Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: "js" <jonathansmith99@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Aug 2005 18:05:47 -0700
Glenn wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:45:35 -0700, js wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > It is an example based on verifiable data that demonstrates that even
> > when controlling for manufacturer and relative size, there are
> > differences that favor SUVs for some people and this includes head room,
> > total capacity, engine performance, and like capabilities - and that
> > these added benefits are offset by increased fuel consumption.
> >
> > As such, the individual electing one or the other expresses a preference
> > and takes full responsibility for the economic consequences - which in
> > this case is higher operating costs.
>
> One more time, the case for suvs rests on four wheel drive and off road
> suspension.
One more time - the case for purchasing rests on the features and
benefits valued by the purchaser - NOT BY YOU - except in the case
whern YOU are the customer.
> Those that are built on a truck chassis can't compete with
> vans or station wagons.
Compete on what, Glen?
> If one has no need for four wheel drive (it
> reduces gas mileage),
Actually, in wet weather AWD is quite an improvement in safety.
> off road suspension (it reduces ride comfort),
The SUVs purchased have superior rides to most midsize cars or wagons.
> and a
> truck chassis (adds unnecessary weight and decreases comfort), then the
> only feature left is intimidation.
Oh please - whatever happend to body style, visability, safety,
preference, pride of ownership, quality, bragging rights? All of these
and many other attributes of new cars accrue to its owner and justify
its purchase and ownership. We are a consumption society - we consume
based on what we want, not what we need. That is why in the US we have
the highest standard of living. This may not feed into your puritanism
very well, but people work hard and play hard.
> To say otherwise is to blind oneself
> to the realities of traffic and to the survey of the parking lot.
The realities are that as long as these vehicles prioved the owner with
value and they are affordable, both in acquisition and operation, then
peolle will buy them. If you want less of them on the road, increase
their price or increase the cost of operation. I propose that we allow
gasoline prices to move with the market just like any other commodity.
> > Look Glen - if someone makes a purchase and use decision that decision
> > to them is appropriate and rational.
>
> Sorry, lies aren't a rational decision. Anyone choosing an suv when none
> of the three features are useful is lying about a rational decision.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Consumers make
subjectively rational choices. Often these choices are not the same
ones you would make but then again, its their money, now isn't it.
Just out of curiosity, what do you drive and why?
> Anyone buying a van or pickup and not needing anything but a sedan for
> most of the time is lying about a rational decision. Their purchases are
> childish needs for domination. If one is defined by one's suv, than one
> is nothing of worth.
I think you are far to judgemental. Why should you even care?
> BTW, I drive an 01 Camry only because the front seat of an 01 Corrolla
> (sp?) was unsatisfactory.
OK - so you force US jobs overseas by buying foreign?
See how easy it is to criticise?
> It has been corrected. My wife drives a suv,
> RAV4, because she's a school bus driver and has to get to work before the
> plows have cleared the streets. A RAV4 isn't built on a truck chassis.
It has the highest rollover risk. You should get her something bigger
and wider with a lower center of gravity - an Audi A4 Quattro perhaps.
See? Both your decisions, rational for you, have attributes which
others could argue make them less than rational.
js
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Olly Mensch
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: js
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Alan Lichtenstein
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Glenn
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Glenn
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: js
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Glenn
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: js
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Glenn
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: js
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- From: Glenn
- Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- Prev by Date: Re: Where's Jim Chamblee?
- Next by Date: Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- Previous by thread: Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- Next by thread: Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading