By improving the public transportation, a substitute service, consumers will use private automobiles less.

As more and more people purchase cars, those who previously owned the cars are increasingly exposed to the risk of crashes. This is a negative externality from new car owners imposed upon older car owners.

This statistic tells us that any negative externality derived from the purchase and usage of automobiles is most likely more apparent in Los Angeles due to its disproportionate usage of private automobiles.

This horribly dangerous pollutant demonstrates the severity of the negative externality of purchasing cars.

The vastly greater volume of automobile purchases and usage in Los Angeles explains this statistics.

The government's response adapts in order to compensate for changing technology. The government's focus and awareness of the issues I mentioned is apparent.

This would more directly counteract the issues of congestion, accidents, and pollution, rather than the conservation of fossil fuels; this demonstrates the severity of the issue.

By placing a tariff on foreign aluminum, consumers are incentivized to purchase from domestic aluminum suppliers, because of the raised cost of foreign aluminum.

This is due to stronger foreign aluminum industries that have access to cheaper resources and therefore can produce products that undercut those of the United State's.

Another thing that I disagree with this argument is that how this argument is based on the idea that private companies are causing congestion. The consumers of the service that the companies offer, the commuters, are also negatively affected by traffic congestion. Therefore, the idea that these companies were "responsible" for congested areas does not account for the fact that the only reason these companies are causing congestion is because consumers want to travel using this mode of transportation as opposed to buses, trains, or walking. This means that the government is essentially discouraging people from using roads through increasing the cost of doing so, which bars a certain percentage of people (lower socioeconomic status) from using a public service (roads), which they contribute towards through taxes.

The issue here, according to the information conveyed, is that private companies are conducting trade with consumers, through transportation in exchange for currency. Therefore, private companies are essentially using public services for money without giving the public service a cut. I somewhat disagree with this idea, as the taxes the company pays should more than compensate for this.

This answers my previous question; the government aims to reduce congestion through taxing transportation services, which would increase the cost of the said services, which would compel consumers to avoid using automobile transportation all together, and instead travel using other methods that do not involve automobiles.

I'm a bit confused by this opening statement. How would a monetary contribution/payment help to relieve congestion in a traffic heavy area? Through building more roads? It doesn't seem logical that a company that essentially rents transportation should have to pay for new roads being built.

This trade deficit is probably due to how China's economy is far more developed, large, and efficient that that of India's. Something interesting as well is the phrase "the widest India has with any country", which implies that China is not the only trading participant of India's which India has a trade deficit with. This implies something about India's economy/market's inability to maintain competitive.

This was also a necessary move by the Indian Government. If tariffs were placed upon essential imported products, the population of India's market would all face very severe lashback. Without the cheaper goods from China/increased priced goods from China, domestic consumers will have to turn higher priced essential goods, which obviously is not beneficial for the population.

This is one of the most important and common reasons for trade barriers and other means of protectionism. Because foreign competitors can provide services for a cheaper price due to different factors including economy development and size, domestic industries and markets may be inhibited. Therefore, it is extremely important for governments to protect and develop their own markets by reducing foreign competition.

All of these adversely affect the power and pay of those in the lower socio-economic class. This leads to companies investing in technologies instead of people.

China's rapid growth inversely mirrors the United States' move towards socialism and equality, while China continues to support its 1%.

So is there not a long term aspect of this? Ultra taxation of the rich, while it may make sense in theory, leans towards communism, which does not fare well in the long term.

This covers the idea of capitalism and how it benefits the economy. Richer individuals at the top means more jobs created, meaning an overall stronger economy.

When using this philosophy, the best decision is always the decision that has the lowest opportunity cost. While one decision may have a better yield or has a higher net positive effect, when regarding each decision as giving up opportunity, logically, the optimal strategy of decision making would be allocating your resources so that each decision has as low an opportunity cost as possible. I don't know if I would agree with this philosophy, however, because even though an opportunity cost might be astronomical, if the gain is also astronomical, the ratio of your gain and loss might be a lot more preferable to decisions in which your goal is to minimize loss.

This method of thinking is extremely important when making decisions regarding opportunity; simplifying the decision down to a binary comparison instead of trying to pick one out of many.

This concept is what important to the idea of scarcity; people must decide where resources are to be used by comparing the use to an alternative use.