General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Luredreier
TLDR News EU
comments

Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

Previous
9
Next
...
All

@paper plane Russia isn't supplying Europe, that's not confusing, but he's arguing that the attack on the pipeline wasn't done by Russia. The most common assumption/hypothetical is that Russia did it because Putin realizes that Europe won't ever buy gas from Russia again due to lack of trust, so the pipeline is useless long term, and because destroying the pipeline is a way to warn Europe that our energy supplies and other infrastructure is vulnerable while still maintaining plausible deniability. A open attack would force a response from Europe. This doesn't while still spooking us. It's a way of raising the stakes. The goal being to scare us into backing down from our support for Ukraine, as well as Russian affairs in general... However, like I said, it's suggested above that Russia didn't do it. So I'm asking what's the alternative hypothesis he'd like to propose? Who does he suspect? What's their motive? And what's the motive for the goal that the previous motive is meant to achieve?
1
@bastiaan7777777 You can make fertilizers without oil or natural gas, it's just more expensive. You can make plastics without oil and gas, again it's more expensive to do so without them. As for the other fields you mentioned, I don't know enough to comment on those...
1
6:24 They also do so in a majoritarian system, just from within a party, just look at Trump... Or I guess Sanders for those leaning the other way... In two party systems the bigger parties always fear losing power so they adop policies from smaller parties they see as a threat in order to squash them. See the conservatives in the UK vs UKIP for instance. With proportional representation at least people feel like they have a choice. Yes extremists gets some influence if there's enough voters for them and their coalition partners can't find centrist alternaties instead. But if you use the right proportional electoral system your parties should generally have more than one viable coalition option so parties that gets too extreme doesn't get power, meaning that the extreme parties have a interest in at least seeming less extreme in order to remain plausible options for the larger parties if the centrist parties starts asking for too much or turns to the other side.
1
Hum, while I as a Green voter in my own country obviously disagree with her on a number of issues I do think that this could be overall good for Germany, depending on what direction she's going to push. A more proportional electoral system better for smaller parties would probably be a positive if she pushes fot that. Her regional base means that there's still plenty of room for more moderate left parties outside of her influence to potentially capitalize on this in the future. It's a way to siphon off voters from AFD that's good however you look at it even if that means that her own party will push against things that's important. It should be possible to make decent compromises with her. You can tighten immigration temporarily without locking the door for instance, focusing more on integration for a few years. Then open the botders again in the case of a emergency when actually needed and when the integration infrastructure is better equipped to handle the volume. Russia... That's a tough one... As long as Ukraine continue to get the war support needed perhaps some sanctions can be sacrificed in return? Some Russian gas could be earmarked her eastern constituencies. It would lead to Russian income that we'd all be fighting against. But if made limited enough it's perhaps something that can be worked with. Leaving NATO is of course a no go. Same with the EU. She isn't against the energy transition in principle it seems, but wants to cushion her constituencies from the worst effects.
1
2:01 Oh dear, D'Hondt method... I can already tell that this one is going to have bigger parties that don't get along, just like with first past the post... Although at least other parties have a real chance and can help make things more nuanced.
1
@shadeblackwolf1508 You generally get a rough idea. Some parties have natural allies and natural enemies. Other parties are more open to be pragmatic and go either way. You decide yourself if you want to go with the "sure" alternative with regards to what direction the party is likely to go with and what goverment they'll support or if you want to go with a party that will go either way and negotiate the best deal they can according to their ideology. I personally switched from a party that's certain to always go left to one that's decidedly in the center in order to achieve certain goels myself. Them being willing to swing either way was a big selling point for me when picking a party. And I'm dissapointed that they've since decided to prefer a left leaning goverment rather then remaining open.
1
@SteveWithers How does New Zeeland handle situations where the proportional side and the non-proportional side doesn't agree with eachother? Like situations where someone votes for a canditate that's in a party with less then the required 5% of the votes or without enough votes to get into parliament at all through the other side of the system? Is more seats created for those people? Or does the number of seats remain fixed leaving some parties with less then their proportion of the seats? Or don't those individuals who are voted for get a seat at all despite winning their part within their electoral circle?
1
@hendrikdependrik1891 If extremist parties keeps growing and being a problem eventually they'll end up in a goverment in some way or other either as direct or indicrect support. And they'll eventually start softening up a little bit in order to remain a viable goverment party.
