On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't follow that "ie" at all. The amount of congestion I, and I > alone, cause is almost none, so costs almost nothing. What you mean is > "by making the cost prohibitive". Nothing wrong with that, but claiming > it's something to do with a nebulous "cost of congestion" is - > presumably - a way you can claim that this is still a "market", because > we know how much you love the markets. Actually you're proposing a > swinging tax to change behaviour. Again, nothing wrong with it, but > it's the antithesis of a free market.
Actually the cost of congestion is probably a fair amount thanks to most goods going by road, and therefore taking longer to get to their destination. This impacts on the labour costs - usually the largest part of most things we buy these days I would guess (and to bring it back on topic, one of the reasons canal transport struggles unless scales of economy come into it). Cheers, MIke -- Michael Askin http://shoestring_DOT_zapto_DOT_org/
