Hate to argue with you BKM because I really think we are on the same side of this issue. However, an H2 is surprisingly cramped on the inside given its external size. Seems to me a Volvo wagon (where are you El Guapo) is almost similar in internal usable space.BKM said:And, you could carry your entire racing team and all of their equipment!
Agreed - This also explains jewelry, furs, yachts, box seats at the opera and so much about our society. It is also part of the engine that spurs innovation. In my marketing campaign I'm making my SUV just a little cooler by adding the Lenny Kravitz tune and a nifty cargo rack I smite my rivals and make money. I'd rather live in this world than the one of the Great Leader where all colors are gray.Budgie said:Someone acting in a vain way by purchasing an SUV is in fact meeting their need to find some sense of self satisfaction. Essentially, I buy an SUV and guzzle gas because I can. And not everyone can, so this makes me superior and I feel good about that. .... After all we do live in a "ME" society.
Oh kewl, this is the 21st century and we are at war, how about a thermite grenade set on the hood?El Guapo said:Running rubber boats at whaleing boats is so 90's.
Yes when those gas taxes disappear - holy dead dinosaur will the market encourage SUVs. What are these true costs? I hear this all over the place, but other than some "eco" math I have yet to see these "True Costs."Budgie said:I think all this talk of the "market place" is useless without mentioning that we are not talking about unadulterated supply and demand forces. When gas prices start reflecting their true costs, then we will see how attractive SUV's are. Subsidies in various forms (often competing against each other) make the rise of wasteful consumerism possible. Would anyone like to fathom a guess at the amount of money spent on transportation infrastructure, gas price subsidies, policing and public safety related to automobile use, administrative overhead to maintain our glutonous oil policy. Our energy consumption will catch up with us both economically and politically. I have no idea why Britain still claims to be an ally, when the typical brit pays over 3 times as much for petrol.
I recently sold my 1978 (very reliable) SUV and am in the market for a station wagon. I just think it is silly to pay $29,000 for a new station wagon. I want safety, reliabilty and durablity and I have decided an old Volvo Wagon fits the bill. Finding one in the Midwest is hard because the people that own them keep them until they die or the car dies.Michael Stumpf said:I've got to add that the Hummer is an awful thing to drive. Admittedly, I have only driven the military model, but they are far from comfortable and have very poor visibility. At the same time, they are great for difficult terrain.
I think it is a bit much to talk of the demise of the SUV. They are always going to be around. The question is whether other vehicles may begin to be more appealing. It would be interesting to see a comeback of the station wagon. When so many automakers virtually eliminated them, people needing room for family or cargo had little choice but to go the SUV route. I also suspect that aging boomers will find cars more appealing, although these will not be Honda Civics. They will go for the big cars.
That has many applications innlife beyong station wagons, my friend.El Guapo said:
When you quit worrying about what your neighbors and frineds will think and accept that you are a SW man it gets easier.
I am referring to the people that hold positions similar to yours. People I like to generalize as free market subsidized "Earth Savers." People who sit at the top of the social and economic order and suggest how others should live and what values they should hold.Budgie said:El Guapo:
Who are the "you guys" you are referring to? You lost me here? Who is Tom Hayden? Maybe I don't watch enough sitcoms to know what this means.
Need I remind you that your very livelihood is based in part on regulating and subsidizing as is your salary. Let's just drop the "free market" and "democracy" references because they don't exist.
Budgie said:At what point is choice being threatened in my comments? Please enlighten me !!!!!
Making a choice implies that full knowledge of the options exists. Price is part of knowledge and if the price is not representative of the true costs, an educated choice can not be made. Freedom of choice is central to my argument and might I say of the entire economic thought of capitalism. Central to capitalism is "knowledge" reflected in price. Did those owning Enron Stock have full knowledge? NO !!!!!!!!!!! Are SUV and gas purchasers being given knowledge of the true costs? I don't think so. What would happen if tomorrow all farm subsidies were taken out of the "fair market"? You'd have to shift you resources from excessive automobiles to food, that's assuming you didn't get laid off due to the shock the economy would go through when the subsidies are yanked out from under you.
Rebuttal, please !!!
Nope -People make choices everyday without all the facts. And most people even make good choices without all the facts. That's planning in a nutshell. More facts are always better, but sometimes you have to eventually make a choice.Budgie said:Making a choice implies that full knowledge of the options exists. Rebuttal, please !!!
