• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Remember the Max? The cost of getting fired is disgustingly lucrative.

PureX

Veteran Member
Who had "functional electric cars for a century"? Where did they plug in to charge the battery? How does an electric engine lower the cost of power seats and power windows and GPS and radio and cup holders and, and, and all those other little things?
The history of electric cars began in 1830s.

Earliest%2BElectric%2B-%2BBaker%2BElectric%2Broad.jpg
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Of course, people could have bought cars for twice the price that would have lasted much longer. The problem is that most people couldn't afford them.

You do understand the need for inexpensive cars, don't you?
Expensive cars of that vintage didn't last any longer. They broke down just as often (if not even more); they just cost more to fix.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
How did Lee Iococca exploit everyone else involved? He grew up relatively poor. Got an engineering degree. Worked his way up through the ranks at Ford and was instrumental in bringing about the Mustang. He created value for his company by giving consumers what they wanted. How does his work support your assertion that people like that "added no actual value or well-being to anyone but himself and the shareholders"
That is a great example. Fords are junk, they can be expensive and difficult to work on, they are not known for longevity, some of them are problem cars, but they have an image of being more valuable than gold. Even though they have knowingly released death traps to the public.
But, yes, they have value - largely because people are dumb, consumers don't care, they have an Americana image, amd really no other reason. They sometimes look pretty on the outside, but on the inside we often find something that resembles what a drunken engineer may have concocted.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Do you literally not know that corporations are obliged to make as much profit for their investors as they can?

I am very aware of the fiduciary requirements of publicly held corporations.

Even if they were allowed to produce cheaper cars for less profit, they would have to justify that with increased profits down the line.

And producing cars that the public clearly does not want, would not produce any profits.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
That is a great example. Fords are junk, they can be expensive and difficult to work on, they are not known for longevity, some of them are problem cars, but they have an image of being more valuable than gold. Even though they have knowingly released death traps to the public.
But, yes, they have value - largely because people are dumb, consumers don't care, they have an Americana image, amd really no other reason. They sometimes look pretty on the outside, but on the inside we often find something that resembles what a drunken engineer may have concocted.
So, the point you are trying to make is that American consumers are gullible. I'll not disagree.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And producing cars that the public clearly does not want, would not produce any profits.
Unless the public has to have them, and they cannot get the ones they want. Which is now true of automobiles (transportation), housing, health care, energy, communications, and most other markets. Once the buyer has to buy, all that BS about competition lowering costs and raising quality goes right out the window. And just the opposite occurs: the quality drops while the prices increase, until the buyer simply has no more money to pay.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
And they're much cheaper and more reliable because they're so much less complex. Or, they would be if we built them. But we don't. Because cheap and reliable means less profit for the makers.

You wrote...
We had functional electric cars for a century.

We have not had "functional electric cars for a century".

Your revised version is far more accurate...
The history of electric cars began in 1830s.


Electric cars may have originated as far back as 1830, however...


A Brief History of the Electric Car, 1830 to Present
Start in the 1830s, with Scotland’s Robert Anderson, whose motorized carriage was built sometime between 1832 and ’39. Batteries (galvanic cells) were not yet rechargeable, so it was more parlor trick (“Look! No horse nor ox, yet it moves!”) than a transportation device. Another Scot, Robert Davidson of Aberdeen, built a prototype electric locomotive in 1837. A bigger, better version, demonstrated in 1841, could go 1.5 miles at 4 mph towing six tons. Then it needed new batteries.
From your own link...

While basic electric cars cost under $1,000, most early electric vehicles were ornate, massive carriages designed for the upper class. They had fancy interiors made with expensive materials and averaged $3,000 by 1910.
And, finally, the death knell for your opinion that greed killed the electric car...

For the following reasons, the electric car declined in popularity. It was several decades before there was a renewed interest in these vehicles.


