Not just Italy but all of Europe, you will never see a car with what some refer to as a "tail." The hatchbacks aren't as visibly hatchback-y as a stereotypical hatchback, it's barely noticeable unless you're paying attention, but the passenger cabin/rear windshield always extends to the very back of the car.

 

I think it's a better functional design TBH.

And in Europe almost every car has a trailer hitch, whereas you almost never see a car in the U.S. with one. If you tow once a year here that means bigass truck all day every day.

Not just Italy but all of Europe, you will never see a car with what some refer to as a "tail." The hatchbacks aren't as visibly hatchback-y as a stereotypical hatchback, it's barely noticeable unless you're paying attention, but the passenger cabin/rear windshield always extends to the very back of the car.

 

I think it's a better functional design TBH.

 

Better than crossovers with their pigbutts that curve down and destroy cargo space.

Not just Italy but all of Europe, you will never see a car with what some refer to as a "tail." The hatchbacks aren't as visibly hatchback-y as a stereotypical hatchback, it's barely noticeable unless you're paying attention, but the passenger cabin/rear windshield always extends to the very back of the car.

 

I think it's a better functional design TBH.

 

 

 

Better than crossovers with their pigbutts that curve down and destroy cargo space.

 

My cousin in Italy has a Puegot that looks small but is actually very roomy inside. 

I think the modern Fiat 500's are actually surprisingly roomy once you get inside one. Then again I'm 5'5".

 

You can either have people in the back seat OR lots of cargo, not both at once... that's how they do it.

If you tow once a year here that means bigass truck all day every day.

 

I move furniture once every two years, I need a truck!

It helps to have a market interested in that sort of thing.  What we think of as compact is considered midsize in Asia.  Their economy cars are practically coffins on wheels, a category we just don't have.  Over there you might even see a family of 4 on a scooter.  The tail isn't wagging the dog on this, Americans really do like their big bulbous trucky things.

 

We like "elbow room".  It's the exact same cultural tendency that helps drive sprawl.

And in Europe almost every car has a trailer hitch, whereas you almost never see a car in the U.S. with one. If you tow once a year here that means bigass truck all day every day.

 

IIRC there was a quality/safety issue at one point that made them rarer in the US.

Can someone tell me the difference between crossovers and station wagons?

 

Taller.  When the road is dominated by SUV's, everybody at traditional car height is effectively blinded.

 

Yep.  And if CAFE hadn't been set so arbitrarily high, many would just be driving big cars or station wagons.  Unintended consequences.

 

We're a nation ruled by literally interpreted laws, not the enforcable desires of leaders, and we have a rather clever population that is adept at finding a way around rules they dislike.  The government's gotten much better at accounting for this since the 60s and 70s, but I doubt a bureaucratic mindset will ever be able to fully adjust.

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck. Crossover ads have to tell how popular they are so that you won't be the weird girl with a compact that doesn't even do yoga. Take all that crap away for 10 years and see what sells then.

There have always been lots of ads for beer and pop too, but not because people fail to drink them.  There's money to be made in trucks these days. 

 

I prefer cars myself, bigger cars, I hate compacts... so I think the real victim here is me.  Bring back my pimp-mobiles!

It helps to have a market interested in that sort of thing.  What we think of as compact is considered midsize in Asia.  Their economy cars are practically coffins on wheels, a category we just don't have.  Over there you might even see a family of 4 on a scooter.  The tail isn't wagging the dog on this, Americans really do like their big bulbous trucky things.

 

I drive an early Scion xB, which is a BB in Japan. I don't see many cars smaller than mine on the road, but in Japan, a bb is quite a bit larger than the tiny mama cars zipping around.

Reading more about this decision this morning, as a happy owner of a Chevy Cobalt, as somebody who's never had any interest at all in driving an SUV or "crossover," I'm not sure what I'm going to drive in the future if GM and Ford are removing cars from their lineups. I guess I have to go Japanese.

There have always been lots of ads for beer and pop too, but not because people fail to drink them.  There's money to be made in trucks these days. 

