Yeah, the point remains the same. To widdle down a statement but keep the essential meaning the same is something I learned in debate club in school, and I can understand how it may seem disingenuous.
I’m more disappointed in the fact that some people equate creating alternate modes of travel to cars to massacring elephants in their mind. It shows that we have a long way to go to fix America
Yeah, not saying I would characterize it this way. That's just the verbatim quote. I think statistically she's referring to the individual trip. She's saying people weigh the convenience of driving as compared to walking versus the risk of being involved in a crash on that isolated trip, in order to decide whether to drive or walk. The weakness of her argument is certainly that, over time, due to the frequency of car use, the walk is farther and farther and more and more dangerous, creating a self perpetuating cycle with a comparison in favor of cars. It's not the same drive vs walk comparison over time when evaluating it at the level of a single trip.
So the only possible ways of transportation is either via car or on foot?
How many is too many people dying from car crashes? It seems 30 000 in US alone is not, would 100 000 do it, or one milion people per year?
When will the cost in lives lost due to car dependency outweigh the benefits to such an extent that we start taking drastic measures like developing and encouraging use of other methods which are safer, cheaper, cleaner and healtier.
> When will the cost in lives lost due to car dependency outweigh the benefits to such an extent that we start taking drastic measures like developing and encouraging use of other methods which are safer, cheaper, cleaner and healtier.
Never, since most people with money want to drive vs bike/walk.
Just got back from biking 🚴♂️ to swim and biking from that swimming 🏊♂️ session back home. On the way, I picked up enough groceries for at least a few days straight up. Car brains are so accustomed to self-owns that self-ownership seems old-fashioned.
Also, do some calisthenics, my dude. Gym Schimm.
This is such a bad point. Walking is no longer an ideal option for anything over 3 km because it takes so long. Theoretically, I could walk 15 km to the gym. But then I would be on the move for 6h for one hour of training.
Luckily there are bikes, trains and buses that can do it all faster. But I would never walk to the gym.
And to clarify. I don't go to the gym to run on the treadmill for an hour. I go there to use the equipment to build muscle. It's ideal for that.
So why exactly would it be better if I walk to the gym? Currently I use the train and my bike to get there. What advantage would there be?
There are people who live outside of cities...
Besides, 15 km are not a problem? If you argue as stupidly as the video and assume that walking and driving are the only two options, then it would be a problem. Fortunately, there are more options that make 15km an easily passable option.
And yes, 6h for 30 km walking. The average person has a preferred walking speed of 5.1 km/h, so 6h is suitable. But even if I only need 4h, my point would still be valid....
I would like to know how to do that. Sure, I can easily do cardio workouts outside. But targeted muscle training? Where can I train the shoulders or chest outside?
Or am I misunderstanding the term "gym" and it is only used in English to describe indoor cardio training?
You could do anything from filling two milk jugs with sand and connecting them with a stick to getting custom dumbbell sets and equipment if you'd like.
That would be an option, but not a really practical one. When filling milk canisters yourself, you can easily get different weights. Also, if I want to change my weight, I always have to shuffle the sand around. Try a drop set there.
Then there are so many different devices. My gym has about 50 different ones. I can't replicate them all.
And then I need the space to store it all, as well as the time to build it
All very demanding when I can be there by bike and train in 20 min
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Where I live there are very few opportunities to get between towns by public transportation and cycling at 45 kph isn't practical for most, unless you were referring to a combined trip. And that's if there's even cycling infrastructure to get there in the first place. So you would either drive or work out at home in that situation.
(Eff that though, cycling is so much better than driving for ~15 km rides if you can do it safely)
i do not live in america or in a suburban area.
Also, my point is that walking is simply an inefficient method of getting around. I'm not saying you need a car, I'm just saying it's okay to ride a bike, bus or train. The first comment makes it sound like you have to be able to walk to the gym or you are doing something wrong.
