I suspect the problem is a market externality taken advantage of by advertisers. Fashionable identification increasing status. When cars are sold as sexy an old one just says dirty old man. This was most clearly seen in cigarettes. I have frequently overheard people judging others by the brand the
Is there any link between aircraft manufacturing and car manufacturing concerning the life of the product.? Cars and aircraft can be made to last 20 or more years, but they require constant repairs. Any car can last 20 or more years, you just have to repair those parts that break. A car that has
--- "Gustavo Lacerda (from work)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By (P1), producing long-lived cars could result in smaller profits (this
> would happen in the form of fewer sales).
>
> Thus the interests of the manufacturer could be in opposition to the
> interests of the consumer (this reluctance
On Thursday 28 March 2002 16:06, you wrote:
> Claim: "auto manufacturers won't make cars that last long (say, 20 years of
> reliable operation) because they would make less money that way".
>
> Your opinion?
>
> Is the technology for reliable vehicles feasible for mass production? Would
> there be
Gustavo wrote "Let's assume for a minute that: (A1) It costs the
manufacturer the same $8 000 to produce 1 long-lived car as it costs
them to produce 1 short-lived car.
(A2)...Since the manufacturers' profit per unit is more or less
proportional to the
cost of production (call this assumpt
Let's assume for a minute that:
(A1) It costs the manufacturer the same $8 000 to produce 1 long-lived car
as it costs them to produce 1 short-lived car.
(A2) Technological and style changes are insignificant. (this means I'm no
longer talking about cars in today's world, but never mind)
The poin
Having functional junk is no worse than having worn-out junk.
> This is the problem with communications and other satellites that have
> long lives. The owners often choose to replace them long before they
> wear out because such better models have become avialable in the
> interim.
>
> Yours,
"Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" wrote:
> . . . look at the car styles of the 1980's, do you want to be
> driving a Yugo or a Cabriolet now? Think of the styles of the
> 1950's would you have wanted to drive one in the 1970's? . . .
That strikes me as a bit circular. The more ephemeral a product is,
Sure, the technology exists... HOWEVER, would YOU buy one? It would cost a
great deal, after all, this is only one of two-three cars that you'll ever
HAVE TO buy, so the car will cost more, because of materials and design, and
because the manufacturer will lose many repeat customers. Further, lo
Gustavo:
I think the technology is available to make cars last longer and that
manufacturers do not make them last longer because they would make lower
profits. Who would want a car that would last 20 years? Long before it
wore out, various components in it would be obsolete or out of d
> 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
Claim: "auto manufacturers won't make cars that last long (say, 20 years of
reliable operation) because they would make less money that way".
Your opinion?
Is the technology for reliable vehicles feasible for mass production? Would
there be enough demand for such vehicles (i.e. the profit margin
12 matches
Mail list logo
