Who wastes more money conservatives or liberals?

[uspsfanalan]

I was talking to a conservative friend of mine about the costs of commuting. His response was that he lives 30+ miles away from work so he can live in a state with lower taxes. My argument to him was that he's spending so much money for his commute and his wife's commute, that they would save money by living significantly closer to work even if they paid slightly higher taxes.

That got me thinking that conservatives and liberals both have assumptions that cost them money. On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets. On the liberal side, they like to spend money on foreign vacations, organic foods from fancy grocery stores, hybrid vehicles, dinning out.

In the interest of finding my own biases, and a hopefully lively and respectful discussion, what wastes of money are uniquely liberal or conservative?

[matchewed]

Well starting off a lively and respectful discussion with stereotypes and gross generalizations is an interesting method.

[bUU]

Talking about the relative fiscal prudence of a political perspective is as useful as talking about the relative fiscal prudence of various religions (i.e., not very useful). Fundamental beliefs and values precede money in priority. Frugality or extravagance is something that gets layered over such fundamental choices, respecting those choices as inviolable givens.

[NumberCruncher]

Talking about the relative fiscal prudence of a political perspective is as useful as talking about the relative fiscal prudence of various religions (i.e., not very useful). Fundamental beliefs and values precede money in priority. Frugality or extravagance is something that gets layered over such fundamental choices, respecting those choices as inviolable givens.

Though, taken to the extreme cases, you could discuss this for religion (vows of poverty, certain cults, etc).

[bUU]

Uh, actually those are good examples of why such discussions are useless. A vow of poverty isn't taken lightly. As I mentioned, considerations about fiscal prudence (to the extent necessary) get layered on top of such decisions. What's there to discuss?

[BlueMR2]

I can't think of any uniquely conservative or liberal.  When we look to the liberal and conservative leadership, we see that all of them have huge wasteful homes and waste all kinds of fuel flying around everywhere for exotic trips.

Same close to home.

The conservatives I know tend to have smaller homes and are careful with heat/A/C, but with gas guzzling trucks.  The liberals I know all tend to have large wasteful houses (with A/C cranked to have to wear a sweater in the Summer, but heat the houses so much you need shorts in the Winter) while driving a Prius.

To me the waste looks about the same, it's just where the waste happens.  Not a useful metric.

[NumberCruncher]

Uh, actually those are good examples of why such discussions are useless. A vow of poverty isn't taken lightly. As I mentioned, considerations about fiscal prudence (to the extent necessary) get layered on top of such decisions. What's there to discuss?

Oh, I know they're taken very seriously. I was just trying to come up with an example where a fundamental belief influences your view of frugality. There isn't really a discussion there, though, as I now see as the point of your original comment.

[Jamesqf]

On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets.

One problem (of many) is that you're lumping all "conservatives" in one pot.  There are at least two sorts, the social conservatives (many of whom might follow this behavior), and the economic conservatives, who often behave otherwise.

[bUU]

By the same token, there are liberals for whom "walking lightly upon the earth" is a fervently held value. So what you're really pointing out, James, is not that there are any significant number of true fiscal conservatives, but rather that stereotypes fail.

[Jamesqf]

By the same token, there are liberals for whom "walking lightly upon the earth" is a fervently held value.

Just as there are liberals who apparently see no problem in slapping a "No Blood For Oil" bumpersticker on their brand-new Cadillac Escalade.

[grantmeaname]

There is definitely something in the water today.

[bUU]

By the same token, there are liberals for whom "walking lightly upon the earth" is a fervently held value.

Just as there are liberals who apparently see no problem in slapping a "No Blood For Oil" bumpersticker on their brand-new Cadillac Escalade.

As I said, what you're really pointing out, James, is not that there are any significant number of true fiscal conservatives, but rather that stereotypes fail.

[Mr.Macinstache]

On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets.

One problem (of many) is that you're lumping all "conservatives" in one pot.  There are at least two sorts, the social conservatives (many of whom might follow this behavior), and the economic conservatives, who often behave otherwise.

So instead of one big lump there are two lumps? Hehe. Conservative/Liberal are such misleading terms. There are many types... most all of the them have spending problems and waste money as they see fit.