1
@RealConstructor You don't necessarily need a threshold. Our system here in Norway is a party list proportional system where there's no threshold for seats within each electoral circle, meaning that smaller parties can get 1-3 seats that way. However we do have something called leveling seats that does have a threshold in order to qualify. That means that a party can go up from say 4-5 just under the 4% threshold to 11-12 seats just above. The idea is that the number of seats given in each electoral circle might not entierly line up with the number of votes a party got totally on a national level, so the leveling seats are designed to correct that. Similarly to how the NZ proportional seats are meant to correct the non-proportional part of their election results. We have 150 seats distributed among the 19 electoral circles, and 19 leveling seats meant to correct the differences between those and the national vote. Some electoral circles also have more seats pr voter then others. But the leveling seats can correct for that to some degree. The end result is that everyone feels well represented.
1
Right Wing Not necessarily. However there's ways to both have a threshold and not have one at the same time. Having such a threshold actually give smaller parties more power. Because parties with 1-4% of the votes has a goal that can help motivate voters into voting since that threshold actually significantly increases the number of seats a party has giving them way more power with a relatively small number of votes making the difference. And it ensures that those who do get more then that number of votes also has enough power to have a real say in politics. While those with less then the threshold can get power through other means depending on the system. They might technically get less seats then their share of the votes might otherwise suggest, but they still get represented and can have the balance of power in some situations. I'm used to the Norwegian electoral system by the way. It's not a MMP system like in NZ, but a party list proportional system. It has certain traits in common with NZ though.
1
Right Wing And yes, Norway also have ways to ensure representation for our minority, the Sami people. We went with a separate parliament for them instead.
1
Right Wing Half being first past the post isn't that big of a deal. Even in a proportional system about 2/3 of the seats ends up in the two biggest parties anyway, and assuming that a party can get into power with a FPTP win somewhere despite being under the 5% threshold that means that parties still get representation with less then 5% of the votes if there's someone that's actually popular enough to get elected in one of the electoral circles. So those votes are not wasted. Since the other half of the seats are proportional it means that people who didn't get their FTFP pick still are represented instead of their votes being wasted since they can vote for a party based on proportionality, and the FTFP part of the MMP system means that representatives truly represents local electoral cicles instead of all being picked at a higher level. Only voters that neither got their FTFP choice nor voted for a party above the 5% limit actually had their votes wasted. But at that point you might as well complain about things like not being popular enough for anyone in other parties to want to work with you to start with... Those smaller parties have two different paths towards winning a seat, that's a really good system. And by having that 5% threshold you help motivate voters who might otherwise feel like their vote is just wasted. Ensuring that you won't have people not voting for those FTFP seats because at least they're contributing towards reaching that threshold that might significantly improve a partys representation and power. My own party in my own country is below the 4% threshold that a part of our seats require (other seats don't require them, complicated system, explained better elsewhere in this thread), but having that 4% threshold is actually good for us as a smaller party, and means that we have a real shot at power if we can cross that line while still having representation if we don't as long as we're popular enough at a local level. We have two different paths towards parliament, and we're getting a fair shake with both of them. That beats an awful lot of other countries out there.
1
Right Wing Yet, if the Greens manages to reach those 5% then they'll get more power backing up their views. I'm a Green voter here in Norway by the way at the moment. As is they're still represented and they have a achievable goal post to help motivate voters to vote.
1
@SteveWithers Yeah, hate when that kind of things happens... Here in Norway we have the "progress party" that's far right, they're not really getting our proportional system either... Yet they somehow manage to be one of the bigger parties in our parliament...
1
@리주민 Regarding the whole BLM vs WLM thing is that of course all lives matter, but saying that doesn't change that it's black lives that keeps being lost due to racism in the US. And those who say "all lives matter" doesn't actually do anything to fight for those lives being lost due to injustice. They don't fight equally for everyone... Substitution isn't always a good tool and can sometimes change the meaning for a good reason. Just like equal laws don't always have equal outcomes. There's correlations in the demographic data that means that you can specifically target someone based on race, gender, religion etc without mentioning said race, gender or religion. If you decide to built a highway into a city and forcably buy the cheapest land into it then any ethnic group that's less likely to be wealthy is more likely to be displaced and have those who remain being divided by a highway and suffering from the consequences of said highway on their wellbeing. Giving both genders paid parental leave disproportionally favors women and their wages since it means that women are no longer more likely to have breakes in their careers to look after their baby while men don't. Likewise with subsidised kindergardens and giving people a right to a kindergarden spot. Giving kids free warm healthy food at school and help with their homework after school as a right favors the poor even though the rich also gets the same food and homework help. Giving everyone unemployment benefits and free health care, disproportionally helps the poor, but increases legitimacy for these measures for everyone, reduced bureaucracy etc by simplifying the laws reducing costs. There's many measures that doesn't hit everyone equally. This also applies to how we act towards others. In my country we have a large personal space. But someone comming from another country with a smaller personal space and who might have a different skin color or religion (say wearing a hijab etc) might be offput by what among us would be politeness since we for instance in a bus stop with a bench with room for 3 people to sit (in any other nation) will stand up and move away if a third person sits down there, or even a second one if they sit down in the middle. In their mind that might end up feeling like racism even though our intention is simply politeness.