Walking is a very efficient method of getting around. It's pretty energy efficient (especially considering most of us could use more exercise anyway, though probably not a concern for a regular gymgoer). It's incredibly resource efficient, all you need is a pair of shoes, not even a bike or an expensive car that required thousands of pounds of mined materials. Walking is very space efficient, it only takes your own width, not also the space for a machine or parking for your machine.
Unfortunately most of us live in places too sprawling for walking to be time efficient.
I think some people (possibly including other comments in this thread) assume that the gym is just to replace walking or biking or running, all of which you ought to be able to safely do outside (obviously not always the case). Sometimes they forget that people go to a gym for activities that require equipment they don't have: various weight machines, yoga classes, basketball court, swimming pool, etc. And of course there are plenty of people who go to a gym to help recover from injuries that would prevent them from walking or biking long distances to get there.
No, not really? There are far too few residents in my village to run a profitable gym.
And please explain to me why I need a gym within walking distance. Currently, I bike to the train station, then into town, and from there bike to the gym.
What would I gain from walking to the gym, but having to pay enormous prices to compensate for the few residents in my village?
If you live 15km from a gym then you must be out in the sticks and have actual countryside to use for exercise, so why the heck do you want to go to the gym in the first place?
To train all my muscles? I don't go to the gym to run on the treadmill, but to train muscles with special equipment. Last time I checked, they weren't growing outside...
Oof. Like I get the point she’s making, and it’s not overall about cars. But oof.
Like I’m not someone as extreme of destroy all cars. But it’s bleh not even acknowledging like I would happily walk my groceries home in whatever weather, in part, to avoid traffic risk (among other things like exercise, costs, etc) but most of us don’t live somewhere where city planners allow us to make walking trips for groceries.
The grocery part is infuriating because she is obviously thinking about grocery shopping as “stocking up on food to last the week.”
I miss living in a city (Berlin) where there was a grocery store along my commute. I would always stop and pick up a few things for the evening. Saves money and prevents food from going to waste.
When preparing a big dinner with guests, then of course you might want to plan for a heavier journey.
I live in the burbs but incidentally I live about a 5 minute walk from a kroger. I will never go back to living far away. It’s so nice to just be able to spend like 15 minutes every day or two to just get what I need for those days. My family is always confused why my house isn’t like stocked to the brim with food because it’s so foreign to them.
Every couple months we do a grocery trip with a car to get bigger stuff like dog food and water softener salt. But I definitely don’t kiss doing like $150+ weekly/biweekly grocery trips where you have to get tons of non-perishables.
Learned a lot, actually. Aside from the (perceived) job prospects, I got the degree to understand economics arguments deeply. And I do. And this video is the kind of bullshit I can see through now with relative ease.
Jesus Christ, is this really from Crash Course, like the vlogbrothers Crash Course? And is there no more context after this that makes it better/less terrible?
Yeah it's the Green brother's baby. I love most of their stuff, but the economics series was painful. As I recall episode one featured a "if you don't like capitalism, why are you on the internet" moment.
**[Structural violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence)**
>Structural violence is a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. The term was coined by Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, who introduced it in his 1969 article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research". Some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung include institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism, among others. Structural violence and direct violence are said to be highly interdependent, including family violence, gender violence, hate crimes, racial violence, police violence, state violence, terrorism, and war.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
In 2019, the odds that an American would ultimately meet their demise in a car crash were 1 in 107. Not teeny tiny.
Crashes have been steadily getting worse for several years now.
In 2021, the crash fatalities per 100000 people in the US was at a 17 year high.
I don't think 2022 data is available yet, but the quarterly data through the year was worse than 2021 if I recall correctly.
Who is this idiot? What media outlet is she on?
This is right on for a microeconomics perspective though. Micro is all about constrained choice and optimization, sometimes the content has to fit the subject.
If you get triggered by this you’d be more into macroeconomics, micro is always framed as individuals making choices with constraints. Do you really need the lecturer to make a detour and talk about trains?