Now libertarians are the cheapest bunch of tightwads I know. I hang out with them all the time and consider myself one too.

[ender]

\

In the interest of finding my own biases, and a hopefully lively and respectful discussion, what wastes of money are uniquely liberal or conservative?

I found them!

That got me thinking that conservatives and liberals both have assumptions that cost them money. On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets. On the liberal side, they like to spend money on foreign vacations, organic foods from fancy grocery stores, hybrid vehicles, dinning out.

That was easy ;)

[bUU]

Some people maniacally insist on measuring everything in terms of money. There's no way such people can understand those they disagree with when the fundamental values of those they disagree with imply, in part, that it is wrong to measure everything in terms of money.

[Mr.Macinstache]

On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets.

One problem (of many) is that you're lumping all "conservatives" in one pot.  There are at least two sorts, the social conservatives (many of whom might follow this behavior), and the economic conservatives, who often behave otherwise.

So instead of one big lump there are two lumps? Hehe. Conservative/Liberal are such misleading terms. There are many types... most all of the them have spending problems and waste money as they see fit.

Now libertarians are the cheapest bunch of tightwads I know. I hang out with them all the time and consider myself one too.

I have to disagree with the libertarian part, at least from my observations. Here are some paraphrased quotes from my "libertarian" friends:

"I don't know where half of my paycheck goes so I'm going to file bankruptcy"
"I can't hang out because the budget is really tight this paycheck since I spent too much money on video games and Dave Ramsey can't help me because I don't have anywhere I can cut spending"
"I don't understand why DH won't let agree to take out a HELOC so we can finish our garden even though I was just complaining that this is the first time in my life I've had to work"

Just from personal observance I think that generaly my friends/family that consider themselves "Liberal" waste less money but only because there's not a nice term for "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" and they (myself included) have a hard time indentifying with today's "conservative" politicians

I would have to say those are definitely the exception to the libertarian rule. No matter what your political affiliations (libertarians really have none) there are spenders in the world who cant control it. It's hard to make a case study out of libertarians since we aren't the "norm" of society. I'm proud to label myself one and consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Some people maniacally insist on measuring everything in terms of money. There's no way such people can understand those they disagree with when the fundamental values of those they disagree with imply, in part, that it is wrong to measure everything in terms of money.

Money equates to freedom. Isn't that what MMM is all about? Breaking and living free of these chains that bind us down?

[hybrid]

I was talking to a conservative friend of mine about the costs of commuting. His response was that he lives 30+ miles away from work so he can live in a state with lower taxes. My argument to him was that he's spending so much money for his commute and his wife's commute, that they would save money by living significantly closer to work even if they paid slightly higher taxes.

That got me thinking that conservatives and liberals both have assumptions that cost them money. On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets. On the liberal side, they like to spend money on foreign vacations, organic foods from fancy grocery stores, hybrid vehicles, dinning out.

In the interest of finding my own biases, and a hopefully lively and respectful discussion, what wastes of money are uniquely liberal or conservative?

I have a conservative friend, well he used to be a friend anyway until he became an ultraconservative asshole, who has done quite well in his career.  His wife also, sadly, fell into a large inheritance.  So he has a McMansion, a fancy car, a long commute, loves to bitch about his taxes, etc. etc.

But here is the thing.  He has done quite well in his career, much better than me (and I do just fine).  Economically speaking, we are both getting to the same point in different ways.  He sees himself as more successful because society smiles on those that move up the ladder.  I see myself as more successful because I am much healthier and have more free time than he does while still banking a fair amount of coin.

To each their own I suppose.  I would recommend looking at the poll about how Mustachians vote to get a good sense of where the MMM crowd lies.

In general, almost all people are wasteful somehow, even MMMers.  Some are just a lot more wasteful than others.

Politically speaking, I would like to see conservatives abandon their resistance to CAFE standards (mandatory MPG requirements).  And I would like to see liberals abandon their resistance to drilling in the ANWR (let me get this straight, we can drill the $%^& out of the lower 48 but NOT a remote arctice wilderness????).  You can come up with wasteful examples on both sides.  Is one side more wasteful?  I don't think that has an easy answer.

