> Your opinion? While I can't offer a brilliant and insightful opinion of my own, I can offer this possibly analogous quote from the Armchair Economist (pg. 123):
"I have an Ann Landers column about pantyhose manufacturers who deliberately create products that self-destruct after a week instead of a year because 'the no-run nylons, which they know how to make, would put a serious crimp in their sales.' Ann concludes that she and her readers are 'at the mercy of a conspiracy of self-interest.' It's not clear whose self-interest Ann has in mind. It can't be the manufacturer's. With the facts as she describes them, a self-interested manufacturer would switch from selling one-week nylons for $1 to selling one-year nylons for $52, pleasing the customers (who spend $52 a year in either case but appreciate making fewer trips to the store), maintaining his revenue, and--because he produces about 98% fewer nylons--cutting his costs considerably." Is this analogous? It looks that way. In my mind I can see how long-life autos and long-life nylons are not analogous; however, I seem to be unable to articulate the difference. I guess that for me 52-tupling the price of nylons may be less of a financial issue than, let's say, doubling the price of a car. But I'll have longer to pay off the car so it might not matter. But the long lasting car may be more risky inasmuch as my tastes or lifestyle might change before my car needs to be replaced. Or I'll have a greater risk of missing out on new car technology; if I bought a 20-year car 10 years ago then I'd probably have missed out on airbags, anti-lock brakes, and so on. Maybe pricing in those risks changes the calculus of the question to such a degree that long-life cars aren't worth it. At this point I'm just rambling. -jsh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/