1
@jayzonedc6474 It's so weird to hear about the Greens being far left in New Zealand when they're centrist here...
1
@리주민 The idea is that losing a profession isn't really that important all things considered. But you want people in all the geographical areas you represent as well as from all ethnic groups. Yes, part of it all is to ensure that you keep professions etc alive. But honesetly the main reason is also to ensure that you don't have discontent festering in any particular group that may have group menality, and therefore that you don't have the fundation of a potential civil war on your hand. If a region gets too disgruntled the region might end up with a uprising at some point. If a ethnic group does, something similar happens and you get secterianism... This happens with geographical locations, ethnic groups and religions. But people of different professions usually identifies more with the area and country then the profession. You don't want to encourage the opposite. Besides you can achieve something similar simply through the use of focus on the areas instead since different areas will specialize in different professions. Also, having this differentiation based on land instead of profession is more flexible as it can adapt to new professions emerging and old ones vanishing. And furthermore people living in an area but belonging to a different profession still interact with and have friends with people in other professions in that area. Same with religions and ethnic groups. So you get into the overall inside of the group with representation without having to deal with anything that's profession based.
1
@리주민 Because of the consequences... It would divide the nation. If one profession gets seats then the next will want it and the next etc, etc... And you'd also have people getting double representation, both from the area they live in and the profession.
1
@리주민 I'm arguing against occupation based representation (Europe used to have something like that in the middle ages) and in favor of geographic proportional representation. Part of the point is that some professions are far from the centers of power but still vital to a nation. These professions that represents a relatively low portion of the population but that's still important tends to be in rural areas and members of these professions tend to interact with eachother in their home villages. So increased representation for rural areas makes sense to ensure continued viability of both these areas, the resource extraction from these areas and the security of things like the food sources of the nation. Profession based representation doesn't really make sense for me though. Part of the idea of having increased representation for rural areas is to increase diversity in the parliament. Giving a occupation too much say risks causing a overreliance on said profession at the cost of the capability of the nation as a whole to deal with sudden changes in conditions. For instance if a situation outside said countrys controll suddenly makes that profession unviable but they still make up a major power in the country. With the Norwegian approach of increased power for rural areas you're guranteed that they won't get too powerful because there's simply no way for these rural areas to achieve parity with more urban areas in population and therefore power. And the professions that benefits from this increase in rural power are professions that are important for the countrys food security, food security that was shown to be lacking in the last couple of wars we partook in... We had starvation during the napoleonic wars due to the British blockades. And during WW2 there where severe food shortages, and we where lucky to not have an actual starvation at our hands...
1
@ari54x Yep, majorities can happen. Norway has had its fair share of Labor majorities too. Norways and Germanys system have a lot in common except for the MMP part. Norways proportionality is based on each electoral circle. So the seats of Oslo is given based on the proportional popularity of a party in Oslo and the seats in another electoral circle is given based on the popularity in that electoral circle. But then there's one extra seat pr electoral circle that's a leveling seat that's given proportionally based on the overall popularity of a party. The directly elected single member seats are not meant to have a impact on the proportional power of different parties in a MMP system but rather to give local communities a way to get more of a say in who represents them specifically in local matters, someone they feel they can trust. I still feel that the German system can lead to a bit too much focus on individuals instead of politics. But it's worlds ahead of FPTP.