[Simple Abundant Living]

I think most people from all political spectrums waste money.  Of course "waste" is a relative term.  On this forum, we would probably define it as: spending money you don't have on things you probably don't get as much enjoyment from.  Mustachians are in the minority, which is why it is great to have this forum.  I follow other money saving forums, but they are focused on shopping and consumerism.  It's great to be here.

[mpbaker22]

I think compared to us, all politicians are incredibly wasteful.  I'd love to see a counter-example, but I don't know of any off the top of my head.  I'm more familiar with the urban areas I've lived in, but they do seem to have more fiscally reckless politicians.  These politicans make tons of money off of kick-backs and corrupt practices.  These politicians are almost exclusively Democrats.

But do I think Democrats are bad and financially reckless? No, they just happen to be the party in power in the inner city, and the inner city happens to be where corruption is the easiest.  Correlation, not causation.

[infogoon]

I think compared to us, all politicians are incredibly wasteful.  I'd love to see a counter-example, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. 

Well, if you consider Pope Francis to be a politician, he could serve as a counter-example.

[AJ]

That got me thinking that conservatives and liberals both have assumptions that cost them money. On the conservative side they like to spend money on big trucks, guns, living in the exurbs with long commutes, season sports tickets. On the liberal side, they like to spend money on foreign vacations, organic foods from fancy grocery stores, hybrid vehicles, dinning out.

In the interest of finding my own biases, and a hopefully lively and respectful discussion, what wastes of money are uniquely liberal or conservative?

Well, as long as were talking anecdotes and gross stereotypes - liberals waste more money on weed and cigarettes, conservatives waste more money on church tithes.

The conservatives and liberals I know don't fit your descriptions at all. Those seem to me to be more regional differences than political party differences.

[mpbaker22]

I think compared to us, all politicians are incredibly wasteful.  I'd love to see a counter-example, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. 

Well, if you consider Pope Francis to be a politician, he could serve as a counter-example.

If we can pull over from the Obama Vacation thread, we could claim his expenses are quite high due to his security detail. ;)

[Mr.Macinstache]

I think compared to us, all politicians are incredibly wasteful.  I'd love to see a counter-example, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. 

Well, if you consider Pope Francis to be a politician, he could serve as a counter-example.

I'm far from very religious but from what I've heard about this Pope, I've been happy to hear... he leads by example and has shunned these luxuries afforded to the previous Popes.

As far as politicians I respect Ron Paul who always returned a portion of his budget back to the treasury. Bill Owens did the same. And now Rand Paul just did so too. These are the exceptions to the rule, but at least they aren't involved further bankrupting our nation. Hopefully this will catch on..but I'm not holding my breath there.

[renbutler]

Politically speaking, I would like to see conservatives abandon their resistance to CAFE standards (mandatory MPG requirements).

I prefer letting the market sort it out. The best argument for CAFE, from my  conservative POV, was to reduce our reliance on oil obtained from people who want to destroy us -- but even that is already shifting in our favor organically with more domestic production.

We need to educate buyers about fuel mileage, instead of restricting the freedom of car manufacturers and buyers to be wasteful louts. We should always influence with smarts instead of legislating behavior, whenever possible.

[GuitarStv]

Individually, where you lie on the right or the left doesn't seem to have a significant impact on your spending.  There are tremendous differences within each political group.

We can look at how the debt behaved during different presidencies though:

[bUU]

Some people maniacally insist on measuring everything in terms of money. There's no way such people can understand those they disagree with when the fundamental values of those they disagree with imply, in part, that it is wrong to measure everything in terms of money.

Money equates to freedom.

Money doesn't "equate" to freedom. It does contribute greatly toward freedom, but it isn't all there is to freedom.

And freedom isn't all there is to life.

Isn't that what MMM is all about? Breaking and living free of these chains that bind us down?

Hopefully not just the financial chains.

Regardless, for a strictly Mustachian consideration of a question, you probably want to post in a forum other than one described as hosting discussions where the "topic ... doesn't fit in the Mustachian discussions".

