Only the rich will drive everyday

matclone · 05-08-2008, 02:08 PM

The tail wagging the dog examples are too numerous to mention. Here's one: who would have thought that people would pay exhorbitant prices for bottled water, when drinking water is relatively free and plentiful all over the U.S.?

arm-spin · 05-08-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

The tail wagging the dog examples are too numerous to mention. Here's one: who would have thought that people would pay exhorbitant prices for bottled water, when drinking water is relatively free and plentiful all over the U.S.?

I didn't even read the rest of this thread, but this one drives me crazy. Hmmm... pay $2 or open the tap... let me think.

r.payton@att.net · 05-09-2008, 05:44 PM

Back in the 50's Indianapolis had the best commuter system in the country -trolley cars which ran on Electric tracks . Then one day Rockefeller and his Horde of attorneys and leg breakers came in and challenged the safety of these trolleys -as if Rockefeller ever cared about anyone-well , before the trial was over Rockefeller had the tracks ripped apart -when the apellate court said Rockefeller had bribed officials and several witnesses had purjured themselves and they overturned the verdict there was nothing left to return to save a new bus company owned by -guess who-so now , if you are poor in Indy you walk .
Since we are on the topic of transportation why is it illegal to drive w/out insurance ? To drive an automobile you must have a license, plates and insurance -all of which you pay for and pay taxes on -I thought the income tax was used to keep the infrastructure of the country running -where does the money from ''wheel ''tax go?

I'm going to answer my own question-because the insurance companies lobbys are more powerful than the NRA.
to drive today will cost you ,after gas ,insurance plates and taxes well over $3,000.00 a year -and that is if you own your vehicle.

skipster · 05-11-2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"Brazil is also where they mandated and are now running almost entirely on cane sugar ethanol. They are proving to us that "grassoline" is not economically viable."

-How does Brazil running almost entirely on "grassoline" prove it isn't economically viable?

"Industry can't shape consumer demand because there is too much risk of failure. Industry reponds to innovation and consumer demand."

-If industry can't shape demand, why do they spend so much on advertising? Are you saying that marketing and advertising has no effect on demand?

Matclone pointed out that Brazil had large disparities of wealth and implied that was a bad thing. I merely pointed out that Brazil uses cane sugar athanol for motor vehicle fuel, not oil. If disparities in wealth were indiccative of a bad nation or economy, as matclone implies, we can see that using alternative fuels won't change income distribution.

When we talk about industry shaping consumer demand, some of you are saying that individuals have no capability of making decisions on their own and are required to buy whatever is advertised to them. I am saying that people will make up their own minds, regardless of advertising. I can not tell you how many advertisements I see for things that I do not buy. If you take a marketing class, you will find that the main point of advertising is to let the consumer know that you exist and what you have to sell. The bottom line is that the consumer will make up his own mind -- you can not make up his mind for him.

It doesn't matter how much you advertise something people don't like, they won't buy it unless they want it.

The problem is that many of you think that everyone MUST have the same values you do (eerily like al-Queda). You think that people are swayed by advertising if they buy things that you wouldn't buy or you think that everyone else is easily persuaded if you are easily persuaded. But, people are all different. One thing that they share is that they don't buy things they don't want. If the demand isn't there, no amount of advertising will create demand.

skipster · 05-11-2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

The tail wagging the dog examples are too numerous to mention. Here's one: who would have thought that people would pay exhorbitant prices for bottled water, when drinking water is relatively free and plentiful all over the U.S.?

Those who bought bottled water bought it becaue they wanted it. Maybe they wanted it for different reasons, but they surely wanted it. Like I explained earlier, you seem to think that people that don't share your values are wrong, much like Islamic extremists who think people who don't share their religious views are wrong.

Whatever is is about bottled water appealed to the buyers. I have bought it before simply because it was in a bottle and I wasn't near a municipal water source at the time. I have also bought it because I wanted some water and it was cold. People can buy it for numerous reasons, but that doesn't indicate the tail wagging the dog.