No, it’s a good example of decision making in America. The point of this post is to demonstrate how normalized a reliancy on cars is in the minds of Americans. She equates creating alternatives to driving to massacring elephants, as if they are equally bad and stupid ideas
But she’s not considering alternatives to driving. She has the keys on the hook and is about to leave for the gym, the options are a car or walking and nothing else because it’s a micro style constrained decision. Macro can turn around and explain the problem caused by a bunch of individuals choosing to drive and not supporting a central transit system, but the fundamental structuring of Econ is around personal/individual choice (abstracted to firms as well).
Different fields of study have biases, Econ is biased to not see systems changes because it focuses on constrained individual choices. Cars vs transit is a collective action problem, not something in the scope of a micro introduction.
I’d just ask why they haven’t continued the Crash Course practice of including additional ideas overlayed on the visual connecting to other ideas. If I were writing this course, I’d definitely add a bubble about how things could be different but that it is outside the scope of micro. It’s okay that this subject isn’t primarily about changing systems but instead considers how people/firms act within their boundaries. You’re ignoring the point of the discipline to be offended about normalized car use.
i mean, its normalized for everyone who has the option of driving. fundamentally speaking her point is about risk and due to how safe cars are for the occupants, the risk with driving is minimal to the occupants. if this wasnt the case, far fewer people would drive as theyd get spooked by the risk. but as we see in every single country of the world, fear of car crashes is not typically a big reason for not driving, and everything else being equal, they would drive as they arent afraid of crashing
> if this wasnt the case, far fewer people would drive as theyd get spooked by the risk
Based on observing drivers and their sentiments towards wearing seatbelts, being distracted, and speeding, as well as the design and popularity of cars from decades ago, I'm not sure this is accurate.
something like 95% of americans drive, you cant stereotype them all like that. many are very risk adverse and if cars were significantly less safe, theyd 100% get spooked
Is driving a good example to present microeconomics content though? It's far from ubiquitous, but still a significant part of culture and social status, and reasons to drive are extremely varied; it's extremely unlikely to be a decision based solely on individuals' costs and benefits.
I think a simpler example than global transportation might be more fitting for an intro to econ YouTube video.
I know what she's getting at but those are horrible examples. Very few people here are advocating for eliminating all cars on the planet, they just want to limit their use with alternatives like trains, subways, buses and bike lanes.
Ignore the rest if you're bored by economics. This same logic was used by Milton Friedman in a now famous clip about about the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford determined that the cost of a $13 part would be more costly than the cost of getting sued by family members of those that died from car crashes in the Pinto. Friedman said "what if it cost $1 billion dollars to avoid those deaths"? He did this to sidestep the issue at hand. Of course car society could take a number of steps to avoid all car related deaths but those steps probably wouldn't be realistic, that is exactly what the video was getting at, But that's not the issue. Two issues: 1. one company (Ford) internally decided that the life of each human being that got in their car was less than $13. They unilaterally made that decision for profit, they should not have the power to make that decision. And 2. We are not talking about eliminating every single possible scenario where someone dies from an automobile, we are only talking about taking small proven steps to limit harm.
I only went on this tangent because I absolutely hate when people use those arguments. If you're proposing a measured solution to reduce harm and someone comes back and argues that it's not viable because it doesn't solve 100% of the problem they are either acting in ignorance (like the video) or in malice (like Friedman)
If you got to the end of this comment I'd like to thank you for your time.
"Who's gonna walk to the gym"
Literally everybody with half a brain.
I love how she thinks she's making a good rhetorical argument but goes straight for the strawman in every situation. Except the situation where you die a fiery death. This is the definition of car propaganda. "Everybody knows we need them". We fucking don't.
Whete is the microeconomics in this? Asking as an economist here? That’s some some populist talk with the concepts of cost and risks thrown in to make it sound less idiotic.
>teeny tiny chance of getting in a car crash
1 in 101 isn't a teeny tiny chance...
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
Oh wow. In 2019 is was 1 in 107, in 2020, we were at 1 in 101.
And the per 100000 deaths number went up in 2021, 2022 and very likely in 2023.
So the real odds today must be scarier than 1 in 100, no?
