The case I was pointing at doesn't involve subsidies. The government does various things that make gasoline more expensive, doesn't subsidize it, and individuals pay the higher price.
Subsidizing it would destroy the objective of getting people to use less fossil fuel.
The case I was pointing at doesn't involve subsidies. The government does various things that make gasoline more expensive, doesn't subsidize it, and individuals pay the higher price.
Subsidizing it would destroy the objective of getting people to use less fossil fuel.
I'm sorry, I thought the comment on gas prices and the one on voting was separate. I agree, subsidizing fuel use would ruin the incentive to use less fossil fuel. Likewise, people would stop the ethanol nonsense and apparently change their minds about it being a good idea once it stopped being subsidized. Although it seems that many people have already done that, so it may be that those that are left are exactly the sort of low information voters who are not likely to bother to find out the difference, or are even much aware that there is something to find out about.
The case I was pointing at doesn't involve subsidies. The government does various things that make gasoline more expensive, doesn't subsidize it, and individuals pay the higher price.
Subsidizing it would destroy the objective of getting people to use less fossil fuel.
I'm sorry, I thought the comment on gas prices and the one on voting was separate. I agree, subsidizing fuel use would ruin the incentive to use less fossil fuel. Likewise, people would stop the ethanol nonsense and apparently change their minds about it being a good idea once it stopped being subsidized. Although it seems that many people have already done that, so it may be that those that are left are exactly the sort of low information voters who are not likely to bother to find out the difference, or are even much aware that there is something to find out about.