> how on earth are you going to remove the stupid pressure
> to buy hummers, if not by making driving them prohibitively
> expensive?
Hey, you're the one who brought up the New Yorker article; I suggest you read it again. My feeling is that the "urge to buy a hummer" was completely manufactured by Detroit and Atlanta (i.e., the auto industry and the so-called "news" industry). They were not filling a void in the market, they CREATED a new market.
And it's a bad one. Bad corporate interests! Bad! No biscuit!
What if -- and this is a big if, I agree -- the dimwits who "created" this urge to have a Hummer could, uh, magically "create" an urge to buy a carbon fibre 700# hybrid Hypercar? What kind of a world would we live in then? The only stick you'd have to use is to outlaw new cars that have certain attributes: excess unsafety, weight, height, gas mileage, emission standards.
You know, just like the EPA was supposed to do. You remember those guys, don't you? The Government, here to help you? Hmmm.
----
This all comes back to a bigger point: you (and Doug) want to whip the individual into submission, when all that's really required is to force the producers of the Evil Items to prouce a better alternative. See the difference there? I'll spell it out:
- You want to coerce the individual - I want to coerce the corporation
I admit it's a tall task now that they've (lyingly) convinced people that "big cars are safer" -- but maybe we'll have some more SUV rollover lawsuits and that'll help. Maybe some nice burning flesh on live TV in a supermarket parking lot or something. Not that I actually want someone's flesh to burn, mind you ...
> More importantly, however, you seem to believe that people are
> somehow
> pressured to buy hummers instead of making rational decisions to do
> so. I
> challenge you to identify that compulsion by buy hummers.
Have a conversation with someone who isn't as politicaly aware as you. It might go like this:
You: "Oh, so you're thinking of getting a new car; what kind?" Them: "Well, I'm looking at that new Canyonaro. I like sitting up high, and I hear they are very safe!" You: "Really, where did you hear they are safe?" Them: "Gosh, I'm not really sure. Maybe it was on TV, or a news show. But I really FEEL safe when I'm sitting in it. You know, it's not in my head, it's in my gut!"
50 years ago, the conversation would be like this:
You: "So, you've got a couple of cute kids there! What do you feed them for breakfast?" Them: "Oh, I'm not sure why, but they just LOVE that sugar cereal. I think maybe I heard it was going to make them healthy and strong, on that new color television thing! Perhaps a rabbit told me that? Oh well, I forget."
I've got two words for you: Madison Fucking Avenue.
> You also seem to believe that simply making a viable alternative
> available
> will make people switch to that alternative.
No, I'm saying that your idea that we whip them into not buying them is useless without ALSO making the alternative available and attractive (and perhaps even not necessary at all). So the alternative of "Don't drive, we've made it too costly for you, mwaaa-haha-hahah!" is lunacy[*].
> it does not take into account the transaction cost of change itself.
Look, something like 12M cars are sold each year in the US. You can turn over a huge amount of the fleet in a few years. Cars wear out. People buy new cars. QED.
/jordan
[*] Apologies to the actual lunatics on this list, no harm meant by it