Harris Worthman, Chapter 2, Question 6

Chapter two of Naked Economics revolves around the idea of incentives. Good incentives, bad incentives, and poorly executed ways/means of achieving incentives. One passage that stuck out while I was reading was the part about the mass pollution above Mexico City and the unfortunately unsuccessful response the government took to help decrease it. "A new law required that all cars stay off the streets one day a week on a rotating basis" cars would be tracked by their license plate; however, this backfired and those that could afford two cars, had two cars. They would switch cars on the day they weren't allowed to drive. Even though the incentives of the government were fair and "good" the incentives of the citizens were not. Why is that? Because people just generally suck. Our personal incentives are far more important to us then the long term consequences of our actions. We, as humans, naturally don't think of the future and instead look for the options that we have that are more convenient to us. The government should have implemented better form of transit and a heavier punishment. If convenience made people act selfishly it can make them act responsibly as well. The punishment may be "All heavy polluters shall be castrated." The citizens will then weigh their options and realized that it is far more convenient to take the bus/subway/light-rail to get where their going then the alternative.