Now here's a contentious proposal: Let GM go Bankrupt

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Foreign cars are becoming victims of the domestic problems and our solution to them: Cutting worker pay is a recipy for disaster when the basic problem is that workers don't have enough money!

one of the quirks of supply-side economics is that it doesn't really have a conception of labor. there's 'suppliers' and 'consumers', but 'producers' are kind of like magic elves in the equations - an effective bit of mathematical hand-waving that shuffles the money from suppliers back to consumers, without really explaining how or why. sad, really...

[NovaScotian]

Had never really thought of it that way TW, but it's true.

[Woodsman]

I just feel like being contrarian for a moment and demonstrating why there might still be a need for enormous gas-guzzlers in these straightened times. In a word, pronking. That is what male pronghorn antelopes do, namely leaping right up into the air, vertical take-off, for reasons not understood until recently. Pronking is an example of a Zahavi Handicap, that, something an animal does that is so gratuitously wasteful that only a very strong animal can get away with it. Another example is the cumbersome tail of the Argus Pheasant, previously thought to prove that evolution could suffer from runaway feedback processes harmful to the species. The pheasant can’t fly and gets eaten by foxes, it is true, but if he fathers more chicks than shorter-tailed birds, average tail length continues to grow. And the females select him because he has demonstrated that he must be a very healthy and vigorous specimen, if he can lug that nonsense around behind him.

All this is more or less the same as what Thorstein Veblen called Conspicuous Consumption. They say Veblen is coming back into vogue, and about time too; his economics is based on biology and sociology rather than the Newtonian-physics notions of equilibrium that dominate neoclassical economics. People do stuff not because it is economically rational, but because it gets them laid, or deferred to in the monkey hierarchy.

Your Big Three should therefore adopt the following strategy: continue to make big-ass SUVs, and sell them at five times the price. The economics of Conspicuous Consumption are anyway backwards; demand for status-symbol goods rises with price instead of falling. An enormous SUV, with even more features and trimmings and advertising that sings, “Bow down ye low and middle classes!” (for full words and music, see Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Iolanthe”) will become de rigeur for all the financiers who have just been rewarded for their self-enrichment with lashings of taxpayer money. The more wasteful on gas the better, as it demonstrates that they have the money to waste on gas. Perhaps they should even flare it off, like an oil rig; for example sideways, like in the dying days of Apartheid South Africa, to incinerate the lower orders who get too close.

Detroit should just make these Big Monkey vehicles and forget about cheap cars for ordinary people, as no car would be cheap enough for the unemployed anyway. Or for the domestic servants, retainers, lackeys and enforcers of the big-ass car-owning class, which is what everyone else is shortly going to be. Never mind Mrs. Thatcher’s “two-thirds society”, we are now heading for the “95%” society: that is, a society where the Gini Coefficient has doubled or worse. Welcome back, the good old Latin American model, of feudal production, macho militarism and obscurantist religion; 5% Dons and 95% Peons. The Big Three could name the new mega-cars “Hidalgo”, perhaps. Or “Grand Seigneur”, or “Lensherr” (the one with an extra magneto). Or use the zoologist’s term with which I started; then, as the vehicles rumble past, shaking the earth with their VIP weight, the peasantry would be able to tug their forelocks and exclaim, “What a Pronker!”

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw 'producers' are kind of like magic elves in the equations...

Ah, the original Santa’s helpers.
Now that you mention it, I never did hear them receiving their proper due -- unionised or not.

[trident68]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Outsourcing only looks cheaper if you don't look too closely.

I couldn't agree more! I just wonder what restrictions/conditions will be placed on this money for the automakers (and I'm ignorant here, having not read/researched the issue). I hope that part of the restructuring plan, once this money is provided to the auto industry, does not include moving more jobs overseas.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by Woodsman .... All this is more or less the same as what Thorstein Veblen called Conspicuous Consumption. They say Veblen is coming back into vogue, and about time too; his economics is based on biology and sociology rather than the Newtonian-physics notions of equilibrium that dominate neoclassical economics. People do stuff not because it is economically rational, but because it gets them laid, or deferred to in the monkey hierarchy...

I don't own a SUV, never have and never will. I haven't read Veblen since the college days, and that was many years into the last century. It would seem, though, the SUV is viewed very differently in different parts of the world, or even in different parts of the US.

May I most humbly suggest that purchasing a SUV would not be Conspicuous Consumption. That honor would go to Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, or perhaps a classic Porche. You could add to the list a $500k home ($ varies by location), a Rolex, prestigious private schools for the kids and summer homes on the coast.

