Read on Twitter
When the f*** has Bloomberg ever criticized rebates for EVs?
When Bloomberg's conferences aren't sponsored by fossil fuels, they're by power companies... who stand to lose big if people use e-bikes instead of e-cars.
@alemrome + @vtsilver, please don't be a useful idiot https://twitter.com/business/status/1292134241925509124
When Bloomberg's conferences aren't sponsored by fossil fuels, they're by power companies... who stand to lose big if people use e-bikes instead of e-cars.
@alemrome + @vtsilver, please don't be a useful idiot https://twitter.com/business/status/1292134241925509124
The claim that bike subsidies hurt the poor is dubious, because of the circumstances:
* New bike subsidies will reduce used bike prices, which helps those on a lower budget
* An e/bike is vastly cheaper than driving or even transit. Bikes help build wealth for all, rich or poor.
* New bike subsidies will reduce used bike prices, which helps those on a lower budget
* An e/bike is vastly cheaper than driving or even transit. Bikes help build wealth for all, rich or poor.
Also, the poor are disproportionately in jobs where they must arrive on time... not an ideal requirement when the local transit system is subject to breakdowns. Bikes have the most reliable trip times of any mode besides walking. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-rome-metro/rome-metro-breakdown-adds-woes-to-troubled-italian-capital-idUKKCN1RS1JR
Is there a problem of many poor people lacking cash? Undoubtedly. And that can be resolved through various means - higher subsidies for the poor, low cost financing, and even temporarily diverting transit subsidies (which in Rome are ~$800+ per annual pass)
This is a classic anti-government pot shot - find rich people using a universal benefit for something even slightly frivolous (and then lump it in with other, genuinely stupid programs, like subsidizing middle class home renovations)
PS: lol at suggesting Italian infrastructure investment as more efficient. Sure, yeah that's totally efficient, not corrupt at all.
(Remember the Genoa bridge falling down? Even Montreal has a problem with Mafia siphoning money in infrastructure)
(Remember the Genoa bridge falling down? Even Montreal has a problem with Mafia siphoning money in infrastructure)
Bicycles are so effective at reducing poverty that there are international development projects based around handing out bicycles to poorer countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_poverty_reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_poverty_reduction
Unrestricted cash grants to the poor are probably better, strictly as a program to aid the poor.
But welfare programs for the poor alone face more obstacles, because the beneficiary class is much weaker, and even when active, the government contrives ways to stifle them
But welfare programs for the poor alone face more obstacles, because the beneficiary class is much weaker, and even when active, the government contrives ways to stifle them
And helping the poor is not the point of bike subsidies! It's a big *side* benefit.
Getting more middle class people on bikes means the interests of rich and poor are aligned, for cleaner air and calmer streets, amenities the poor are oft denied
Getting more middle class people on bikes means the interests of rich and poor are aligned, for cleaner air and calmer streets, amenities the poor are oft denied
By contrast, personal cars, in a certain famous Italian's calculus, might belong to the eighth circle of hell, as 'scismatici'* that pit the whims of rich drivers against the human needs of the poor and car-less; kinematic carnage vs peace and clean air.
*schismatics
*schismatics