[renbutler]

Individually, where you lie on the right or the left doesn't seem to have a significant impact on your spending.  There are tremendous differences within each political group.

We can look at how the debt behaved during different presidencies though:

The whole chart makes me a bit ill, but 2009-10 is just downright disgusting.

Basically, liberal versus conservative these days is really just Ridiculous Overspending versus Slightly Less Ridiculous Overspending.

I love that trend in the late 1990s though, and you can see that split power has some real benefits.

[Jamesqf]

Usually I would agree with let the market sort itself out but holy f-ing hell people want to drive inefficient vehicles!

The problem here is in figuring out just what "want" means in a world where automakers have a serious financial incentive to sell bigger vehicles, and bombard the TV-watching public with uncounted hours of brainwashing to convince them to do so.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Some people maniacally insist on measuring everything in terms of money. There's no way such people can understand those they disagree with when the fundamental values of those they disagree with imply, in part, that it is wrong to measure everything in terms of money.

Money equates to freedom.

Money doesn't "equate" to freedom. It does contribute greatly toward freedom, but it isn't all there is to freedom.

And freedom isn't all there is to life.

Isn't that what MMM is all about? Breaking and living free of these chains that bind us down?

Hopefully not just the financial chains.

Regardless, for a strictly Mustachian consideration of a question, you probably want to post in a forum other than one described as hosting discussions where the "topic ... doesn't fit in the Mustachian discussions".

Therefor it does equal freedom to a very large degree.

And I was responding to your complaint about people maniacally measuring everything in money. Freedom. This is one reason. The other is greed and materialism on the other side of things.

Please don't dictate what discussion I should be hosting. As far as I'm concerned, Freedom is the result of to financial independence and that is very Mustachian.

Conserv's and liberals love to spend, there and now we are back on topic.

[GuitarStv]

The whole chart makes me a bit ill, but 2009-10 is just downright disgusting.

Basically, liberal versus conservative these days is really just Ridiculous Overspending versus Slightly Less Ridiculous Overspending.

I love that trend in the late 1990s though, and you can see that split power has some real benefits.

I thought it was funny that every 'conservative' administration since Ford has increased the debt, while every democratic administration (excepting Obama) has reduced it.  In recent Canadian history we've had similar results, the last two liberal federal governments (Paul Martin and Jean Cretien) reduced our national debt while the last two conservative governments (Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney) both significantly increased our national debt.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Usually I would agree with let the market sort itself out but holy f-ing hell people want to drive inefficient vehicles!

The problem here is in figuring out just what "want" means in a world where automakers have a serious financial incentive to sell bigger vehicles, and bombard the TV-watching public with uncounted hours of brainwashing to convince them to do so.

Materialism. Most people are guilty in the matter. Everyone has a choice what to buy or not to. I'd rather individuals be able to make that choice rather than a small group people in a far off building, compelled by special interests, making that choice for them.

[infogoon]

Usually I would agree with let the market sort itself out but holy f-ing hell people want to drive inefficient vehicles!

The problem here is in figuring out just what "want" means in a world where automakers have a serious financial incentive to sell bigger vehicles, and bombard the TV-watching public with uncounted hours of brainwashing to convince them to do so.

Especially since CAFE dictates that it's better for the automakers to sell Suburban Assault Vehicles to housewives, because those count as "trucks".

[renbutler]

The problem here is in figuring out just what "want" means in a world where automakers have a serious financial incentive to sell bigger vehicles, and bombard the TV-watching public with uncounted hours of brainwashing to convince them to do so.

That public might not make the most informed decisions, but I reject the notion that the advertisers have the power to brainwash.

People's wants might be influenced by advertisers, but give those people a little credit -- they can't be told what to want.

Materialism. Most people are guilty in the matter. Everyone has a choice what to buy or not to. I'd rather individuals be able to make that choice rather than a small group people in a far off building, compelled by special interests, making that choice for them.

Well said.

At least, that's generally still true. Only government has the power to compel or deny purchases.

