So you were in fact using a not-in-anyone-else’s-dictionary meaning of “slightly.” And arbitrarily defining “doubled price” as “a slightly larger small number.” What is your a priori source as to what a “large” price would be? Europe or Asia? There are places there where gas is $8, maybe a bit more. None of any significance where it is $20. You can’t just move the goal posts – you said “slightly higher” prices would mean that people “don’t drive.” I demonstrated that this was not true for most people, for a price that anyone else on this board would agree was more than “slightly” higher.
As for the rest of your response – again, you are not free (if you wish to claim any credibility or intellectual honesty) to have double-secret-black-is-actually-white definitions of “people wouldn’t do it.” Everyone else here is talking factually about what that means in view of actual human conduct (doubling the price leads to slight reduction in driving). You are clearly using “wouldn’t do it” to mean “I wouldn’t do it” (I’m not assuming that’s an honest answer, by the way) or “shouldn’t do it.” My response talked about how actual Americans actually viewed the negotiabity or discretionary nature of driving and the answer, as acted out in irrefutable action, is that they view it as only slightly negotiable even with significant increased price.
Your pointing out that a Phoenix area commuter facing a 40 mile trip has multiple options, as of this morning, for how to get to work, is trivial and unhelpful – none of them are consistent, as of 6:30 this morning, with his keeping his job.
Your insistence that “people wouldn’t [drive]” drive if gas were more expensive, or that people’s actual views on the discretionary nature of driving should be ignored in favor of your much more enlightened views, is just a waste of time in the context of my contention that no American politician is going to force “driving is discretionary and you really won’t miss it” down the throats of an electorate that believes strongly to the contrary.
