@harron.bsky.social
… savings on reducing car use by using those billions on transit, electric bike subsides, dense housing, and pedestrian/bike infrastructure.
December 1, 2025 at 8:28 PM
… savings on reducing car use by using those billions on transit, electric bike subsides, dense housing, and pedestrian/bike infrastructure.
Also evidence the marginal utility of public funds for charging infrastructure/purchase subsidies required to drive EV adoption is super low and we might be far more effective at reducing emissions and other public harms if we focused on hybrids and PHEVs for automobile travel while spending the …
December 1, 2025 at 8:28 PM
Also evidence the marginal utility of public funds for charging infrastructure/purchase subsidies required to drive EV adoption is super low and we might be far more effective at reducing emissions and other public harms if we focused on hybrids and PHEVs for automobile travel while spending the …
A true source doesn’t make a fake one more valid regardless of where someone’s heart being in the right place. The only difference at stake is the difference between verifiable news and fake information that is clearly meant to confuse and cause anger at certain politicians.
November 5, 2025 at 10:50 PM
A true source doesn’t make a fake one more valid regardless of where someone’s heart being in the right place. The only difference at stake is the difference between verifiable news and fake information that is clearly meant to confuse and cause anger at certain politicians.
This is very different - and Representatives get to some direct federal grants in their district
November 5, 2025 at 8:03 PM
This is very different - and Representatives get to some direct federal grants in their district
Representatives aren’t allowed to receive speaking fees or sponsorships - also try looking up this ‘article’ or finding evidence that it did happen.
November 5, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Representatives aren’t allowed to receive speaking fees or sponsorships - also try looking up this ‘article’ or finding evidence that it did happen.
Nope it is fake news - speaking fees and sponsorships are good flags of that
November 5, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Nope it is fake news - speaking fees and sponsorships are good flags of that
This is fake post - please don’t report obviously fake material
November 5, 2025 at 7:45 PM
This is fake post - please don’t report obviously fake material
Why you can immediately spot this as fake news
November 5, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Why you can immediately spot this as fake news
They aren’t - this is fake news
November 5, 2025 at 7:43 PM
They aren’t - this is fake news
Too bad it is fake news
November 5, 2025 at 7:43 PM
Too bad it is fake news
This is fake news - please don’t fall for obvious bs
November 5, 2025 at 7:42 PM
This is fake news - please don’t fall for obvious bs
Nope - it is fake news
November 5, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Nope - it is fake news
This is fake news - AOC (or any politician) doesn’t collect speaking fees or sponsorship fees.
November 5, 2025 at 7:41 PM
This is fake news - AOC (or any politician) doesn’t collect speaking fees or sponsorship fees.
If you are going for MMM type of argument - then you misunderstand MMM. One of the main results from MMM is that the primary use of taxation is to reduce the inflationary effects of government spending rather than raising revenue.
October 29, 2025 at 8:08 PM
If you are going for MMM type of argument - then you misunderstand MMM. One of the main results from MMM is that the primary use of taxation is to reduce the inflationary effects of government spending rather than raising revenue.
The greater efficiency of spending would also prob grow the economy and lead to much higher levels of consumption — yet with much lower emissions.
October 22, 2025 at 3:04 PM
The greater efficiency of spending would also prob grow the economy and lead to much higher levels of consumption — yet with much lower emissions.
We prob wouldn’t consume less even if there was a massive shift to non-auto transport. We would just substitute to consuming goods/services are far less emissions intensive (and prob bring us much greater happiness per dollar).
October 22, 2025 at 3:04 PM
We prob wouldn’t consume less even if there was a massive shift to non-auto transport. We would just substitute to consuming goods/services are far less emissions intensive (and prob bring us much greater happiness per dollar).
Also if we want to end the use of coal - we are going to have to produce a ton of solar, wind, ect infrastructure
October 22, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Also if we want to end the use of coal - we are going to have to produce a ton of solar, wind, ect infrastructure
Consuming less physical goods - probably yes - but that doesn’t mean total consumption, incomes, or GDP has to fall
October 22, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Consuming less physical goods - probably yes - but that doesn’t mean total consumption, incomes, or GDP has to fall
If we were actually concerned abt fire safety we would have sprinklers mandated in every new home and ban super long double loaded corridors instead of banning single stair buildings.
October 10, 2025 at 9:01 PM
If we were actually concerned abt fire safety we would have sprinklers mandated in every new home and ban super long double loaded corridors instead of banning single stair buildings.
Everything you describe happens when we prevent housing from being built where people want to live - our failure to build new housing near jobs, transit, and in walkable communities means more sprawl, more wildlife destroyed, and more driving for longer and longer commutes.
October 10, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Everything you describe happens when we prevent housing from being built where people want to live - our failure to build new housing near jobs, transit, and in walkable communities means more sprawl, more wildlife destroyed, and more driving for longer and longer commutes.
If you double people’s income and don’t build any more housing - housing costs will likely just double. Back when people were able to afford housing, we were building ~ twice the number of relative units.
October 10, 2025 at 12:15 PM
If you double people’s income and don’t build any more housing - housing costs will likely just double. Back when people were able to afford housing, we were building ~ twice the number of relative units.
A lot of those things can’t just be converted into housing.
October 10, 2025 at 12:11 PM
A lot of those things can’t just be converted into housing.
Tons of room in Pacifica CA. Also we could make it easy/legal to do a tear down and replace the sfh with a duplex.
October 10, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Tons of room in Pacifica CA. Also we could make it easy/legal to do a tear down and replace the sfh with a duplex.
Housing is still gonna be expensive.
October 10, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Housing is still gonna be expensive.