[renbutler]

I thought it was funny that every 'conservative' administration since Ford has increased the debt, while every democratic administration (excepting Obama) has reduced it.  In recent Canadian history we've had similar results, the last two liberal federal governments (Paul Martin and Jean Cretien) reduced our national debt while the last two conservative governments (Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney) both significantly increased our national debt.

There's nothing funny about that at all, and you're focusing on the wrong part of the wrong chart.

No presidential administration acts unilaterally. In fact, I'd submit that Congress has more power to control spending than the president does. So make sure you're looking at the bottom of the first chart to see the whole picture.

Pay special attention to the first time Republicans had both chambers in the late 1990s, and then what happened with complete Democrat control 2009-2010.

[grantmeaname]

That's clearly specious. Those were very different phases of the business cycle, which dramatically affects both sides of the government budget.

[Mr.Macinstache]

That's clearly specious. Those were very different phases of the business cycle, which dramatically affects both sides of the government budget.

Bah! The Democrats helped fund Bushes war, and the R's fund anything and everything too. It's all a charade. They are all drunk sailors on a spending spree. Should turn out well.

[Jamesqf]

Everyone has a choice what to buy or not to. I'd rather individuals be able to make that choice rather than a small group people in a far off building, compelled by special interests, making that choice for them.

Not entirely.  I can only buy what manufacturers choose to build and offer for sale.  So for instance there is no possible way (in the US) that I can buy a reasonably-sized new pickup truck, since no one builds them.  (Of course this does save me money, since I'll just keep driving the 25 year old Toyota.)  I can't buy a new car that comes reasonably close to meeting my needs while getting decent fuel economy, since the few 2-seater being produced (Lotus, etc) are way over-engined (and over-priced), so I have to stick with my 13 year old Honda Insight.

That public might not make the most informed decisions, but I reject the notion that the advertisers have the power to brainwash.

People's wants might be influenced by advertisers, but give those people a little credit -- they can't be told what to want.

I think the observed evidence supports a contrary view.  But it's easy enough (in principle, anyway) to perform an experiment.  Take two groups of people, one which watches lots of TV, another which watches little or none.  Study their choices.

At least, that's generally still true. Only government has the power to compel or deny purchases.

Not true.  As above, manufacturers can easily deny purchases, simply by choosing not to make particular products.  Or they can game the system a little, as for instance US automakers going out of their way to build cheap, ugly little muffin-cars that are as unappealing as possible, so they can continue to claim that the public doesn't want small cars.

[daverobev]

That public might not make the most informed decisions, but I reject the notion that the advertisers have the power to brainwash.

Are you shittin' me? Have you seen the adverts for extra chrome (fuck me, extra fucking chrome!) on your truck *every ten minutes*?

F150: Best selling vehicle in NA.

Also: women. Makeup, diamonds, etc, etc.

It's *all* brainwashing.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Everyone has a choice what to buy or not to. I'd rather individuals be able to make that choice rather than a small group people in a far off building, compelled by special interests, making that choice for them.

Not entirely.  I can only buy what manufacturers choose to build and offer for sale.  So for instance there is no possible way (in the US) that I can buy a reasonably-sized new pickup truck, since no one builds them.  (Of course this does save me money, since I'll just keep driving the 25 year old Toyota.)  I can't buy a new car that comes reasonably close to meeting my needs while getting decent fuel economy, since the few 2-seater being produced (Lotus, etc) are way over-engined (and over-priced), so I have to stick with my 13 year old Honda Insight.

Well then you are shaping the market by not buying. Until it offers what you want, they will not get profits. But there are plenty of stripped plane white base pickups on the market, right? Affordable? That's a whole other topic. Thank regulations, unions, material costs, etc for driving the price up.

My 98 Honda hatchback is actually illegal to sell as a brand new car now. Not safe enough for myself, airbags and all.

[Jamesqf]

But there are plenty of stripped plane white base pickups on the market, right? Affordable? That's a whole other topic. Thank regulations, unions, material costs, etc for driving the price up.

You're missing the point.  It's not that the current generation of pickups (and cars, mostly) aren't available "stripped", or even that they're not affordable.  It's that they're all TOO DAMN BIG. 