The SUV is simply the 21st century version of the family station wagon.

Conspicuous Consumption is snob appeal by a different name (or vice versa).

[NovaScotian]

I know a number of folks who own SUVs or vans (like the Honda Odyssey) for the very simple reason that they've got several kids who play organized sports, often transport a lot of gear and kids to games, like to ski and lug kids and gear to the slopes, enjoy camping and mountain biking in the summer (with all attendant gear and possibly a canoe on the roof) or who (as I do) own a boat on a trailer for a bit of fishing.

Further, Canada is a snowy country, and many SUVs (including mine) are 4-wheel drive -- great in snow, great on muddy back roads to lakesides, great on slippery boat ramps or muddy shores. One of the joys of living in a small city like Halifax (Pop: 350K) is that a 15 minute drive has you out in the countryside. Most of my neighbors have small, fuel efficient, second cars that Dad drives to work, while Mom lugs kids around in the SUV/Van.

That's not a life style folks are likely to give up soon. What they'll do is to drive their cars longer.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst May I most humbly suggest that purchasing a SUV would not be Conspicuous Consumption. That honor would go to Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, or perhaps a classic Porche. You could add to the list a $500k home ($ varies by location), a Rolex, prestigious private schools for the kids and summer homes on the coast. The SUV is simply the 21st century version of the family station wagon. Conspicuous Consumption is snob appeal by a different name (or vice versa).

depends on the SUV. Hummers, pickups that can haul 2-ton loads, and monstrous SUVs that you could use to drive from Tierra del Fuego to the arctic circle are not functional or necessary for picking up groceries or driving the kids to the mall; a good ol' minivan would to that better and cheaper. but nobody wants to drive a minivan (at least in the US). It's not quite conspicuous consumption in the way Veblen mean it, but it is a power statement - everyone wants a car that says they don't have to put up with any crap.

interesting research fact: some social scientists had various cars wait at green lights to see the reaction of drivers stuck behind them - they found that people are much more likely to honk when the stopped car is an inexpensive model than when it's an expensive status car. perks of power...

[NovaScotian]

It does indeed -- my friends who own vans or suvs all drive what are referred to a mid-sized; SUVs like the Rav4 and Honda CRV are popular around here.

Bear in mind that gas here costs 70˘/liter; with the exchange rate at $1.25, that's the equivalent of $2.14/gal US while in Portsmouth, NH, for example, they're paying $1.58/gal (or in reverse, we'd be paying 33.5˘ at that price)

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw depends on the SUV. Hummers, pickups that can haul 2-ton loads, and monstrous SUVs that you could use to drive from Tierra del Fuego to the arctic circle are not functional or necessary for picking up groceries or driving the kids to the mall; a good ol' minivan would to that better and cheaper. but nobody wants to drive a minivan (at least in the US).

That's actually what I meant, I probably wasn't clear enough -- I envisaged as- yet-unseen monsters based on the Hummer, but more so, for my New Baronage. Not the Canadian 4x4. The equivalent of the destrier to every else's palfrey. You could maybe have tournaments on the soon empty Interstates.....

[cwtnospam]

It's a sad testament of human intelligence that status symbols are destroying both our economic and environmental well being.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw depends on the SUV. Hummers, pickups that can haul 2-ton loads, and monstrous SUVs that you could use to drive from Tierra del Fuego to the arctic circle are not functional or necessary for picking up groceries or driving the kids to the mall; a good ol' minivan would to that better and cheaper. but nobody wants to drive a minivan (at least in the US).

For sure, some overdo it.... kinda like buying a loaded Mac Pro when a Mini would work just fine.

Quote: It's not quite conspicuous consumption in the way Veblen mean it, but it is a power statement - everyone wants a car that says they don't have to put up with any crap.

Well you and I don't want a car like that.... and the legal handgun law works pretty well for the "I don't have to take any crap" crowd... just put an NRA sticker on the rear window.

Next time you see a car illegally parked in a reserved for the handicapped spot, take note of the vehicle. You'll be surprised how many are the large, upscale, black, power cars/SUVs.

Time to fess up guys.... which one of you owns the Rolex?

[aehurst]

Got it. I'm the only one without a Rolex.

GM and Chrysler got their first payment today from the TARP funds. The talking heads are saying this could cost $100B before it's over with.

Let's see.... $100B to save 1 million jobs.... hmmmm. Well, you do the math.