 

 

 

Right, but the type of beer people buy has changed since the '80s when every other commercial was for Budweiser instead of trucks. I'm sure that I got exposed to more truck ads as a kid in Columbus since the commercials that weren't for Budweiser were for seed and tractors. It's kind of surreal to think about how many ads were farm-related in Columbus up until the late '90s when all the outsiders started coming in droves.

Reading more about this decision this morning, as a happy owner of a Chevy Cobalt, as somebody who's never had any interest at all in driving an SUV or "crossover," I'm not sure what I'm going to drive in the future if GM and Ford are removing cars from their lineups. I guess I have to go Japanese.

 

When fuel prices skyrocket and everyone buys compact cars, the domestics will be caught with their pants down again.

^People keep claiming that the crossovers get almost as good of mileage (from looking at EPA numbers on the internet) as the compacts and sedans that they share engines and underpinnings with but in practice they don't. You can't add 500 pounds, additional drag area, the extra friction of AWD hardware and bigger wheels and tires without major consequences. The vehicles are engineered specifically to do well on the EPA loop scenario -- an advantage they lose in the real world. It's almost like the VW emissions defeat device except legal since it's not done maliciously.

Reading more about this decision this morning, as a happy owner of a Chevy Cobalt, as somebody who's never had any interest at all in driving an SUV or "crossover," I'm not sure what I'm going to drive in the future if GM and Ford are removing cars from their lineups. I guess I have to go Japanese.

 

When fuel prices skyrocket and everyone buys compact cars, the domestics will be caught with their pants down again.

 

If they are doing this simply to beef up their quarterly earnings, it is a short-sighted thing for sure, and a big problem with the American business environment in general because firms can't afford to think long term.

^ the beauty of late stage capitalism.  Gotta return profits to shareholders for the quarter.  The gubmint will bail us out down the road. 

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck.

 

If you're going to advertise at all, you don't advertise your worst products, you advertise your best ones.  And those ads aim to convince you to buy their truck, not just a truck.  They know they're not going to convince you to buy an F150 if you actually want a Focus.  But they might convince you to buy an F150 if you're otherwise maybe looking at a Titan or Silverado.

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck.

 

If you're going to advertise at all, you don't advertise your worst products, you advertise your best most profitable ones. 

 

FTFY. A lot of people who don't need F150s buy them anyway because of advertising.

^ No one used to buy trucks except for contractors/ farmers and those who needed to haul things.  But now, you can't be a real man without a F-350 with duallies.

only doughy gamer boys drive little cars

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck.

 

If you're going to advertise at all, you don't advertise your worst products, you advertise your best most profitable ones. 

 

FTFY. A lot of people who don't need F150s buy them anyway because of advertising.

 

But how much does your fix change?  Those weren't really different statements in my mind and I almost wrote "most profitable" products.  Why do American manufacturers make more profits on trucks?  There's nothing magic about them.  They just happen to be what enough people want that they can command high margins.  That demand is not created by advertising.  It's closer to the reverse, in fact.  The fact that demand is so strong (and therefore margins are higher) is what draws advertisers to advertise those products instead of others.

 

only doughy gamer boys drive little cars

 

If you could corner the market on doughy gamer boys, you'd have a fairly large segment of the U.S. population as customers.

 

People ascribe too many magical powers to advertising.  If there were some magic words that would make huge numbers of people pay higher margins for sedans, advertisers would be spending more on advertising sedans (and every other kind of car, since if margins are just a function of ad dollars spent, well, hey, might as well spend across the board).

^You severely overestimate the democracy of the dollar. You know for a fact that people make the wrong decisions ALL THE TIME. It's part of the reason there's so much work in your segment of law. Sure, you might make wise decisions about everything, but you are way smarter than the average person. Most people put absolutely no thought into almost everything they buy. They spend more time on a car purchase bust still get it wrong. Those guys that print out a bunch of stuff from Edmunds and take it to the dealer with them? They are terrible customers and almost never buy. People still show up to the car dealerships with no idea which car they even want every day. And they buy!