  • By the 1920s, America had a better system of roads that connected cities, bringing with it the need for longer-range vehicles.
  • The discovery of Texas crude oil reduced the price of gasoline so that it was affordable to the average consumer.
  • The invention of the electric starter by Charles Kettering in 1912 eliminated the need for the hand crank.
  • The initiation of mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles widely available and affordable, in the $500 to $1,000 price range. By contrast, the price of the less efficiently-produced electric vehicles continued to rise. In 1912, an electric roadster sold for $1,750, while a gasoline car sold for $650.
This last section is also from the link you provided. It makes me wonder if you bothered to read it before posting it as supportive of your opinion since it clearly doesn't support your opinion.

Electric cars died out because good electric storage devices were not available.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So, the point you are trying to make is that American consumers are gullible. I'll not disagree.
That, and this idea of "value" depends on who you ask. Ramping up profits at the cost of safety, consumer friendly engineering, and quality seems to be at the core of this example. And, conventionally it does add economic value. But long term it's not working. It's more expensive for consumers, it's more harsh on the environment, and occasionally it might mean your car ignites under conditions known to be hazardous for causing fires.
We have to move beyond this being the goal, beyond "adding value" in such a way that it comes above everything else. Because, truly, the only real value of a Ford is the name. Everything else about them is generally and basically junk.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Unless the public has to have them, and they cannot get the ones they want. Which is now true of automobiles (transportation), housing, health care, energy, communications, and most other markets. Once the buyer has to buy, all that BS about competition lowering costs and raising quality goes right out the window. And just the opposite occurs: the quality drops while the prices increase, until the buyer simply has no more money to pay.
Toyota is pretty good. Overall affordable, very durable, great longevity, cheap and easy to work on, they are superior to any American car I've drove. And they failed to kill one of Top Gear. But they aren't as popular. They don't have the image of Americana. They don't make gas guzzlers, and they don't make Mustang.
This is more of an issue that demonstrates the fault in Randian/Miltonian/Libertarian economics begins with the assumption of wise and informed consumers. Ford charges little for the car, but tons for the image. People will still pay for that image, even of beneath the image leaves much for need, want, and to be desired.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Toyota is pretty good. Overall affordable, very durable, great longevity, cheap and easy to work on, they are superior to any American car I've drove. And they failed to kill one of Top Gear. But they aren't as popular. They don't have the image of Americana.


Hmm...

I can't get charts to show properly. But if you do some research, you will find that Toyota is right up there with Ford.

The Largest Car Companies in the World (New)
With 2021 shaping up to be another competitive year for the global auto industry, we've compiled a list of the world's largest car companies (based on 2020 revenue).

2020 2019 Company Country
1 1 Volkswagen Germany
2 2 Toyota Japan
3 3 Daimler Germany
4 4 Ford Motor United States​
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Hmm...

I can't get charts to show properly. But if you do some research, you will find that Toyota is right up there with Ford.

The Largest Car Companies in the World (New)
With 2021 shaping up to be another competitive year for the global auto industry, we've compiled a list of the world's largest car companies (based on 2020 revenue).

