The article I have chosen asked the question, “why aren’t insurance rates dropping as cars get safer?” The article presented many reasons for why insurance rates aren’t dropping in the auto industry. Premiums haven’t been proven to increase but they certainly aren’t decreasing. The simplest way to answer the question is: cars are getting safer, but the drivers aren’t getting any better. The lack of efficient driver’s education has strengthen this clause. While vehicles are getting safer overall, these cars are getting more expensive to repair; this costs the insurance companies more money.
Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a dramatic fall in the once thought of, cooperate social responsible car company Volkswagen. After manipulating the pollution levels of their cars, this scandal has resulted in the German car company is facing a lot of backlash from consumers which is significantly impacting their value. This made me think of chapter two of Cocktail Party Economics as it is all about value. Firstly, we are introduced to the idea that nothing is truly priceless even though companies try and convince us that they are. Volkswagen through catchy advertising, amazing corporate social responsibly (CSR) and environmentally friendly vehicles has built a reputation that some people would value as priceless.
The House of Representatives and Monsanto claim that this provision was not a favor. However, this rule would "benefit the only manufacturer in the United States of now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known as PCBs" (Lipton, E. (2016, February 29) The Senates environment and public works committee in addition to their new version of the TSCA act included that this revision of the bill should not apply to Monsanto and they should be held liable for all of the damages they caused. The cities also have a right to sue for the damages they incurred for Monsanto being careless. The House agreed but, added
's State of the Air 2016 report says.¨ This here is a city that is over polluted because of technological issues. Cars ruin our atmosphere and we don 't need advancements in technology if all it is going to do is hurt us and cause deaths. The world would be a much more peaceful place without knowing so much, as we wouldn 't be making harmful things that will ruin our grandchildrens lives. Today knowing
Gregg Easterbrook, a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of The Progress Paradox, argues in his article “Road Kill,” that people in the United States are not paying attention to a major killer: our roads. In his essay, Easterbrook explains the lack of attention to the threat of road accidents, even comparing it to 9/11, which has become a serious threat to Americans on the road, and even worldwide. Many Americans dismiss the problem, even though it is huge even if it is not perceived as a huge threat like terrorism. Some causes of the rise in accident casualties proposed by Easterbrook are distracted driving and the rapid increase of horsepower. Easterbrook proposes multiple solutions to the problem, such as increased legislation on distracted driving and reducing horsepower in cars (A1-4).
Mandle explains that not addressing the climate change situation will cause more damage to future generation than some tax increases. And many people think greenhouse gases are a threat and they are willing to support paying money to correct the situation. Money should not be the reason for the government to ignore climate change because the consequences of not doing anything will outweigh the high costs of research and development of renewable energy
When the people were asked how fast the cars we going when they smashed into each other, instead of hit, people were more likely to report speeding and shattered glass (Laura Beil). In fact, a study carried out by Dr. James Ost at the University of Portsmouth, 40 percent of people claimed to have seen this nonexistent footage. Some even went on to describe what happened in vivid detail (Science Focus). This is clear evidence that memories are not accurate enough to properly determine the fate of someone 's future.
Is this ethical? What if someone gets in the Volkswagen and does not feel happy, in fact they feel the exact opposite? That person was then just deceived into believing their life would be instantaneously better, so they spent their money, but they do not reap the rewards they were seeking. Is it okay to manipulate people, using rhetoric, to get earthly materials in return? “RHETORIC The art of making life less believable; the calculated use of language, not to alarm but to do full harm to our busy minds and properly dispose our listeners to a pain they have never dreamed of.” –Ben Marcus The well known author, Ben Marcus, sheds light on the concept of rhetoric.
The invisible hand will guide the free market through hard times and competition according to Adam Smith and the U.S. government choose to try to artificially speed up the invisible hand. Instead of helping the U.S. Government showed that Wall Street could get away with whatever they want and still have a safety net for whatever they do. One of the reasons why the Government choose not to do this is because the people in power at the political level did not want to lose their jobs. The quick response for the politicians to avoid taking the blame was to bailout the economy and put trillions into the economy to stimulate it. This has set us up for failure in the future as it provided short term answers and not long term stability.
Commuting times only get worse regardless of how much development there is or how much “smart growth” thinks public transportation is the key to the future. American cities are heavily automobile dependant and always will be. You cannot have low-density areas with an effective public transportation system because their will not be enough demand for it, rather it will actually just contribute to the traffic congestion and pollution. The only fixable solution to our mode of transportation is to implement environmental policies that concentrate on better fuel sources. Not only do we have transportation to consider, but California cities also need policies that focus on the issues revolving environmental segregation.