 

 

only doughy gamer boys drive little cars

 

If you could corner the market on doughy gamer boys, you'd have a fairly large segment of the U.S. population as customers.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, their cars are largely purchased on the secondary market or handed down from a family member.

People ascribe too many magical powers to advertising.  If there were some magic words that would make huge numbers of people pay higher margins for sedans, advertisers would be spending more on advertising sedans (and every other kind of car, since if margins are just a function of ad dollars spent, well, hey, might as well spend across the board).

 

It's chicken and egg. Culture and preference definitely informs what is advertised and what people want, but there are certainly many, many cases of advertisers inventing needs and convincing people they have those needs.

 

Or just stick some beautiful or famous people in an ad and many people want it just because of that. Casino ads are my favorite. Always full of incredibly attractive women dressed to the nines playing craps, then when you actually get there it's more like a bunch of people in sweatpants. They play to people's insecurities.

 

 

only doughy gamer boys drive little cars

 

If you could corner the market on doughy gamer boys, you'd have a fairly large segment of the U.S. population as customers.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, their cars are largely purchased on the secondary market or handed down from a family member.

 

True.  But in fairness, I'm an attorney closer to 40 than 30 (FML), and my cars have all been purchased on the secondary market or handed down from a family member (and the latter were Fords and therefore didn't last all that long).

Another wise decision.

^People keep claiming that the crossovers get almost as good of mileage (from looking at EPA numbers on the internet) as the compacts and sedans that they share engines and underpinnings with but in practice they don't. You can't add 500 pounds, additional drag area, the extra friction of AWD hardware and bigger wheels and tires without major consequences. The vehicles are engineered specifically to do well on the EPA loop scenario -- an advantage they lose in the real world. It's almost like the VW emissions defeat device except legal since it's not done maliciously.

 

My gf's 2008 AWD Subaru Forrester gets really good mileage. Then again it seems like one of the smaller crossovers available.

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck.

 

If you're going to advertise at all, you don't advertise your worst products, you advertise your best most profitable ones. 

 

FTFY. A lot of people who don't need F150s buy them anyway because of advertising.

 

But that is their choice to make. It is not government's duty or responsibility to make it more them and limit their choice. That is not what we are about as a nation. You point out that people make bad choices and argue that it is government's or other people who know more than them's responsibility to save them from their self.

 

I hear these arrogant statements all the time from my liberal friends yet at the same time they are the same ones who talk about equality and argue that government has no place over a woman's body, etc. Which way is it.

 

Just because they may not have the same IQ or education as you do or if statistics show they are making a bad decision, does not mean you have a right or duty to stop them. You need to let people make their own decisions.

If bigass trucks and crossovers were purely a function of organic demand, surely they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars pushing them while having almost no advertising for sedans and sport models. Every other commercial during a sporting event or SportsCenter is for a bigass truck.

 

If you're going to advertise at all, you don't advertise your worst products, you advertise your best most profitable ones. 

 

FTFY. A lot of people who don't need F150s buy them anyway because of advertising.

 

But that is their choice to make. It is not government's duty or responsibility to make it more them and limit their choice. That is not what we are about as a nation. You point out that people make bad choices and argue that it is government's or other people who know more than them's responsibility to save them from their self.

 

I hear these arrogant statements all the time from my liberal friends yet at the same time they are the same ones who talk about equality and argue that government has no place over a woman's body, etc. Which way is it.

 

Just because they may not have the same IQ or education as you do or if statistics show they are making a bad decision, does not mean you have a right or duty to stop them. You need to let people make their own decisions.

 

Where did anyone say that choices should be limited.  You are reading something that isn't there because you want it to fit an agenda.

Nobody even said anything about government "fixing" this in this thread. It would be nice if the American government stopped subsidizing gas and roads (encouraging these excesses), but that hasn't even been discussed here.

^The more people that make bad decisions the happier some other people are. They don't want people to have any help or resources to avoid being manipulated. That's why they fly off the handle like that.