In fact, this indicates the opposite!! This shows us industry meeting consumer demand before the product was available. My brother works for Coca-Cola. He told me that large volumes of requests for bottled water triggered Coke to look into offering a plain water product. They conducted numerous market studies and surveys. Their survey responses and market studies revealed that many consumers of Coca-Cola products would also buy bottled water from Coca-Cola. Thus, they offered Dasani bottled water as another product in their beverage line.

Sure, they launched an ad campaign for it, as they would with anything else. But, their customers told them they wanted bottled water BEFORE it was even offered.

r.payton@att.net · 05-12-2008, 08:25 AM

DASANI -isn't that the coca-cola product proven to be tap water ? In fact ,I am sure it is .
''There's a sucker born every minute -you just happened to come along at the right time ''-Tom Waits

skipster · 05-12-2008, 03:58 PM

I don't think anyone said it wasn't tap water. Coca-Cola just markets it as purified water, which is what your tap water is. All that purified means is that the water has been filtered and treated.

But, you're missing the point. Coke's customers told the beverage maker that they wanted Coke to sell water, then Coke sold it. The consumer told the industry what it wanted and the industry responded.

Tight-Waist · 05-12-2008, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

TW, roads aren't free. Rail works all over the world, I don't see why it can't work here.

Well, you are quite correct about roads not being free Sully. But unless they are paying a toll, most Americans never really think about it.

I think there are a number of reasons why I believe rail is doomed in America.

Close proximity of cities. True, just like Europe, the densely populated eastern seaboard, especially from Boston to Washington D.C. train travel can make some good sense. But west of there it starts loose its efficiency and its time appeal.

Traditions die hard. Americans truely have a love affair with their car and the ultimate freedom it brings. I dont know the exact number but it wouldnt surprize me if less than half of all Europeans even own a car. In America most families own at least two. Gas is goint to have to go a LOT higher before Americans are willing to let go of that freedom.

Tight-Waist · 05-12-2008, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by jpv

They can work in the States. It's simple: Too many Americans are a) obsessed with their cars; and b) a railroad system smells like socialism *gasp* to TW and his ilk.

A decent train system would do wonders for the US. However, people who've likely never been on one (paging TW) would complain that building a decent system (or upgrading the current one) costs too much cash. (Funnily, endlessly throwing money down the pit of larger and larger highways doesn't seem to bother these same people. Of course, they need more room to drive their sweet-as* Hummers and Expeditions to Wal-Mart!)

They're the same arguments against much public transportation--myopic, selfish, short-sighted, and misguided.

Earth to JPV.....

Highways get used..... Trains dont.

And dont try to say "If you build it, they will come." We HAD them. We like cars better. For all sorts of reasons.

Luckily there are still a few rational politicians left who know we can throw all the money in the world at trains here America, but AMERICANS JUST DONT WANT THEM. Get over it!

FloggingSully · 05-12-2008, 04:27 PM

"I merely pointed out that Brazil uses cane sugar athanol for motor vehicle fuel, not oil. If disparities in wealth were indiccative of a bad nation or economy, as matclone implies, we can see that using alternative fuels won't change income distribution."

-You stated that grassoline wasn't economically viable, if Brazil is only using grassoline and their economcy isn't going down the tubes then I think it makes a decent argument that grassoline is actually economically viable (at least in Brazil). Just because there is income disparities in Brazil (as there are in every country) doesn't prove that alternative fuels won't change income distribution. Does anyone know what kind of trend exists in the income gap in Brazil? Just because the income disparity exists doesn't mean that it isn't getting smaller or that any factor in the economy isn't having an effect on income disparity.

"When we talk about industry shaping consumer demand, some of you are saying that individuals have no capability of making decisions on their own and are required to buy whatever is advertised to them."

-Who is saying that?

"I am saying that people will make up their own minds, regardless of advertising."

-No, you said "Industry can't shape consumer demand" which is false, industry spends tons of money on advertising because it can shape consumer demand. They can't force anyone to buy anything, but then definitley can and do shape demand.

Only the rich will drive everyday

Politics & Religion