1
@리주민 What I describe has a completely different goal from what you're talking about. The increased power to rural areas I'm talking about is there to ensure that if farmers make up 8% of the population they will have more then 8% of the seats in the parliament, not to compensate for some lower likelyhood of a farmer to get into parliament then their percentage of the population would indicate. The idea here being that if one profession makes up 30% of the population they're already represented so you don't need more of them but can have less of them then what their percentage of the population actually is and still have their point of view being represented while also get more diversity. For reference farmers and woodsmen (woodcutters etc) combined make up 2,7% of the population in Norway. And in 2019 there was 11 048 fishermen in Norway out of a population of 5 million, these 11 k people as well as some fish farmers together bring in 21,6 billion NOK or about 2,4 billion USD pr year in revenue. As you can imagine that's a profession well worth maintaining as far as our economy and food security is concerned. Fishermen would according to these numbers make up about 0,2% of our population. In the period 2013-2017 8 parliamentarians 5,4% of the parlimentarians in Norway where from a primary industry of some kind, so farming, fishing, cutting wood, mining etc, that is extracting resources and not refining them etc. Looking at the numbers it looks like about 3% of the population is from primary industries (all of the ones I mentioned) in 2020 (a lot of people in the oil industry lost their jobs due to the fall in oil prices during the corona virus) I don't have any numbers from 2013-2017 for that. But as you can see they are intentionally slightly overrepresentated. The effect you're looking for of people from different professions having a chance to become parliamentarians that's equal to their professions share of the population comes naturally if you have a sufficiently egalitarian society. But that's not our goal here. Instead we're trying to increase the share of power of professions that are vital to the nation. After all, 5,4% of parliamentarians in that period was still just 8 of them so it's not like there was one represented every single year. Most professions won't be represented all years. But these are important enough for us that we want them included in our political debate every year even if their share of the population on its own doesn't justify that. You could theoretically do something like setting of a seat that will always go to a farmer for instance and get a similar result I guess... But again that's not really the goal here. The goal is for people who are too far away from the population centers to really interact with the part of the population that makes up the majority of it to get indirect power to have more of a say. It wouldn't help much with a farmer who works right next to a major city to get in that way. Those live under completely different terms and might be favored in local politics but not at a national level. At a national level we're after the people further afield, both farmers and others. Including for instance people employed by the state in rural areas and dealing with the logistical problems of rural areas for instance. And so one and so forth. A doctor in a rural hospital, a ferryman or farmer or fisherman or local route pilot of a small plane etc. All of them. Because living in a rural area is different from living somewhere urban. So it's not about trying to correct flaws of the electoral system, it's intentionally ceding power to a different region in order to ensure that more different views are represented. The only profession based thing that is similar that I can think about is when some countries require military officers to be a part of the goverment or parliament. Something that might be "justified" due to a dangerous military status with a lot of enemies surrounding a country. If farmers shrink in numbers in Norway they will lose relative power in our parliament, but it doesn't change that rural areas are overrepresented in our parliament. One compensating feature we have for this kind of thing is leveling seats. Where one representative from each electoral circle is distributed based on the overall popularity of the parties in the country so if one party should have gotten 30 seats based on their national population but only get 28 from the different electoral circles they might get 2 leveling seats or if they had 0 seats locally because they're just not poplare enough in any one place but are really populare overall just spread out they might get 2-3 leveling seats etc (although I can't really remember any leveling seats being allocated without a party having 3-4 seats already, in part due to the requirement of having 4% of the popular vote to qualify for leveling seats) This effect means that the opinion of urban voters are not underrepresented, proportionally in the makeup of the parliament but more of the actual representatives are from rural areas. So you might be from a rural area and join a political party and get elected into the parliament by voters in a urban area due to your party allegiance. Although you're more likely to be put in there by rural voters if you're from a rural area. Our electoral system does have some weird artifacts sometimes. But on the whole it works well. Now, in a different system where you are less likely to get political power if you're from a profession then what its share of the population would suggest for whatever reason then yes, I guess your system might make sense. It's just that, honestly there's better ways of achieving that...
1
It's not a solution, at best it's a temporary bandaid.
1
3:03 There's a difference between assimilation and integration.
1
@Axel_Karell Well, demanding UN support for military actions have been a staple of both the far left and the green movement in my own home country at least... Never heard about any mention about changes with regards to NATO though...
1
@ЛейтенантЙердинов The YouTube app on my phone offers translation. Thank you for the offer. And yes, for better and worse we're obligated to allow free movement of people to and from the area. And honestly that's a good thing. Civilians shouldn't have to suffer more than absolutely necessary...
1
 @GnosticAtheist Det er en ekstremt dårlig ide. Det er ingen vinnere i krig...
1
@briannewton3535 Lack of respect for the law and the legeslative branch of the government. The UK is supposed to be parliamentarian rather than presidential. Yet the British prime minister acts as if he's the highest authority in the kingdom when he clearly isn't, and he shows disturbing authoritarian traits that puts it the validity of the democracy of the UK in question.
