Well, once again, that opinion my float very well in this forum, but asking the
same of our financial markets would quickly provide a great deal of solid
evidence to the contrary.
The economy itself doesn't focus on anything. It is incapable of that. The
economy comes from what we want and buy. The markets seek their own equilibrium
based on supply and demand. If the econmy would be better served by producing
public tranportation instead of private automobiles, then that is exactly what
would happen.
I have always driven HIGH QUALITY OLDER CARS myself, but by doing that I have
gone against the grain of what is best for our domestic automotive industry.
Like you, I don't find newer cars particularly appealing. I didn't even in 1975
or 1980. In those days I was driving old Imperials.
Regardless, our economy has been very dependent on the automotive industry to
succeed. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact. Maybe it will change, but
so far, there has been no indication that it will happen soon.
The reason cars don't last 40 years is that the automotive industry doesn't
want them to. In the old days, they built a car that would last a really long
time, but styles and engineering changed so rapidly that no one would keep
anything very old. Plus, it had no value. They also discovered that in this
country, people don't really take care of their equipment, so there is no point
in it being built to last very long anyway. Have you ever heard of "the throw
away society"?
That is where us Imperial collectors are different than the rest of our
brothers ans sisters. We keep our old iron going and reap some personal rewards
in doing that.
Paul
In a message dated 4/29/2004 11:04:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>Paul, that's debateable too. �Perhaps the economy would have focused on other
>things (like public transportation projects for example) that would have kept
>the money flowing, yet it would be producing something more socially useful
>than low quality status symbols that wear out after 5-10 years use. �As for
>example the cold war wore out, the reduction in defence contracts in the 90's
>did not collapse the economy as new (and more useful) acivities replaced the
>old ones.
>
>Most people in our times have never driven an old car. �I have been driving
>high
>quality 60's cars ever since I started driving. �I have a serious moral
>objection to the cars made today, and that's one of the reasons I do not want
>to be an engineer for the automotive industry. �If they could build infinite
>life cars 40 years ago (granted, only the "quality" cars like the imperials
>qualify for that), why can't they now? �I think the answer to this is double:
>1. �The manufacturers on purpose build disposeable cars because they are
>cheaper to build and it ensures their future business. �
>2. �The average consumer only cares for short term advantages. �They would
>rather have an extra 2 mpg and half a second better 0-60 mph times instead of
>having thick body panels and real bumpers and sub frames. �They plan to sell
>that car 3 years down the road anyway, so the long term benefits of real
>quality are irrelevant to them. �Quality now is defined as number of cup
>holders or how your SUV can turn into a p/u.
>
>D^2
>
>Quoting RandalPark@xxxxxxx:
>
>> And our economy would have collapsed 50 years ago...
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> In a message dated 4/29/2004 7:35:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>> hugtrees@xxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > If one is just a tad on the "green" side, such as myself, an Imperial
>> owner
>> > has a right to feel just a tad superior to owners of modern cars. �While
>> > many cars have being recycled designed into them, the
>> > Imperial is �designed to be re-used, which is self evidently better.
>> Gosh,
>> > if only everyone could have the same car for forty years, the world would
>> be
>> > a much greener place.
>> >
>> > Hugh
>> > Tongue firmly in cheek
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------- �http://www.imperialclub.com �-----------------
>> > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>> > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> > Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to
>> > http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>
>>
>> ----------------- �http://www.imperialclub.com �-----------------
>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>> Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------------- �http://www.imperialclub.com �-----------------
>This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please
>reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be
>shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
>Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network