FLCC> Is the NY State Senate nuts?

[rob at cginy.net]

"But, even there,
high enough costs of fuel would eventually result in a rationalization
of the distribution system -- producing stuff locally, promoting
seasonally, reviving cheaper transport systems like marine and rail,
etc. etc."


I would like to agree with you but can't ignore that your scenario would
create a very painful adjustment period.  You're talking about massive,
systemic change to the way everyone does everything.  A total economic sea
change.  That takes years, maybe decades, to accomplish and then more
years to get right.  The question I can't ignore is ow many people are
going to fall off the edge of society in the interim?  Many, many people
are scraping by as it is and can't bear any more burden.

There are no good or fast solutions, but I would hope that the solution
that we finally come up with does the least harm during the transition
between paradigms.


-- 
"Carpe Diem, quam minimum credula postero"
-Horace

> rob at cginy.net wrote:
>>>> This is the main reason imho why the tax reduction is madness. Gas
>>>> taxes
>>>> should be *increased* to address the true issues.
>>>>
>>
>> I don't necessarily agree.  That's a rather short-sighted solution
>
> Well, first off, I don't mean it as a solution, much less long-term. I
> only mean that increased cost of gas, once it gets high enough, will in
> fact probably result in less gas used. I.e., the issue was whether
> "market forces" would do any good in this very limited case, defined in
> absurdly simple-minded terms.
>
> But neither do I agree with your analysis. Sure, it will hit everyone,
> including the poor, everywhere they pay for anything -- since
> transportation costs are part of everything we buy. But, even there,
> high enough costs of fuel would eventually result in a rationalization
> of the distribution system -- producing stuff locally, promoting
> seasonally, reviving cheaper transport systems like marine and rail,
> etc. etc.  Again, in the end, a saner use of resources could result,
> having screwed the poor in the process -- so what else is new?
>
> I think it's stupid to rely on the cost of fuel to effect these changes;
> they should be pursued by carefully considered social policy. But, how
> we get to enjoy a govt capable of enlightened policies is an entirely
> different question.
>
> Andrejs
>