^The more people that make bad decisions the happier some other people are. They don't want people to have any help or resources to avoid being manipulated. That's why they fly off the handle like that.

 

What I advocate for is more consumer education and more information on the true cost of their products.  It seems my pro-business conservative friends don't view information asymmetry as a market failure but as a market feature.

Yes. They try to act like marketing, advertising and salesmanship don't make a difference then push for all sorts of consumer regulations to be removed so that they can can hire a bunch of aggressive salespeople on straight commission to call old people on their house phones to sell them garbage... while advertising the hell out of it.

The extreme example here is payday lending. I don't find individualism/choice/freedom to be any sort of moral justification for operating a business like that which is clearly predatory. The extreme individualist worldview basically provides people a rationalization/justification for taking advantage of others.

^ See, people on the left attack payday lending all the time, but they provide a valuable service to the demographic they serve. The thing is it is easy to sit on your perch and say hey these people are being preyed upon by the evil corporation, but there is a reason for this, and the higher rate they pay is due to the risk of default.

 

These lenders provide a service to people in a market that without them, this section of the population would not have access to funds. So, go ahead and outlaw them. You hurt the people who use them the most. THen you can move to outlaw Rent a Centers, and move to credit cards from people with under 700 credit scores. We can then put in rent control to prevent greedy landlords from taking advantage of their tenants. We can force the car companies for selling cars that are not autonomous driving, we can go after Kroger for selling junk food and contributing to the obesity problem.

 

Point is, there are a lot of proposals that may be "good for society" when looking at things from high on top, but when you get down in the trenches, these policies actually hurt the very people they are intended to help.

^ See, people on the left attack payday lending all the time, but they provide a valuable service to the demographic they serve. The thing is it is easy to sit on your perch and say hey these people are being preyed upon by the evil corporation, but there is a reason for this, and the higher rate they pay is due to the risk of default.

 

These lenders provide a service to people in a market that without them, this section of the population would not have access to funds. So, go ahead and outlaw them. You hurt the people who use them the most. THen you can move to outlaw Rent a Centers, and move to credit cards from people with under 700 credit scores. We can then put in rent control to prevent greedy landlords from taking advantage of their tenants. We can force the car companies for selling cars that are not autonomous driving, we can go after Kroger for selling junk food and contributing to the obesity problem.

 

Point is, there are a lot of proposals that may be "good for society" when looking at things from high on top, but when you get down in the trenches, these policies actually hurt the very people they are intended to help.

 

They do provide a needed service but they get away with murder due to lobbying the legislature to change rules in their favor.  There is nothing wrong with setting up rules and parameters for these businesses.  No one says they shouldn't exist at all.

 

As a pinko commie I don't think the businesses should create their own by buying politicians.  But free market says buying politicians is good.

^ There is also a lot of lobbying money on the other side too. Lobbying gets a bad rap in some cases because it is more about educating politicians on a specific issue than trying to bribe someone for influence.

 

 

^ There is also a lot of lobbying money on the other side too. Lobbying gets a bad rap in some cases because it is more about educating politicians on a specific issue than trying to bribe someone for influence.

 

Yeah, the poor people have the same bribery potential as loan sharks.  C'mon now.

^ George Soros has a lot of money, The SLPC is sitting on a pot of money close to $500 million, Planned Parenthood has a large war chest. There are hundreds of groups around like that. Let's not pretend that lobbying is solely done by "evil" corporations.  It is disingenuous to say that the car companies and payday lenders solely lobby for malicious purposes while groups like Planned Parenthood and SLPC are pure in their intentions.

Yeah, This is the free market at work here:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/04/stare_down_the_payday-lending.html

 

The legislature is owned by the industry.  There is word for governments owned by corporation and it sure as hell is not capitalism. 

^ George Soros has a lot of money, The SLPC is sitting on a pot of money close to $500 million, Planned Parenthood has a large war chest. There are hundreds of groups around like that. Let's not pretend that lobbying is solely done by "evil" corporations.  It is disingenuous to say that the car companies and payday lenders solely lobby for malicious purposes while groups like Planned Parenthood and SLPC are pure in their intentions.