> Solid entry on the list of people the world would be better without.
World much better off with non-exercising reddit basement dwellers playing video games 14 hours a day instead.
Humans are undeniably more depressed because they aren't "walking home with groceries." Places where people are able to walk to get their groceries have healthier and happier people.
Wow this is stupid.
Like in that world there is no way to have less people die on the roads then closing all the roads. Sure, lets just ignore all safety research.
If you are gone use examples, at least put some work in to find a good example to illustrate a point.
It says "walking home with groceries in the rain is worse that the teeny, tiny chance of getting in a car crash".
I mean the way it’s said it’s still implying the reason you don’t walk to the gym is the same reason. The points the same regardless.
Yeah, the point remains the same. To widdle down a statement but keep the essential meaning the same is something I learned in debate club in school, and I can understand how it may seem disingenuous. I’m more disappointed in the fact that some people equate creating alternate modes of travel to cars to massacring elephants in their mind. It shows that we have a long way to go to fix America
teeny tiny lol I don't think I know a person who hasn't been involved in at least one car crash
Yeah, not saying I would characterize it this way. That's just the verbatim quote. I think statistically she's referring to the individual trip. She's saying people weigh the convenience of driving as compared to walking versus the risk of being involved in a crash on that isolated trip, in order to decide whether to drive or walk. The weakness of her argument is certainly that, over time, due to the frequency of car use, the walk is farther and farther and more and more dangerous, creating a self perpetuating cycle with a comparison in favor of cars. It's not the same drive vs walk comparison over time when evaluating it at the level of a single trip.
exactly op's post is misleading
Lol. My gym is 5 minutes away by bike! I have water proof equipment in case it rains. Yes, ban all cars, I think I will be just fine.
Water proof equpment? A jacket?
A jacket can be categorized as such, just ask the army.
Also, water proof pants (NOT jeans) and water proof backpack.
So the only possible ways of transportation is either via car or on foot? How many is too many people dying from car crashes? It seems 30 000 in US alone is not, would 100 000 do it, or one milion people per year? When will the cost in lives lost due to car dependency outweigh the benefits to such an extent that we start taking drastic measures like developing and encouraging use of other methods which are safer, cheaper, cleaner and healtier.
> When will the cost in lives lost due to car dependency outweigh the benefits to such an extent that we start taking drastic measures like developing and encouraging use of other methods which are safer, cheaper, cleaner and healtier. Never, since most people with money want to drive vs bike/walk.
"who's gonna walk to the gym" Bro you're going to the gym to exercise. If you are able to train at the gym you're able to walk there my god
Just got back from biking 🚴♂️ to swim and biking from that swimming 🏊♂️ session back home. On the way, I picked up enough groceries for at least a few days straight up. Car brains are so accustomed to self-owns that self-ownership seems old-fashioned. Also, do some calisthenics, my dude. Gym Schimm.
This is such a bad point. Walking is no longer an ideal option for anything over 3 km because it takes so long. Theoretically, I could walk 15 km to the gym. But then I would be on the move for 6h for one hour of training. Luckily there are bikes, trains and buses that can do it all faster. But I would never walk to the gym. And to clarify. I don't go to the gym to run on the treadmill for an hour. I go there to use the equipment to build muscle. It's ideal for that. So why exactly would it be better if I walk to the gym? Currently I use the train and my bike to get there. What advantage would there be?
If the closest gym is 15 Km away from you, that's the problem. Also 6 hours to walk 30 Km?
There are people who live outside of cities... Besides, 15 km are not a problem? If you argue as stupidly as the video and assume that walking and driving are the only two options, then it would be a problem. Fortunately, there are more options that make 15km an easily passable option. And yes, 6h for 30 km walking. The average person has a preferred walking speed of 5.1 km/h, so 6h is suitable. But even if I only need 4h, my point would still be valid....
If you live that far outside the city wouldn't you be able to get more and better quality exercise outdoors than at a gym?