1
@briannewton3535 I wish you luck... Honestly I just hope that you guys get rid of the first past the post electoral system and get something more nuanced that forces the political parties to behave more at some point. Scotland already uses the "alternative vote" electoral system, New Zealand and Germany uses MMP, and here in Norway er have a party list proportional system with 19 electoral circles where the seats are distributed proportionaly within them depending on how many votes parties get there. There's also one seat in each of them given based on the difference between the number of seats people get in the previously mentioned step and in the overall national vote (since some electoral circles have more seats pr capita then others).
1
@sucram1018 They're not really having problems with getting things done. They just make compromises all the time... Most of the time that's a good solution. But in cases where a more firm principled solution might be desired it can be... Frustrating...
1
@bobsmith5441 People generally don't mind those nations either... Finland and Estonia has a language from a completely different language family from ours. People from Ireland and Scotland are of course welcome just like French or British or American people. You're right about Iceland missing from my list of Germanic nations. We have more in common with Germans and Dutch people then Brits and Irish people or Americans. In my own region I'd say that most people are welcome though. We're a left leaning region.
1
@bobsmith5441 We do have a Finnish speaking minority that we've had for generations, since we where under Sweden last time. Finns tend to go to Sweden rather than Norway though. They learn Swedish in school. A lot of Icelandic people do come to study and work in Norway. Norwegians think of them as long lost brothers of sort. The island was mainly populated from Norway, at least when it comes to men. And Norwegians kind of see their own past when they look at Iceland. Only people from some of our dialects understand Icelandic without learning it or a lot of exposure. People from Iceland learn at least one other Nordic language in school though, so we tend to have no problems with communicating. Although in recent years Nordic people have switched to using English when talking with each other instead of using our own language or kind of a mix like we used to do. (I kind of miss the mix that developed on Norrøna, a ship that sails between the countries)
1
I think it's more a matter of them alienating rural areas with their merging of our regions and generally a policy of centralization, while they're alienating urban voters with their attitude towards the environment. Hence why the center party and the environmental party the green ones had so much success in the local elections earlier. Combine that with us in general not liking too much change and after two conservative terms a lot of things have changed towards the right, so people generally want to adjust things a bit again, to keep things in the center with minor changes only, some left wing rule then perhaps a turn to the right again later. shrugs As for our relationship with the EU I wouldn't worry too much. SV and SP might want to move us away from the EU but the math isn't limited to within the coalitions in Norway. Høyre (the conservatives) also want us to stay close to the EU and just because a party is in a government doesn't mean that they can't seek help from outside the coalition on a case by case basis. I wish you had covered the electoral system a little bit as it's a interesting one. Ap wants a minority government together with SP (and maybe SV) I think. They don't really want MDG included. We'll see if they'll include us or not. As a green voter I obviously hope that we'll end up with the swing vote, but it doesn't look that way in the pools.
1
@Nabium Var det ikke snakk om selvstendighet i enkelte Samiske kretser under Alta utbyggingen? Jeg synes jeg husker snakk om det fra dokumentarer om protestene, de var alltid en minoritet av de som protesterte. Husk at på den tiden hadde vi også bevegelser som AKP(ml), voldelig kamp for det en tror på var mere akseptert en i dag. Det er ingen i sametinget som overhodet har ønsket å ta opp temaet til debatt i sametingets historie.
1
@Nabium Hva dagens selvstendighets bevegelse anngår så ser det ut til kun å være rundt 400 medlemmer i Facebook gruppen for Samisk selvstendighet... Skjønt, gruppen nok inneholder medlemmer som ikke er Samer også. Jeg sier ikke at det noen gang har vært en sterk selvstendighets bevegelse, men at det har eksistert selvstendighets bevegelser... Det tror jeg ikke at det er tvil om. Men det har alltid vært små grupper med mennesker, ikke en massebevegelse blant Samene. Samer flest i Norge, Sverige og Finland ønsker ikke selvstendighet men heller økt selvstyre og bedre kår.
1
@mynameisnobody3931 It depends on the country. Here in Norway 70 000 would be a medium size city (our eight biggest city has less then 70 000 people) While in say China it would be considered a tiny village...
1
8:53 Again a truth with modifications. Parties might negotiate a framework up front that may be slightly modified depending on the election results. So while you won't know the specifics you'll generally have a rough idea.
1
@cmdr1911 Not quite. Norway has a smaller economy and our currency isn't a reserve currency. We're struggling with the same inflation that the rest of Europe as most of the countries we're usually importing from is struggling, leading to reduced production and Increased prices. We also have better leaders. So there's similarities but the situation isn't the same.
