Live data from Hacker News

Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

economist.com

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#11
post #7
post #2

Cars? People still buy those things? I wonder how much non-drivers' taxpayer money goes to subsidizing others' choices of transportation like this...

Wouldn't tax dollars spent on sidewalks and mass transit be subsidizing others choice of transportation also?

$4500 pumped into buying you a car is good for you, and slightly good for the environment; but investing $4500 into public transportation benefits hundreds of people, and is even better for the environment. Since we don't have much money, it's best to use it in a way that will have the most benefit.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#12
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't tax dollars spent on sidewalks and mass transit be subsidizing others choice of transportation also?

$4500 pumped into buying you a car is good for you, and slightly good for the environment; but investing $4500 into public transportation benefits hundreds of people, and is even better for the environment. Since we don't have much money, it's best to use it in a way that will have the most benefit.

Also, you yourself will always have the ability to use sidewalks and public transportation, but you will never get the ability to use a car that someone else buys.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#13
post #3

I can't imagine it does any good for the environment, at least not until >five years from now. Producing a car isn't exactly easy on the environment, and requiring people to buy new cars isn't going to help.

Producing _anything_ isn't easy on the environment.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#15
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy to say that if you live in a densely populated city with good public transit. Not everyone has the luxury of living close to public transportation or within walking distance of all necessary services they need.

It is not a luxury, it is a conscious decision that many people make sacrifices to obtain.

True, but what about people who live in small towns or rural areas. I'm not talking about suburbia--many of those people made conscious decisions to live far away from their work and amenities. Or do we just tell those people they really need to make a sacrifice and move to the city?

I appreciate this perspective, though. I've ridden my bike to work for the last eight years. My family lives in the city (I live not far from where I grew up) and we use public transportation. And I agree with the Economist--this program is really about getting people to buy new cars.

Cars? People still buy those things?

Yes. Why not? They're a tool, just like everything else. My family really enjoys traveling, so we (four of us) own one car. More often than not, it's parked in front of our house. We walk, bike, and bus ourselves around when we can. But it's also nice to be able to leave the city on the weekend and go camping and climbing. Or visit family. Acting as if you are on a higher moral plain because you can't comprehend why people still buy cars doesn't do much to advance the conversation and convince people to rethink some of their lifestyle choices.

That said, as I mentioned, I think this subsidy is a terrible idea.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#16
post #8

Can I have a $4500 voucher for a new bicycle? It uses no fossil fuel at all. (I estimate that an 18-pound bike will cause me to consume one less banana per week, compared to my current 21-pound bike. This will save hundreds of bananas per decade.)

I hope those bananas are fairly traded?

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#17
post #13
post #3

I can't imagine it does any good for the environment, at least not until >five years from now. Producing a car isn't exactly easy on the environment, and requiring people to buy new cars isn't going to help.

Producing _anything_ isn't easy on the environment.

How about locally hand-built wooden furniture from sustainably managed forest - it sequesters carbon and provides often beautiful goods is relatively labour intensive (good for employment figures) and preserves traditional skills. Well managed forest will preserve the natural living environment of many species.

Bonus points if the carpenter eats a low animal-protein diet.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#18
post #8

Can I have a $4500 voucher for a new bicycle? It uses no fossil fuel at all. (I estimate that an 18-pound bike will cause me to consume one less banana per week, compared to my current 21-pound bike. This will save hundreds of bananas per decade.)

I wasn't aware that banana consumption was a problem or that America depends on a healthy bike industry to thrive. News to me!

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#19
post #2

Cars? People still buy those things? I wonder how much non-drivers' taxpayer money goes to subsidizing others' choices of transportation like this...

Not everyone is a smart-ass college kid who lives in NYC. Some people actually need to drive (and have kids), and can't show up at a clients office to sell them web services on a public transport bus.

Re: Congress Just Buying People Cars Now

#20
post #8

Can I have a $4500 voucher for a new bicycle? It uses no fossil fuel at all. (I estimate that an 18-pound bike will cause me to consume one less banana per week, compared to my current 21-pound bike. This will save hundreds of bananas per decade.)

I wasn't aware that banana consumption was a problem or that America depends on a healthy bike industry to thrive. News to me!

I wasn't aware that having a slightly-old car was a problem.
Post reply on HN