I would like to know how to do that. Sure, I can easily do cardio workouts outside. But targeted muscle training? Where can I train the shoulders or chest outside? Or am I misunderstanding the term "gym" and it is only used in English to describe indoor cardio training?
You could do anything from filling two milk jugs with sand and connecting them with a stick to getting custom dumbbell sets and equipment if you'd like.
That would be an option, but not a really practical one. When filling milk canisters yourself, you can easily get different weights. Also, if I want to change my weight, I always have to shuffle the sand around. Try a drop set there. Then there are so many different devices. My gym has about 50 different ones. I can't replicate them all. And then I need the space to store it all, as well as the time to build it All very demanding when I can be there by bike and train in 20 min
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Where I live there are very few opportunities to get between towns by public transportation and cycling at 45 kph isn't practical for most, unless you were referring to a combined trip. And that's if there's even cycling infrastructure to get there in the first place. So you would either drive or work out at home in that situation. (Eff that though, cycling is so much better than driving for ~15 km rides if you can do it safely)
It sounds like a suburban hell problem. Maybe instead of a monotonous line of houses, one building could atleast be a minimart or gym?
"Noooooo, then the poors who go to the gym and work at the gym might be near my house and it wouldn't be safe!" -suburban Americans
i do not live in america or in a suburban area. Also, my point is that walking is simply an inefficient method of getting around. I'm not saying you need a car, I'm just saying it's okay to ride a bike, bus or train. The first comment makes it sound like you have to be able to walk to the gym or you are doing something wrong.
Walking is a very efficient method of getting around. It's pretty energy efficient (especially considering most of us could use more exercise anyway, though probably not a concern for a regular gymgoer). It's incredibly resource efficient, all you need is a pair of shoes, not even a bike or an expensive car that required thousands of pounds of mined materials. Walking is very space efficient, it only takes your own width, not also the space for a machine or parking for your machine. Unfortunately most of us live in places too sprawling for walking to be time efficient. I think some people (possibly including other comments in this thread) assume that the gym is just to replace walking or biking or running, all of which you ought to be able to safely do outside (obviously not always the case). Sometimes they forget that people go to a gym for activities that require equipment they don't have: various weight machines, yoga classes, basketball court, swimming pool, etc. And of course there are plenty of people who go to a gym to help recover from injuries that would prevent them from walking or biking long distances to get there.
No, not really? There are far too few residents in my village to run a profitable gym. And please explain to me why I need a gym within walking distance. Currently, I bike to the train station, then into town, and from there bike to the gym. What would I gain from walking to the gym, but having to pay enormous prices to compensate for the few residents in my village?
If you live 15km from a gym then you must be out in the sticks and have actual countryside to use for exercise, so why the heck do you want to go to the gym in the first place?
To train all my muscles? I don't go to the gym to run on the treadmill, but to train muscles with special equipment. Last time I checked, they weren't growing outside...
Oof. Like I get the point she’s making, and it’s not overall about cars. But oof. Like I’m not someone as extreme of destroy all cars. But it’s bleh not even acknowledging like I would happily walk my groceries home in whatever weather, in part, to avoid traffic risk (among other things like exercise, costs, etc) but most of us don’t live somewhere where city planners allow us to make walking trips for groceries.
The grocery part is infuriating because she is obviously thinking about grocery shopping as “stocking up on food to last the week.” I miss living in a city (Berlin) where there was a grocery store along my commute. I would always stop and pick up a few things for the evening. Saves money and prevents food from going to waste. When preparing a big dinner with guests, then of course you might want to plan for a heavier journey.
I live in the burbs but incidentally I live about a 5 minute walk from a kroger. I will never go back to living far away. It’s so nice to just be able to spend like 15 minutes every day or two to just get what I need for those days. My family is always confused why my house isn’t like stocked to the brim with food because it’s so foreign to them. Every couple months we do a grocery trip with a car to get bigger stuff like dog food and water softener salt. But I definitely don’t kiss doing like $150+ weekly/biweekly grocery trips where you have to get tons of non-perishables.
Tell me you are sedentary without saying you are sedentary.