There are no small pickups in the US market.  There are few small cars, but - bar a few expensive exotics like Lotus, Porsche, and the 2-seat BMW - they're all stupid little stick-up-in-the-air muffin cars.  Where are the contemporary equivalents to MG, Triumph, Austin-Healey, &c?

[daverobev]

But there are plenty of stripped plane white base pickups on the market, right? Affordable? That's a whole other topic. Thank regulations, unions, material costs, etc for driving the price up.

You're missing the point.  It's not that the current generation of pickups (and cars, mostly) aren't available "stripped", or even that they're not affordable.  It's that they're all TOO DAMN BIG. 

There are no small pickups in the US market.  There are few small cars, but - bar a few expensive exotics like Lotus, Porsche, and the 2-seat BMW - they're all stupid little stick-up-in-the-air muffin cars.  Where are the contemporary equivalents to MG, Triumph, Austin-Healey, &c?

Miata. Canyon/Colorado. V6 Mustang is pretty fuel efficient, relatively speaking; or try an FRS/BRZ or whatever they are called. Hyundai Veloster.

MG went bust (well, as part of Rover). Triumph went bust. Austin went bust (well, Austin-Rover went bust).

I kinda wanted a new Ford Ranger in the last year they were made; $15k-ish for the 2.3l, manual, regular cab. But.. I could buy one from 2004 for $4-5k. But.. I didn't actually need a truck at all so I didn't buy one :)

[bUU]

Therefor it does equal freedom to a very large degree.

I think you're grasping a bit there: Something cannot equal something else "to a very large degree". Equality is like pregnancy - you cannot be "a little pregnant". I don't understand what point you're making with such a rhetorical tangent.

And I was responding to your complaint about people maniacally measuring everything in money. Freedom. This is one reason. The other is greed and materialism on the other side of things.

And that's what I was commenting (not "complaining") about: That there is a danger in just looking at life from the standpoint of money.

Please don't dictate what discussion I should be hosting.

Dictate? ??? Hosting? ??? What I said was that the OT forum is where matters will be considered from perspectives other than just MMM. Is there a problem with that?

Conserv's and liberals love to spend, there and now we are back on topic.

If you say so. ???

That's clearly specious. Those were very different phases of the business cycle, which dramatically affects both sides of the government budget.

Perhaps, but that argues for ignoring politics whenever considering economics - that who's in Congress and who's in the White House doesn't matter, because the phases of the business cycle is all that matters. I don't disagree, but it puts the question posed in the original post completely out of business, pardon the pun.

[renbutler]

That public might not make the most informed decisions, but I reject the notion that the advertisers have the power to brainwash.

Are you shittin' me? Have you seen the adverts for extra chrome (fuck me, extra fucking chrome!) on your truck *every ten minutes*?

F150: Best selling vehicle in NA.

Also: women. Makeup, diamonds, etc, etc.

It's *all* brainwashing.

None of that is convincing to me at all.

You're assuming that there isn't something inherently appealing about shiny things. Go back thousands of years in history and think about that again.

[daverobev]

That public might not make the most informed decisions, but I reject the notion that the advertisers have the power to brainwash.

Are you shittin' me? Have you seen the adverts for extra chrome (fuck me, extra fucking chrome!) on your truck *every ten minutes*?

F150: Best selling vehicle in NA.

Also: women. Makeup, diamonds, etc, etc.

It's *all* brainwashing.

None of that is convincing to me at all.

You're assuming that there isn't something inherently appealing about shiny things. Go back thousands of years in history and think about that again.

Go to England. How many pickup trucks do you see? Not many. Why? Certainly debatable, but the fact they aren't advertised on the TV and in the newspapers certainly affects the mindset.

What is style, and how does it spread? Apple's computers are, really, no better than any other, but advertising has made them popular again. iPhones... yup. Advertising.

Even things you don't notice - gas BBQs. How many people have them here? How many adverts are there?

That's about the end of my experience with advertising, thankfully.

[Mr.Macinstache]

But there are plenty of stripped plane white base pickups on the market, right? Affordable? That's a whole other topic. Thank regulations, unions, material costs, etc for driving the price up.