2020 2019 Company Country
1 1 Volkswagen Germany
2 2 Toyota Japan
3 3 Daimler Germany
4 4 Ford Motor United States​
That's just revenue. That has nothing to do with quality, longevity, and consumer friendliness.
Or, I suppose we can call this the "Microsoft problem," given how Microsoft is the most used OS in the world, but also one of the worst quality OSes to chose from. Linux is generally free, way more stable and reliable, and way more secure, but it's basically a "nerds OS." Actual value and revenue have nothing to do with all this. Linux is open and free (mostly) and very stable; Microsoft is closed, expensive, and unreliable.
It seems if revenue were any actual indications of anything more than popularity, and did have a correlation with quality and consumer friendliness the trends would be reversed for OSes. For cars it would mean Ford, along with Chrysler, would be at the bottom of the list because they make crap cars. But Ford makes "polished crap," many Americans think they were the first car, and a history to build a company and image on. The fact their cars mostly suck doesn't come into this equation. You're just paying for a name to get a car (this happened to me) where new parts cost hundreds more than similar parts for other cars and actually may cost less than a used part (they are also notorious for using both Imperial and Metrics in the same car).
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
18 Reasons Why Car Buyers Should Avoid Buying A Ford
However, things soon changed, and during the beginning of the 21st century, the financial crisis nearly pushed the company into bankruptcy. By 2005, Ford was a shadow of its former self due to high healthcare costs for an aging workforce, huge gas prices, and a large decrease in profit margins. Something needed to be done, so "The Way Forward" was announced, a concept which included remodeling the company to match market realities, getting rid of unprofitable and inefficient models, closing 14 factories, and cutting a whopping 30,000 jobs. The plan worked, and Ford found itself back up there with the best. But did it really work that easily? No, not really. Here are 20 reasons why you shouldn't buy a Ford.
Ford Reliability - 2021 Ratings | RepairPal
The Ford Reliability Rating is 3.5 out of 5.0, which ranks it 21st out of 32 for all car brands. This rating is based on an average across 345 unique models. The average annual repair cost for a Ford is $775, which means it has above average ownership costs. The other factors that contribute to Ford reliability include an average of 0.3 visits to a repair shop per year and a 15% probability of a repair being severe.
15 Problems With Ford Cars That Execs Want Us To Ignore
Ford is very much prone to suffering all manner of issues. From rather simple oil leaks to frightening cases of a door falling off, it has happened to cars made by the blue oval.
Is Ford reliable? An honest assessment of the American classic | OSV
One brand that has had a few problems with reliability is Ford. The classic American brand has been consistently low on reliability surveys and is constantly beaten by its Japanese competitors. In fact, American cars haven’t got the best reputation for reliability full stop.
...
Consumer Reports have consistently put Ford at the bottom end of the scale for reliability, as have J.D Power. Admittedly, Ford is sitting at the highest of the American brands, but they certainly aren’t market leaders for reliability.


J.D Power currently rank Ford’s overall dependability at a mere 2 out of 5. This is below average and doesn’t paint Ford as the most dependable brand out there.

Consumer Reports are also pretty scathing when it comes to rating Ford model’s endurance. They report the Mustang having extremely poor reliability, as do the Fiesta and the Focus.
So, yeah. Fords are crap, Fords are junk, Fords suck big time, but their executives make more money than people who don't suck at their jobs and make garbage products. How can you possibly defend such a model and call it just when such abject failure is more greatly rewarded than those who actually do good, make quality products, and don't prove themselves consistently to be a failure.
We do we tolerate and reward this?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
That's just revenue. That has nothing to do with quality, longevity, and consumer friendliness.
Just revenue? Here is what you said...

Toyota is pretty good. Overall affordable, very durable, great longevity, cheap and easy to work on, they are superior to any American car I've drove. And they failed to kill one of Top Gear. But they aren't as popular.

How do they have top revenue if they are not "as popular". In the parking lots I drive around in, there are as many Toyotas as there are Fords and Chevys and Hondas. So, yeah, they are popular.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Or, I suppose we can call this the "Microsoft problem," given how Microsoft is the most used OS in the world, but also one of the worst quality OSes to chose from. Linux is generally free, way more stable and reliable, and way more secure, but it's basically a "nerds OS." Actual value and revenue have nothing to do with all this. Linux is open and free (mostly) and very stable; Microsoft is closed, expensive, and unreliable.

Maybe people feel they shouldn't have to be nerds in order to be able to use a computer. Maybe they feel they are willing to pay for that relative ease of use.

I've been in the business a long time. In the 70s, Wang had a very friendly (for its time) interface, but it only worked on Wang computers. I bought a PC in the early 80's ($6000). There were operating systems from Microsoft, IBM, Digital Research, Compaq. None were very user friendly.

If you don't like Microsoft, you can always use apple products.

As far as Linux being more secure, you might want to read this article. But one reason Linux is "more secure"...

