conspicuous consumption

[dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Unfortunately, you are correct.  The idea of planned obsolescence was invented 
by GM's (in)famous Harley Earl and embodied by the US post war auto industry.  
And the Imperials were no exception.  The US is and was a consumer society, and 
as a result very wasteful one.  Its shocking how many great cars still in good 
useable shape were in junkyards back then, in spite of the fact that they were 
built to last by modern standards.  In a way, the industry is overall less 
wasteful per car now since it takes far less steel to make them (of course, 
they make a lot more cars now, so overall its probably just as wasteful!).  
Yes, the cars now are not designed to last, but we are only the small minority 
that want to hold on to the same car for 10 or 20 years.  Most people will sell 
their disposable car in 2 or 3 years, so they don't care if in 10 years it will 
be expired.  And the industry makes a big profit.

D^2

Quoting kenyon wills <imperialist60@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> For those of you that read most messages, there was a quip about
> current
> vehicles being disposable.  If the changing fashions of 55-75 weren't
> conspicuous consumption and stylistic dating of cars, I don't know what
> is.  Although they are built to last, I think that all of the metal was
> used because they just didn't know a better way, and plastic wasn't as
> easy to work with as it is today.  The Japanese sure showed Detroit a
> thing or two about engineering and car design, for better or worse -
> the
> market proves that.  
> 
> Finned cars were shunned as outdated and garish 5 years after that
> styling
> fad went away.  The was a form of cheap construction in comparison to
> today's 4-7 year plus life cycle of some cars' styling (crown victoria,
> anyone).  Now that they're scarce, everyone loves 'em, but....
> 
> I'd say that it's human nature to make things disposable, and that
> Imperials are no exception, being items of conspicuous consumption,
> even
> if they did manage to be designed with us here in 2003 in mind
> regarding
> resurrection.