1
@cmdr1911 While some parts of the country relies heavily on the oil industry, other parts are hardly involved with it at all. And the oil revenues made by the government is saved up in the pension fund, not used here and now. The government is only allowed to use 3% of the pension fund pr year in their budgets, or essentially the dividends as the fund on average makes about 3-4% profit I think.
1
@germangarcia6118 The Norwegian government is? Maybe. Norway is fairly well run.
1
I agree. Although I'm somewhat worried that this team being based in a country with first past the post might be somewhat... biased against it and might not see all of its genuine strengths.
1
@floppa9415 80% of all new cars sold in Norway right now is electric. If we can do it so can everyone else. And remember that electric cars are going down in price too. You definitely won't see a situation where only rich people will afford cars/electric cars. Instead you'll probably have more of the lower end electric cars being sold for a while to cater to those that wants new even if they have low income and then slowly used electric cars from richer countries will trickle down. The electric cars will also be less worn by the time those of us with less money buy them used, so apart from a change of battery we'll actually get a better used car and lower maintenance costs.
1
@bcm-n7244 You guys can buy used gasoline cars from other countries still as well as used electric cars. This only applies to new cars. And electric cars are dropping in price. There's a lot of used electric cars in the Norwegian market as 80% of new cars sold here are 100% electric and about a quarter of the total (including used) cars are (more in some areas, less in others).
1
@DD-y1v-g2f There's different rules that applies to existing cars. Yes, those are also tested. But these laws applies to new cars only. So cars either made in a EU factory or imported from outside the continent. If they're already sold in the EU market or if they're passed these or any previous laws in this series before at some point it won't apply. The idea is that gradually the car fleet will improve. So in Norway 80% of new cars sold are 100% electric but a bit under a quarter of cars are fully electric right now. We still have many plug in hybrids etc in circulation. It's going to take years to get rid of them all. But by being strict with new cars you'll eventually get there without being too disruptive with costs etc.
1
@calebbearup4282 To they'll last far longer as you're not supporting a engine with controlled explosions in it, have fewer moving parts and less used breakes due to regenerative breaking. Electric cars won't last forever either, and especially the battery might need replacement (but new batteries might be better then the original offering more range then when the car was new). So overall electric cars is a good thing for the used car market. But try to avoid the early generation leafs and the weird truly old electric cars as they didn't have temperature regulation of the batteries or just where generally bad... Once the EVs with heat pumps starts to trickle down they'll be fine though.
1
 @Member_zero Um, a Prius would be illegal with a gasoline car ban. We're talking about EVs here, not hybrids.
1
@Member_zero A Prius isn't a EV, it's a hybrid. A Prius has a smaller battery so it's under more stress then a larger battery is, be that in a plug in hybrid or a fully electric car. It turns out that electric car batteries are lasting longer then expected and can be reused (and therefore sold) once they're no longer optimal for a EV. A EV battery being replaced is often replaced with a better battery as EV battery technology is improving fast and the old batteries stop being produced so new ones is used instead. That means that when you buy a used EV and replace the battery you essentially end up with a bigger "fuel tank" then the car had when new, and in some cases when the cars engines where being held back by the power delivery you may even occasionally end up with slightly more acceleration. And it might also be lighter since new batteries can be smaller while achieving the same thing. Battery prices are also dropping rapidly, and the myth that they cost as much as a new car is dated. They're still not cheap, but there's a huge difference here. As for the rest of the car, it's less worn due to the design. Less breaking needed due to regenerative breaking. No need for complex gear boxes that gets worn down. No huge complicated engine shaking with controlled explosions leading to material fatigue all over the car. You'll still have to deal with the usual suspects like rust etc of course. And EVs do add new issues like more cc computers etc. So you need to be more tech savvy to repair it. And closed source software is a real problem. But cars are being hacked and new software being written. So that doesn't have to be a huge problem. Although we definitely need to get right to repair laws updated to force car producers to open source their software. At least the critical parts...
1
 @benchoflemons398 It's actually the opposite. It's climate change that hurts the poor...
1
 @ivanbrezina7632 That's not just cars... It's a general inflation of everything unfortunately... And has more to do with monetary policy then car regulations...
1
 @dixiedean1955 Those zones can be covered with public transportation etc. Also with less cars they're safer for pedestrians and bikers...
1
 @Sivatra That is a problem with busses lacking proper air-conditioning not with public transportation as a concept...
1

Previous
9
Next
...
All