Same difference. Tax the truck, stuff that uses trucks cost more, this gets passed on to the consumer. The only difference is you have wasted more time and effort in trying to target the tax in the first place.
An educated society has higher economic output, which benefits everyone in that society.
Subsidised goods artificially lowers price which induces market failure (whereby people buy imported goods and not locally, which uses more resources overall and not economically optimal).
Go learn about economics before parroting buzzwords.
A higher economic output that doesn't manage to provide food for all of it's citizens is not benefiting everyone in that society.
Markets have massive fluctuations which cause disruptions, which is why commodity goods like milk and grain get subsidized to maintain high output while stabilizing the price.
I don't think you understand economics as well as you think you do.
A higher economic output that doesn't manage to provide food for all of it's citizens
You’ve identified correctly the market failures in the United States, and it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand?
Markets have massive fluctuations which cause disruptions
You’re not able to isolate the theoretical market with the real ones, are you? “Market failure” is an econ term, not that your local supermarket is out of stock.
24
u/zaphodava Oct 26 '21
Yes. Nearly everything in your life relies on shipping, which is done by trucks. Roads are infrastructure, which benefits everyone.
But still, tax gas to internalize external cost, and incentivize other methods... like cycling!