Isn't it fascinating to what great lengths Harry goes, just to divert from the issue -- that his beloved market competition actually leads to cars with $10,000 - $15,000 profits instead of $100 for car manufacturers, and to dangerous cars that emit 40 times more cancer-causing particles.
Harry's accident statistics are also beside the point -- which was that rolling fortresses kill more, no matter whether they're technically called SUVs or pickups or whatever. Harry's first stats table goes as far as blaming deaths caused by rolling fortresses on the "weaker" vehicles crushed by them. Harry conveniently forgets that this table would look very different (lower death rates for weaker vehicles) if the fortresses would be removed from traffic. The 2nd table clarifies that the fortresses' kill rate is way above (103 and 53) that of "weaker" vehicles (32-40). Of course, Harry conveniently omits the stats for single-vehicle accidents, which would show the fortresses' penchant for roll-overs. As a life-long car-free person, I'd like to remind Harry that he forgot the bicycle and pedestrian stats. As a cyclist, it's not funny to be pushed aside (or run over) by over-wide SUVs, especially on narrow European roads which are designed for normal-wide cars. Pedestrians are also more likely to be killed by rolling fortresses than by weaker cars. If SUVs are what Georgist "Good Society" is about, then forget Georgism... Neither good nor even internally consistent i.e. credible. Hint: Externalizing costs is never good for society, only for a few externalizers. If you defend the externalizers, you can't claim to advocate a good society. Maybe the word "Georgism" is short for "GeorgeOrwellism" ? Harry's subject line sure sounds like it. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