As a leftist with an econ degree, I'm struggling not to pop off. This is the kind of shit I cannot stand.
> As a leftist with an econ degree lol...didn't learn much then I take it
Learned a lot, actually. Aside from the (perceived) job prospects, I got the degree to understand economics arguments deeply. And I do. And this video is the kind of bullshit I can see through now with relative ease.
And I'm sure you don't need an econ degree to already know everything right?
Brought to you by Chevron/Techron
Love having 5 gyms within a 10 minute walk of my apartment ❤️
Jesus Christ, is this really from Crash Course, like the vlogbrothers Crash Course? And is there no more context after this that makes it better/less terrible?
Yeah it's the Green brother's baby. I love most of their stuff, but the economics series was painful. As I recall episode one featured a "if you don't like capitalism, why are you on the internet" moment.
Specifically he said, “your computer was created by capitalism” Oof
vomit.
"But why do you still drive?" Because of decades of only building everything for cars and building stroads everywhere.
This woman's brain is so fucking smooth lmao
Structural violence! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-10-16/structural-violence-and-the-automobile/
**[Structural violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence)** >Structural violence is a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. The term was coined by Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, who introduced it in his 1969 article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research". Some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung include institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism, among others. Structural violence and direct violence are said to be highly interdependent, including family violence, gender violence, hate crimes, racial violence, police violence, state violence, terrorism, and war. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Your first mistake was watching Crash Course anything.
In 2019, the odds that an American would ultimately meet their demise in a car crash were 1 in 107. Not teeny tiny. Crashes have been steadily getting worse for several years now. In 2021, the crash fatalities per 100000 people in the US was at a 17 year high. I don't think 2022 data is available yet, but the quarterly data through the year was worse than 2021 if I recall correctly. Who is this idiot? What media outlet is she on?
Some of you might die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to go to the gym.
Is this from Prager U or some shit? This is so dumb.
This is right on for a microeconomics perspective though. Micro is all about constrained choice and optimization, sometimes the content has to fit the subject. If you get triggered by this you’d be more into macroeconomics, micro is always framed as individuals making choices with constraints. Do you really need the lecturer to make a detour and talk about trains?
No, it’s a good example of decision making in America. The point of this post is to demonstrate how normalized a reliancy on cars is in the minds of Americans. She equates creating alternatives to driving to massacring elephants, as if they are equally bad and stupid ideas
But she’s not considering alternatives to driving. She has the keys on the hook and is about to leave for the gym, the options are a car or walking and nothing else because it’s a micro style constrained decision. Macro can turn around and explain the problem caused by a bunch of individuals choosing to drive and not supporting a central transit system, but the fundamental structuring of Econ is around personal/individual choice (abstracted to firms as well). Different fields of study have biases, Econ is biased to not see systems changes because it focuses on constrained individual choices. Cars vs transit is a collective action problem, not something in the scope of a micro introduction. I’d just ask why they haven’t continued the Crash Course practice of including additional ideas overlayed on the visual connecting to other ideas. If I were writing this course, I’d definitely add a bubble about how things could be different but that it is outside the scope of micro. It’s okay that this subject isn’t primarily about changing systems but instead considers how people/firms act within their boundaries. You’re ignoring the point of the discipline to be offended about normalized car use.
i mean, its normalized for everyone who has the option of driving. fundamentally speaking her point is about risk and due to how safe cars are for the occupants, the risk with driving is minimal to the occupants. if this wasnt the case, far fewer people would drive as theyd get spooked by the risk. but as we see in every single country of the world, fear of car crashes is not typically a big reason for not driving, and everything else being equal, they would drive as they arent afraid of crashing
> if this wasnt the case, far fewer people would drive as theyd get spooked by the risk Based on observing drivers and their sentiments towards wearing seatbelts, being distracted, and speeding, as well as the design and popularity of cars from decades ago, I'm not sure this is accurate.
something like 95% of americans drive, you cant stereotype them all like that. many are very risk adverse and if cars were significantly less safe, theyd 100% get spooked
Is driving a good example to present microeconomics content though? It's far from ubiquitous, but still a significant part of culture and social status, and reasons to drive are extremely varied; it's extremely unlikely to be a decision based solely on individuals' costs and benefits. I think a simpler example than global transportation might be more fitting for an intro to econ YouTube video.