 

What products are they trying to sell to people without any regulation?

The thing is it is easy to sit on your perch and say hey these people are being preyed upon by the evil corporation, but there is a reason for this, and the higher rate they pay is due to the risk of default.

 

These lenders provide a service to people in a market that without them, this section of the population would not have access to funds. So, go ahead and outlaw them. You hurt the people who use them the most. THen you can move to outlaw Rent a Centers, and move to credit cards from people with under 700 credit scores. We can then put in rent control to prevent greedy landlords from taking advantage of their tenants. We can force the car companies for selling cars that are not autonomous driving, we can go after Kroger for selling junk food and contributing to the obesity problem.

 

I said nothing about rent control or junk food or cars, completely different issues. I also understand how interest rates work.

 

However easy it is for me to sit on my perch, it's equally easy for you to sit on your perch and and claim people are benefiting from these 'needed' services. Nobody is benefiting from 10% check cashing fees. Nobody benefits from 400% APR. Nobody needs that money bad enough. It's profiting off financial ignorance and the lack of alternatives, plain and simple.

 

What needs to happen is banking at post offices in order to provide for public welfare in areas that commercial banks don't want to go.

Nobody even said anything about government "fixing" this in this thread. It would be nice if the American government stopped subsidizing gas and roads (encouraging these excesses), but that hasn't even been discussed here.

Constantly expanding, repairing, and building roles keeps a lot of people employed, paid for by tax dollars it amounts to income redistribution that doesn't undermine the work ethic of the recipients.  It's essentially public works only privatized.

 

It also keeps people in the construction business and keeps their skills intact while maintaining a market for construction materials.  In the event of a disaster we can react quickly.

^ so does all the alternatives.

Nobody even said anything about government "fixing" this in this thread. It would be nice if the American government stopped subsidizing gas and roads (encouraging these excesses), but that hasn't even been discussed here.

Constantly expanding, repairing, and building roles keeps a lot of people employed, paid for by tax dollars it amounts to income redistribution that doesn't undermine the work ethic of the recipients.  It's essentially public works only privatized.

 

It also keeps people in the construction business and keeps their skills intact while maintaining a market for construction materials.  In the event of a disaster we can react quickly.

 

Lack of regulation in the mortgage sector in the Bush II years is the exact reason that we don't have enough people to go around in the building trades. So much tract housing got built in the 2000s that no more was needed for 10 years in many markets! That made people leave the building trades since there was no work available, nobody new learned how to do them and tons of older workers retired. Now there is demand and projects go up slowly due to delays from lack of labor. We weren't at the ready.

Nobody even said anything about government "fixing" this in this thread. It would be nice if the American government stopped subsidizing gas and roads (encouraging these excesses), but that hasn't even been discussed here.

Constantly expanding, repairing, and building roles keeps a lot of people employed, paid for by tax dollars it amounts to income redistribution that doesn't undermine the work ethic of the recipients.  It's essentially public works only privatized.

 

It also keeps people in the construction business and keeps their skills intact while maintaining a market for construction materials.  In the event of a disaster we can react quickly.

 

It's still the government "picking winners", and in a way that has well-understood negative externalities -- economic, environmental, public health. These may have been written off as unintended consequences years ago, but at this point either the subsidies should be cut off or directed a new way. We should know better.

Constantly expanding, repairing, and building [roads] keeps a lot of people employed, paid for by tax dollars it amounts to income redistribution that doesn't undermine the work ethic of the recipients.  It's essentially public works only privatized.

 

It also keeps people in the construction business and keeps their skills intact while maintaining a market for construction materials.  In the event of a disaster we can react quickly.

 

Conservatives say the same thing about the military industrial complex. Small government when it comes to everything but highways and the military.

There's no reason those workers can't build other things, like railroads, and there's no reason a contractor must profit from it.  If we're going to make work, and I think we should, there are endless possibilities.