Why Linux is better than Windows or macOS for security

But the popularity of Windows is a problem in itself. The security of an operating system can depend to a large degree on the size of its installed base. For malware authors, Windows provides a massive playing field. Concentrating on it gives them the most bang for their efforts.



ETA: Windows 10 is extremely stable.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Maybe people feel they shouldn't have to be nerds in order to be able to use a computer. Maybe they feel they are willing to pay for that relative ease of use.
You can get the ease of use with Linux. I know a few people who aren't computer savvy who use Ubuntu. I've also used it, it's really good and I run on a laptop. It can even run older programs that Windows will refuse to run.
If you don't like Microsoft, you can always use apple products.
The point was an inferior product being the dominate product in the market. Much like with Fords in regards to that having been brought up. In a thread about CEOs who fail and get lavishly rewarded.
We do we tolerate this?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Just revenue? Here is what you said...



How do they have top revenue if they are not "as popular". In the parking lots I drive around in, there are as many Toyotas as there are Fords and Chevys and Hondas. So, yeah, they are popular.
I never doubted their popularity. That's basically all they have going for them. However, and inexplicably so, they are this popular and big of a company despite the fact their cars suck crap through 10 bricks. They are terrible cars, very consumer unfriendly, but one of the top companies.
Why do we tolerate this?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You can get the ease of use with Linux. I know a few people who aren't computer savvy who use Ubuntu. I've also used it, it's really good and I run on a laptop. It can even run older programs that Windows will refuse to run.

YOU are the one who said...
Linux is generally free, way more stable and reliable, and way more secure, but it's basically a "nerds OS."

"Nerds OS" doesn't imply ease of use. It implies the need for specialized knowledge. Also, many things don't run or don't run easily on Linux. Example...

DCS on Linux. DCS World can run on linux through Wine and Proton, though it does take some work to get running. The game has two distribution methods: standalone and Steam. Both have worked successfully, though often one will be broken and the other work; if one fails, it can be a good idea to try the other.
Perhaps you don't know, but software developers must make slightly different versions of their products for each different OS. If there were ten different OSs with an equal number of users, developers would have to make ten different versions of their product to reach all potential customers. That would necessitate increased costs and would increase the instability of the product.

The point was an inferior product being the dominate product in the market.
It is inferior in your mind. It was superior to the other OSs available during the early days. Its only rival today is Apple which caters to a somewhat different audience.

Oversimplified views often lead to unwarranted conclusions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I never doubted their popularity. That's basically all they have going for them. However, and inexplicably so, they are this popular and big of a company despite the fact their cars suck crap through 10 bricks. They are terrible cars, very consumer unfriendly, but one of the top companies.
Why do we tolerate this?

The "WE" who tolerate this are millions of people who disagree with your views. You are no expert when it comes to computer Operating Systems and you are probably no expert when it comes to automobiles.

You are entitled to your opinions which you have stated here.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The "WE" who tolerate this are millions of people who disagree with your views. You are no expert when it comes to computer Operating Systems and you are probably no expert when it comes to automobiles.
I cited my references. I have a solid background in computers, and I do work on cars. I've used many operating systems, and am sufficiently familiar with them to know how they go and how to trouble shoot and fix issues. I've also drove and worked many makes and models of cars, including repairs that have required engines opened up. And I did learn from some "bonafide experts." Even they say Fords suck. Some of them even hate working on Fords. And keep in mind, I am not speaking of popularity. I am speaking of actual quality, consumer friendliness, longevity, things that actually matter when it comes to how reliable, dependable, durable, and long lasting your stuff will be. Fords are popular. That's all they have. Microsoft is popular. That's all it has.
You are entitled to your opinions which you have stated here.
There are ways of objectively accessing this based on facts. Such as, Ford cars and Windows computers do not last as long as the competition. Time and time again, assessments find Fords are prone to problems and Windows programs are less secure and stable than open-source alternatives.
 
Top