Alexa9 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:09 am
JackoC wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:41 am
In places you have stated this sort of opinion or yours as an opinion. I think people react less well to the cases where you pretend it's a fact.
1. I listed a study that supports my statements
https://phys.org/news/2011-07-consumers ... -cars.html
I don't see cars as categorically more of a 'statement' than anything else.
2. Brand image is a big factor in choosing a car probably more than anything else
And it's non factual to say more expensive car models don't do anything that cheaper ones don't or don't do as well, at least as a general statement.
3. For the majority of people, a car is something to get you from point A to B
The question is always how the improvements stack up v the marginal cost, where to almost everyone there is a *diminishing return* to higher priced cars, not a zero return in general. Everybody gets off that ladder at *some* point ...
Yes, it's good to have choices at different prices, but you still get suckered in by car companies marketing. A Porsche and a Camry are not much different in rush hour traffic. If it's your hobby to go to the track, I admit that is different.
'It's a financial forum', but the contradiction on a financial forum would actually be pseudo-moralistic opposition to materialism regardless of a person's means...There are better things to spend your money on to enrich you and your family's life according to psychological studies. Are you going to remember a Lexus or a trip to Hawaii with your family on your deathbed?
1. I think you should direct some of the same skepticism you do at car brand marketing (with some reason I admit) to social 'science' studies. Even if they were scientifically rigorous (tend to be experimental analogs to the behavior targeted, not real life) they'd only apply in most people, not everyone.
2. There is no objective way to measure this for a given buyer.
3. The majority of people can do as they like. And I view the majority of cars as just ways to get from A to B so I guess they do. That says nothing about it being the 'wrong' view if you want your car to be more or different than that.
4. If all driving were in rush hour traffic or on the track that might be valid. But might not be even then: I like driving the M2 on congested roads around my house. When we take our other car out locally, 'the beater', I don't even drive. But on the right roads the M2 is a blast, legally, and the beater stays home. Somewhere further up that diminishing returns ladder, along the pathway of performance, yes IMO there are (more expensive) cars which are too frustrating if driven legally. M2 is not one IMO.
5. I positively dislike long distance air travel. Otherwise I could joke: Lexus or Hawaii?, OK maybe Hawaii, M2 or Hawaii? M2. Family relationships aren't about spending money, period, IMO, different topic. As far as choosing consumption options between cars and travel, my wife likes some travel so I go. There's no trade off for us between one M2 and some travel. If I wanted Jay Leno's Garage and she wanted continuous globe trotting on private jets we'd both have to be disappointed. It depends on means, which is something 'studies' almost never take into account, and among the reasons they are suspect in general IMO, but inherently suspect to making *one's own* decisions.