How do I subsidize thee? Let me count the ways...

I've been thinking about how the rest of us subsidize the people who own and drive cars. I started working on a Google Doc (just a bullet list with some web links) on that theme:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V_uMq4knlWQ8Yt_sVJNT7JQe-FjDV8l...

I'm not sure what I'll do with it when I'm done. Perhaps I'll turn it into one or more blog posts (like anyone really notices my blog). I'm open to ideas about how to get the idea out there.

Anyone should be able to read it (let me know if that's not true). If you'd like editing privileges, send me an email (skip.montanaro@gmail.com) with your email and I'll add you.

Skip

Views: 477

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on March 28, 2016 at 4:02am

Thanks, got it.

Even if people don't want to edit it directly, I welcome other auto subsidies I've failed to consider and links to support any of the bullet items.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on March 28, 2016 at 3:46am

Fighting the good fight. :-) 

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on March 28, 2016 at 5:17am

Done. I added motor vehicle deaths as a subcategory of Health.

Permalink Reply by Gene Tenner on March 28, 2016 at 6:52am

When you are done turn it into an article and post it here, other blogs and letter-to-the-editor at a lot of newspapers. Good luck.

Permalink Reply by David Altenburg on March 28, 2016 at 7:06am

Great list.

While it's hard to quantify, our foreign policy has been guided by the desire for cheap oil, and that's been pretty expensive. 

If you want more fodder for your health category: living near highways is a major risk factor for childhood asthma (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104785/). Asthma is no joke, and it contributes to reduced school performance: http://www.bradleyhasbroresearch.org/asthma-and-school-functioning.....  In other words, driving is a contributes to poor school performance. 

Permalink Reply by Ryan Stahlman on March 28, 2016 at 11:45am

How about the shipping industry? Trucking companies live on the subsidized access to highways for moving goods. Imagine if they had to pay the true cost of their impact on freeways. Shipping by train would look much more affordable.

Permalink Reply by S on March 28, 2016 at 4:20pm

Shipping by train is already cheaper, the problem is that it takes a lot more time due to time required to load and unload trains and other issues (getting a train through Chicago can take a day or three).  So if you have perishable or time sensitive goods, shipping by train may not be feasible and trains don't help much if you're not by a major hub that can unload train cars.  

Increased shipping costs for trucks would change the balance point a bit but I don't think it'd help for time sensitive goods (paying less to ship your milk or produce doesn't help if it's spoiled in transit).  A shift in prices also doesn't help with the hub issue as much either.  More hubs become feasible if rail companies can increase prices and remain competitive but it'd also slow things down if trains needed to stop every 100 miles for an hour or two in order to unload a few cars.

Permalink Reply by Ryan Stahlman on March 29, 2016 at 2:45am

All excellent points you bring up. Great discussion. 

I would point out that our rail system has atrophied heavily due to the public highway system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the rail lines in the US are privately owned; therefore, they do not receive the advantages of taxes fees like highways. If we subsidized rails, the rail system would most likely become more robust, allowing for faster shipping times.

Ultimately, all shipping will be overrun by drones anyway ;) 

Permalink Reply by S on March 29, 2016 at 6:22am

Most of the rails are privately owned although they've gotten right of way benefits in the past.  I think rail still moves the majority of the cargo in the US though.  The problem with rail is that it works at best on a hub and spoke system where rails get cargo to major hubs and trucks move things to the last mile.  We're probably never going to get rail stops in every town (and I'm not sure we want to).

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on March 28, 2016 at 2:38pm

We send about a billion dollars a day to repressive regimes that really don't like us all that much and that we wouldn't deal with, except for the fact that we need their oil, which funds extremism and yes, terrorism. 

There was a really interesting article in The Atlantic about Obama's foreign policy. One key line:

"He (Obama) is clearly irritated that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally."

If America were energy independent, the face of politics in the world today would look a lot different. 

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on March 28, 2016 at 3:10pm

 I think you should include a section on the less tangible but even more profound effects:

The hidden costs to the environment (global warming), our defense budget (oil wars), the support of religious fundamentalism (terrorism), our health (which you covered), and our balance of trade.

If there weren't so many dollars in the world market, the dollar would be a much stronger currency, which would compel more corporations to manufacture their products here in America for our domestic consumers, which in turn would create more high paying jobs, reducing the stress on our rapidly shrinking middle class.

Thanks Skip, I feel a little better now...

Permalink Reply by S on March 28, 2016 at 4:23pm

On the other hand, the dollar gets a major boost in it's strength because oil is priced and sold in dollars.  I.e. pretty much everyone buying oil needs to exchange their currency for dollars.  There were some countries that have done oil swaps in other currencies or for goods but the vast majority of the oil trade is still done in dollars.  That's been a huge prop for the dollar for decades.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service