tdsm4dssulp1t6qp9db9e23uucs6(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Mark Mathu <mark(a)mathu.com> said: > > >>>>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our > >>>>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully > >>>>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be > >>>>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to > >>>>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic > >>>>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ > >>>>them. The transportation system would be free to evolve naturally into > >>>>an optimally balanced, optimally efficient one. No more > >>>>all-you-can-eat buffet; no more tragedy of the commons. > >>> > >>>We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark > >>>ages. > >> > >>You mean the way we did with that other 19th century technology: the > >>automobile? > > > >I don't consider the automobile to be "dark ages" technology. > > I don't consider the train or the bus to be, either. > > >Public involvement in land transportation (planning, building, > >operating) has played a big part in commerce getting to the point > >where it is today, and hence raising our standard of living well above > >what we had 1500 years ago. > > Imagine how much higher that standard of living could be if we weren't > all slaves to the automobile (not to mention dependent on oil from > unstable foreing countries that all hate our guts). > > Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year. > Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your > standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning, > licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars. Slaves to the automobile??? Far better than being slaves to the fixed-guideway and somebody else's schedules! The automobile is a liberating device, allowing people to travel to places THEY want to visit, WHEN they want to go, rather than depend on some bureaucrat to determine those places and time for them. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: hancock4 on 10 Nov 2009 09:52 On Nov 10, 8:28 am, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: > In article <680if5tdsm4dssulp1t6qp9db9e23uu...(a)4ax.com>, > Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Mark Mathu <m...(a)mathu.com> said: > > > >>>>You are absolutely correct. Instead of taking our money while our > > >>>>backs are turned, we would all pay that money directly and be fully > > >>>>conscious of every dollar we spend. The fundamental change would be > > >>>>this: roads, parking, highway patrol, etc. would no longer appear to > > >>>>be "free goods." People could finally make the correct economic > > >>>>decisions about which modes of transport to employ and when to employ > > >>>>them. The transportation system would be free to evolve naturally into > > >>>>an optimally balanced, optimally efficient one. No more > > >>>>all-you-can-eat buffet; no more tragedy of the commons. > > > >>>We would send land transportation back to where it was in the dark > > >>>ages. > > > >>You mean the way we did with that other 19th century technology: the > > >>automobile? > > > >I don't consider the automobile to be "dark ages" technology. > > > I don't consider the train or the bus to be, either. > > > >Public involvement in land transportation (planning, building, > > >operating) has played a big part in commerce getting to the point > > >where it is today, and hence raising our standard of living well above > > >what we had 1500 years ago. > > > Imagine how much higher that standard of living could be if we weren't > > all slaves to the automobile (not to mention dependent on oil from > > unstable foreing countries that all hate our guts). > > > Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year. > > Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your > > standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning, > > licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars. > > Slaves to the automobile??? Far better than being slaves to the > fixed-guideway and somebody else's schedules! Today we're slaves to the expressway--which is a fixed guideway--and traffic. We are forced to schedule our trips to avoid traffic jams. Many people must leave for work at extremely early hours, arriving far earlier than need be, so as to beat traffic and find a parking space. They have no other choice. > The automobile is a liberating device, allowing people to travel to > places THEY want to visit, WHEN they want to go, rather than depend on > some bureaucrat to determine those places and time for them. Not in real life.
From: Larry Sheldon on 10 Nov 2009 10:37
jim wrote: > > hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> Today we're slaves to the expressway--which is a fixed guideway--and >> traffic. We are forced to schedule our trips to avoid traffic jams. >> >> Many people must leave for work at extremely early hours, arriving far >> earlier than need be, so as to beat traffic and find a parking space. > > Many drivers don't grasp the concept that good public transportation is > to their benefit. It could mean less traffic congestion. As I understand it, it is like Gore, et alia, on "carbon reduction" (or what ever what ever ther term du jure is).... Get everybody else to ride the subway, so they won't have their cars in my way. |