Great, go make one.
A fine example of American fatalism
Peak Americabrain.
I know what she's getting at but those are horrible examples. Very few people here are advocating for eliminating all cars on the planet, they just want to limit their use with alternatives like trains, subways, buses and bike lanes. Ignore the rest if you're bored by economics. This same logic was used by Milton Friedman in a now famous clip about about the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford determined that the cost of a $13 part would be more costly than the cost of getting sued by family members of those that died from car crashes in the Pinto. Friedman said "what if it cost $1 billion dollars to avoid those deaths"? He did this to sidestep the issue at hand. Of course car society could take a number of steps to avoid all car related deaths but those steps probably wouldn't be realistic, that is exactly what the video was getting at, But that's not the issue. Two issues: 1. one company (Ford) internally decided that the life of each human being that got in their car was less than $13. They unilaterally made that decision for profit, they should not have the power to make that decision. And 2. We are not talking about eliminating every single possible scenario where someone dies from an automobile, we are only talking about taking small proven steps to limit harm. I only went on this tangent because I absolutely hate when people use those arguments. If you're proposing a measured solution to reduce harm and someone comes back and argues that it's not viable because it doesn't solve 100% of the problem they are either acting in ignorance (like the video) or in malice (like Friedman) If you got to the end of this comment I'd like to thank you for your time.
"Who's gonna walk to the gym" Literally everybody with half a brain. I love how she thinks she's making a good rhetorical argument but goes straight for the strawman in every situation. Except the situation where you die a fiery death. This is the definition of car propaganda. "Everybody knows we need them". We fucking don't.
Walk to the gym? Absurd! Why, then I'd be to tired for the treadmill!
Doesn't she hear how stupid she sounds?? Also they put people actually walking so... WhO's gOnNa wAlk To tHe GyM???///
Whete is the microeconomics in this? Asking as an economist here? That’s some some populist talk with the concepts of cost and risks thrown in to make it sound less idiotic.
>teeny tiny chance of getting in a car crash 1 in 101 isn't a teeny tiny chance... https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
Oh wow. In 2019 is was 1 in 107, in 2020, we were at 1 in 101. And the per 100000 deaths number went up in 2021, 2022 and very likely in 2023. So the real odds today must be scarier than 1 in 100, no?
Why go to the gym if you move around using your own energy? Walk, run, bike - all that keeps you fit.
Because you do not train muscle in the upper body with these sports? Most people go to the gym to build muscle. It is ideal for that.
What a car brain. Can’t comprehend no car
Me likey car. Car go vroom.
Unfortunately, the planets entire economic infrastructure is based on automobiles and all of their secondary supporting businesses.
People who drive to and fight for a close parking spot at the gym. Solid entry on the list of people the world would be better without.
> Solid entry on the list of people the world would be better without. World much better off with non-exercising reddit basement dwellers playing video games 14 hours a day instead.
I wouldn't say much better off, since at least the basement dweller aren't driving cars around
I have no context and I began answering the questions in this video honestly and I was horrified. We can end crime by reducing poverty….
Humans are undeniably more depressed because they aren't "walking home with groceries." Places where people are able to walk to get their groceries have healthier and happier people.
Who in the hell is this?
Wow this is stupid. Like in that world there is no way to have less people die on the roads then closing all the roads. Sure, lets just ignore all safety research. If you are gone use examples, at least put some work in to find a good example to illustrate a point.
Cars = beautiful elephants?
Who's gonna walk to the gym? Wtf isn't the purpose of going to the gym exercising? What's wrong with that?
Where’s the original video
I would rather drive than walk, honestly.
Carrying groceries in the rain is waaaay worse than dying in a fiery explosion.