Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
That is my point. They don't prove that there is no negative impact, they infer it. And it requires the assumption that the substitution effect is 100%.
And that is a huge assumption.
And yes, I made an anecdotal comment. For the simple reason that it is also impossible to refute (just as it is impossible to prove). But what my anecdotal comment shows is that there are very obvious possible outcomes, other than full substitution. Which leaves that conclusion on rather dubious ground.
|
Your anecdotal example was poor anyway. Whether the flames are here or not does not change the amount of travel the vast majority of Calgarians can do.