[stewiesno1]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian I know a number of folks who own SUVs or vans (like the Honda Odyssey) for the very simple reason that they've got several kids who play organized sports, often transport a lot of gear and kids to games, like to ski and lug kids and gear to the slopes, enjoy camping and mountain biking in the summer (with all attendant gear and possibly a canoe on the roof) or who (as I do) own a boat on a trailer for a bit of fishing. Further, Canada is a snowy country, and many SUVs (including mine) are 4-wheel drive -- great in snow, great on muddy back roads to lakesides, great on slippery boat ramps or muddy shores. One of the joys of living in a small city like Halifax (Pop: 350K) is that a 15 minute drive has you out in the countryside. Most of my neighbors have small, fuel efficient, second cars that Dad drives to work, while Mom lugs kids around in the SUV/Van. That's not a life style folks are likely to give up soon. What they'll do is to drive their cars longer.

I'd have to agree with that too.
I own a Toyota Landcruiser which was a great work vehicle when I was in the building trade but now I mostly draw plans for a living. I still have it and plan on keeping it for a while. I also don't use my car anywhere near as much , working from home and only seeing clients maybe one day a week. The one good thing about a four wheel drive is that if you have kids , they are far more forgiving on your back. Getting kids and stuff in an out of a smaller ( lower ) vehicle is literally a pain in the neck. Ask any woman with toddlers and a SUV etc whether she would like to go back to a lower car and I bet the answer would be a big no. Now our daughter is seven , we are going camping , canoeing and surfing a lot more, with all the attending gear in tow. A smaller vehicle would be a bigger problem. My partner drives a Corolla for her job as a community nurse. Horses for courses.
If I was no longer doing any building work and with no kids , I would certainly buy a smaller vehicle or use public transport more.

Stewie

[Woodsman]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Got it. I'm the only one without a Rolex..

Hey, me too, I wear a cheap Casio. Advantage of being a mild Aspie, I'm immune to this status symbol thing.

There were once two guys, a yuppie and an ordinary joe, who had been painting Amsterdam red, and were staggering home. They tripped on a double set of tram lines just as the tram was coming, so it ran over their hands and cut them off. The joe screamed "My hands! My hands!" The yuppie yelled, "My Rolex, my Rolex!"

[NovaScotian]

I have a 22-year old Movado (no longer waterproof) and a 3-year old Tissot (waterproof). Not likely to replace either for a long time (and at 71, that's ever).

[roncross@cox.net]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw interesting research fact: some social scientists had various cars wait at green lights to see the reaction of drivers stuck behind them - they found that people are much more likely to honk when the stopped car is an inexpensive model than when it's an expensive status car. perks of power...

Please provide the data for this. Sounds interesting...

[aehurst]

Quoted from the article:

"2.4 Social Factors
Social factors may also be relevant when considering who is likely to be the target of aggression. Doob and Gross conducted a study of how driver aggressiveness at intersections (as measured by horn-honking responses) is affected by the social status of the driver in the offending vehicle. In this experiment, one of two vehicles, a new luxury model and an older car were driven up to a signalized intersection and stopped for 15 seconds after the light had turned green. The experiment was conducted at six California intersections and included 82 drivers (26 females and 56 males) who were unaware they were under observation. Only 50 per cent of the drivers honked at the high status vehicle whereas 84 per cent honked at the low status vehicle. The sex of the driver was the only other good predictor of honking behavior, with men tending to honk faster than women in both conditions."

[NovaScotian]

Neat. My personal honking behavior (acquired after years of commuting across a bridge) has nothing to do with perceived status of the driver ahead of me and everything to do with my perception of their level of distraction. The probability of a honk from me (and the time before honking and stridency of the honk) is related to activity in the car ahead. First on the list for a honk is cell phone/iPod fiddling, next is reading, writing, or searching for something, then comes hair maintenance/makeup application, and finally kids/dogs or heads turned for conversation.

[roncross@cox.net]

Wow, this may explained why I'm always getting honked at in my vehicle. I drive a 1994 Toyota Camry and my wife drives a 2008 Honda Pilot. I tell my wife that people on the East Coast are very rude drivers as they don't even wait for the light to turn green before they start honking at me. My wife always says, "I never have had that happen to me."

So I have an old vehicle and I'm a male, thus I'm giving no respect.
My wife drives a new vehicle and is female, thus people are more patient.

I guess females have more vehicular status than males but what emotion drives this behavior.