The second use is resource savings more than the third use.
My cottage in Canada runs water from a lake pump, but it’s not safe. So, what we call “bassus,” I have a bottle of clean water that I pour a bit into a Dixie cup when I brush my teeth. After he finishes brushing, I swirl my toothbrush in the water of a Dixie cup, then empty the water.
I had left this Dixie Cup right away, but last week when a friend was visiting and realised it had reused him. So I started doing the same thing.
But what I found was the Cup LT, which applies the second use to many resilience. So I started throwing away the cup after my second use.
My numbers mind went to work. Getting a second use was more important than getting a third use. why?
This is why. Imagine I’m in the cottage for 18 days. This is almost correct. If you use each Dixie Cup Eleven, use 36 (one in the morning and one in the evening). Using each cup twice will save 18 Dixie cups using 18. Use each cup three times and use 12 to store the poison 6.
So saving resources from the second use is a triple that saves resources from the third use.
Generalized points. What happens if I use it for the fourth time? Then use 9 cups. The savings from the fourth use are just 3 cups. and so on.
What is the point?
There are really two points.
The first is the ability to think in margins. The following uses will not save more resources than the 1-2 usage when it comes to using 2-3.
The second relates to the issues he addressed when he was a senior energy economist with the order of President Reagan’s Economic Advisory Council, Café. Cafe stands for average fuel economy for a company. The order was part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the law that the president died in 1975. This was an indirect result of gasoline price management, compiled by Nixon and held by Ford. People were facing artificially low prices of gasoline, and OMG was acting as if they were artificially facing low prices of gasoline. They switched to fuel-saving cars, as many government energy planners thought they should.
So, rather than stripping away price control, Congress and the President came up with the requirement that each car manufacturer achieves an average fuel economy of x thousand per gallon in a given model year.
The CEA had two bosses, Chairman Martin Feldstein and member William Niskanen. Bill and I wanted to abolish coffee, but that wouldn’t have happened. So we opposed further increases and supported relaxing the standards.
We failed.
But here is an argument that has not been emphasized but should have. For example, saving the fuel economy from a transition from a 20 mpg command to a 22 mpg command is a greeter than saving fuel economy from 22 to 24. Imagine in the US people driving 10 million cars on an average of 10 million cars, totaling $1 trillion. It uses 50 billion gallons of gas with an average MPG of 20. If the mission is raised to 22, we will use 45.5 billion gallons to save 45 billion gallons. But if the order is raised from 22 to 24, they will use 41.7 billion gallons to save 3.8 billion gallons. If the mandate is raised from 24 to 26, they will use 38.5 billion gallons to save 3.2 billion gallons. Just like with Dixie Cups, note that each increase in MPH required saves less gasoline than the previous increase.
I assume that I avoid the effects of behavior. The so-called rebound effect is that when fuel economy increases, miles prices drop even further, and people drive more miles. But this assumption does not hurt my reasons. This is because the rebound effect also decreases with each increase in mandate MPG.
Therefore, this is one thing for a microeconomicist who does research regulations on his vacation. Oops. I’m in Canada. It’s not a holiday, it’s a holiday.
