to protect the very poor that couldnt handle inflation even if they could reduce gas consumption. absolutely, but i dont think highspeed rail is sufficient for transporting goods. you realize that thing about me knowing the economy was a joke, right? im just a genius, not a super-genius. again to protect the poor. and of course, all of this is based on the assumption that we need to reduce oil consumption, which is not true. im not sure i buy this. for one, the market has led to numerous financial collapses. but i also am not convinced that the market will allow for gradual increases in gas costs. if left alone we may see gas costs hit $7 within a year, and that would be catastrophic. i see gov action to artificially increase gas costs as a mitigation of sorts of the eventual steep rise in limited resource.
no one I work with lives anywhere near my part of town. i have to drive 3/4 of the way to work before I get to the 1st bus stop i drive a pick-up that ain't real fuel efficient. and I use the hell out that thing. constantly pulling or hauling something. it's capabilities are more important to me than efficiency because of way I use my truck. when I 1st started this job, the office was less than 15 minutes from my house. we outgrew that building, and built a newer nicer facility a few years later. now my commute is about an hour each way. but according to you, it's my fault. I should either change a job I've had for quite a few years now and climbed the ladder. or I should move. pull my kids out of a really good school system in a small town and enroll them in a lower quality school in a bigger town.
what the poor need is lower taxes that help grow the economy. they dont need to pay taxes so they can subsidize the trucking industry or any other industry. we need to stop with the corporate socialism. if oil prices get high enough, the rail network will expand, that is, if you dont artificially prop up the trucking industry with your absurd subsidies that favor corporations over taxpayers. joke all you want, your policy suggestions imply that you know how to manage the market better than it can manage itself. let the trucking industry survive or not survive on its own. if oil is too expensive because you manipulate the market to make oil expensive, dont further manipulate the market by paying back the same money you just taxed in order to reduce oil consumption, to the same industry you want to stop using it. you are manipulating both sides. you either want reduce transport costs or you dont. you want to encourage people to buy local food and products or you dont. dont take and then give. it is wildly inefficient and inevitably will be hijacked by corruption. thats the way governmet works. you dont protect the poor by taxing them. just let them buy what they want, or find an alternative with their own money. i know your assumption is that the poor dont pay taxes, and the rich will pay the subsidy. this is true. but the rich would be better off employing the poor with that money. that way the rich get to consume, the poor get freedom to spend their money the way they want, and if transport prices are high, then we make the adjustments via how we live and what we purchase. the market collapses because we dont let it manage itself. we bailout flawed companies and encourage irresponsibility, at the expense of taxpayers. why not let the fact that resource is limited manage the cost? if we are running out of oil, prices will rise without government help? price management is not the government's job. if oil prices are x, so be it. if they are 10x, so be it. let the market manage the price. you are not smart enough to manage the price. nobody is except the market. stop trying to control everything and protect everyone. prices are what they are, let them be. didnt your economics classes teach you about manipulating market? about unintended consequences?
calm down. this isnt about you. its an interesting excercise about public policy. i would never change my mind based on one persons experiences. but maybe your company would start picking you up for work, like conoco did for my dad for years, who knows? and it not your fault. who's talking about fault? the poor wouldnt pay more taxes if the curbed gas use and subsidies kept inflation down. just how long do you think it would take for the rail system to expand? im guessing many years. since when is there something wrong with joking around here? my statements here in no way mean that i think i know better than anyone else. i am not aware of any gov bailouts during financial collapses except for 2008. there were probably a dozen just as severe before. you do keep saying the same thing alot. are you confident that prices will gradually increase with decreasing supply? im not. and thats not even factoring in political forces which we have recently felt the power of in the US to limit the oil supply abruptly.
well they would certainly be worse off if taxes were used to subsidize trucking companies instead of powering the economy. we need to stop funneling tax money to corporations. depends on how expensive oil is and what other solutions there are. what i mean is that people think they understand the mechanisms of how the economy works better than the market does. the people who are buying and selling oil can manage it without us manipulating them by taxing this or subsidizing that. lets say for example i am an investor and i want to invest in a company that builds high speed rails. why do i need tax dollars subsidizing my competition, the trucking industry? the subsidy not only hurts the economy, it slows investment in alternatives. yes. thats one of the universal realities of economics. decrease in supply necessarily raises prices. thats how it works (unless demand decreases as well). if we run out of oil, prices will rise, and then the alternatives will become more attractive. there is no reason to try to force this process ahead. it will happen on its own.
So we burden everyone by forcing higher prices on gas, then use tax money to subsidize trucking to help defray the costs that we artificially inflated in the first place? That is just retarded enough to be proposed in D.C. I suppose that sounds like a bright idea to some people.
Families is the key word. If you have a car, your wife has a car, and your kids have cars, there is $10K+ a year.
oh, and the company I work for is no where near the size of conoco. we have 4 employees (not counting the owner and his wife). who would do the driving if they picked me (and 2 other guys with 30minute and longer drives) up for work?