No, no one kicked my dog. Thanks for asking. Seeing as your talking in circles, and I'm not going to change your views, I'll bid you good day also.Budgie said:My comments regarding Enron had nothing to do with Oil or Energy policy. They had everything to do with the fact that the stock price did not reflect the true nature of the investment people made in Enron. The same is true for food prices, gas prices and anything else that involves tinkering by the Federal government.
At what point is recognizing that excessive energy usage is going to have negative consequences, a apocolyptic doomsday forecast?
Shifting burdens !!! By your definition of socialist, that's exactly what the system the the USA is "socialist". And yes, the burden is shifted, in part because the negative externalities have to be dealt with. For example: farm subsidies (shifted burden) keep food cheap, so that American's can eat. I think this is a good thing. Why, because our country is stable because of it. Everyone benefits. Why does the NFL spread around the wealth? Because it benefits the whole. The NFL is socialist.
El Guapo, did someone kick your dog today? I'll let you rest.
PS. Isn't this post here a bit of self-indulgent eco feel good rationalization of your "I'm superior because I love mother earth more than you attitude?" Please correct me if I'm wrong. And I'm shocked that you got so personal - knowing of course that I am a former SUV owner. In your vicious personal attack on SUV owners you asigned to me some "I don't care if I kill you in an accident" thoughts. Did you think I'd be out hunting for losers on a Segqway with my SUV?Budgie said:The market place theoretically satisfies the buyers needs when the consumer acts in "rational self interest". Someone acting in a vain way by purchasing an SUV is in fact meeting their need to find some sense of self satisfaction. Essentially, I buy an SUV and guzzle gas because I can. And not everyone can, so this makes me superior and I feel good about that. In fact I am superior enough that I don't care if I kill you in an accident because I'm also paying for the false sense of security I get with such a massive vehicle. After all we do live in a "ME" society.
Obviously, there are many other reasons people buy SUV's, such as cargo room, although you'd be amazed at how much baby equipment and children will fit into a Ford Windstar.
I think it would be a number provided by a composite index of:Dan said:Where's the line between "gas hog" and "socially acceptable motor vehicle?
To me it just seems like very few people can justify getting the SUVs compared to other types of vehicles. Bubba really does need his pickup to haul his sheetrock and deer carcasses, and Aunt Carol needs the minivan for her 4 kids. "Josh from Accounting," on the other hand, doesn't need a rugged sport utility vehicle to get to the office park. He needs it to look like a successful MAN to his neighbors, his co-workers, other commuters, and THE LADIES. Very few people actually use them to drive up dirt mountain roads or whatever the hell they're really made for.Dan said:Why do we hate SUVs, but not minivans with only slightly better gas mileage? Why aren't we cursing the Confederate crowd in west Orange County, Florida, with their love of obscenely huge pickups? It's okay to hate Buffy because she drives an Explorer, but not Bubba for his Ford F-350 crew cab duallie? (I ain't puttin' no g'damn sheetrock in there ... it'll scratch the g'damn bed!) Where's the line between "gas hog" and "socially acceptable motor vehicle?"
To me it just seems like very few people can justify getting the SUVs compared to other types of vehicles. Bubba really does need his pickup to haul his sheetrock and deer carcasses, and Aunt Carol needs the minivan for her 4 kids. "Josh from Accounting," on the other hand, doesn't need a rugged sport utility vehicle to get to the office park. He needs it to look like a successful MAN to his neighbors, his co-workers, other commuters, and THE LADIES. Very few people actually use them to drive up dirt mountain roads or whatever the hell they're really made for.
When I lived in Florida, a lot of Bubbas considered their massive pickup trucks as status symbols, in the same way that Kristin "in marketing" thinks of her 4Runner. On my former middle- to upper-middle-class Confederate cul-de-sac, one of my neighbors left his former employer, started his own roofing company, got successful rather quickly, and bought a loaded Chevrolet Avalanche as a reward. (I drove it a few times, and there is an obscene amount of power under the hood. ) That's not the work vehicle, though ... the "old'un" was used for hauling squares of shingles, sheets of drywall, and towing the boat trailer. The Avalanche was used to go to the flex-space office, the mall, and the grovery store.Seabishop said:
To me it just seems like very few people can justify getting the SUVs compared to other types of vehicles. Bubba really does need his pickup to haul his sheetrock and deer carcasses, and Aunt Carol needs the minivan for her 4 kids.
Yes.Michael Stumpf said:Do people really need a car that goes 140 mph?
The are not so efficient after they modifiy them to make 400 HPSeabishop said:
Its funny, the Hispanic kids who blatantly will tell you they soup up their cars just for status and getting laid at least mostly drive fuel efficient Japanese cars. (yes, I am aware that not all Hispanic people do this)