You're missing the point.  It's not that the current generation of pickups (and cars, mostly) aren't available "stripped", or even that they're not affordable.  It's that they're all TOO DAMN BIG. 

There are no small pickups in the US market.  There are few small cars, but - bar a few expensive exotics like Lotus, Porsche, and the 2-seat BMW - they're all stupid little stick-up-in-the-air muffin cars.  Where are the contemporary equivalents to MG, Triumph, Austin-Healey, &c?

Ok, you never mentioned it being compact when you said 'pick-up'. I can only guess that a compact truck trying to comply with safety regs is a losing battle nowadays.

You do have plenty of older model options though, Chevy s10, Ford Ranger, Mazda, Toyota, all have good used compact trucks on the market.

[renbutler]

Go to England. How many pickup trucks do you see? Not many. Why?

The nature of the infrastructure isn't conducive to large vehicles, and, in some places, conducive to driving altogether.

What is style, and how does it spread? Apple's computers are, really, no better than any other, but advertising has made them popular again. iPhones... yup. Advertising.

I don't have any of them, but they wouldn't be selling if they didn't provide some utility to the consumers.

Note that I didn't say that advertising is ineffective. The problem is the leap of calling it brainwashing. It's not brainwashing. That's a pretty large exaggeration.

With brainwashing, one loses the capacity to think for oneself. If anything, advertising is subliminal, which is the entirely opposite approach toward influence.

[hybrid]

Politically speaking, I would like to see conservatives abandon their resistance to CAFE standards (mandatory MPG requirements).

I prefer letting the market sort it out. The best argument for CAFE, from my  conservative POV, was to reduce our reliance on oil obtained from people who want to destroy us -- but even that is already shifting in our favor organically with more domestic production.

We need to educate buyers about fuel mileage, instead of restricting the freedom of car manufacturers and buyers to be wasteful louts. We should always influence with smarts instead of legislating behavior, whenever possible.

Letting the market sort it out is how we got to be dependent on foreign oil to begin with.  The totally unexpected bank error in our favor regarding domestic energy production is nothing more than blind luck and not a reason to back off of CAFE.  The market as a whole is not frugal, and Ford makes a lot more money selling F-150s than their discontinued Ranger lineup.  That's why this blog and forum exist in the first place.

This is along the lines of the conservative POV that says SS is a "nanny state" bad idea and we should teach people to save for themselves.  And while I agree in principle, in reality a great many people don't save nearly enough for their retirement so SS keeps a good many people out of abject poverty.

I'm all for a smarter populace, I just happen to live in the real world where they aren't that smart (and the market incessantly lobbies them to part with every two nickels they can rub together).  Hence, the occasional need for the "nanny state", as conservatives like to derisively call it.

[hybrid]

I thought it was funny that every 'conservative' administration since Ford has increased the debt, while every democratic administration (excepting Obama) has reduced it.  In recent Canadian history we've had similar results, the last two liberal federal governments (Paul Martin and Jean Cretien) reduced our national debt while the last two conservative governments (Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney) both significantly increased our national debt.

There's nothing funny about that at all, and you're focusing on the wrong part of the wrong chart.

No presidential administration acts unilaterally. In fact, I'd submit that Congress has more power to control spending than the president does. So make sure you're looking at the bottom of the first chart to see the whole picture.

Pay special attention to the first time Republicans had both chambers in the late 1990s, and then what happened with complete Democrat control 2009-2010.

Yikes ren, time for a fact refresher about Congress.  The GOP gained control of the legislature after the 1994 elections and held control up until the 2006 elections.  So while the GOP can take partial credit for balancing the budget by the end of the 1990s (Clinton and a booming economy being the other two legs on that stool), they also get the credit for wrecking the budget the moment George W Bush took office and the GOP-controlled government began spending like drunken sailors and cutting taxes simultaneously.

By the time fall of 2008 came around the false boom of the 2000s came to a screeching halt.  Yes, you are absolutely correct that the Democratically controlled Congress of 2006-2010 was no better than their predecessors and in some ways worse, but one also has to look at the hand Obama was dealt.  George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget, had McCain won he would have started his first term with an enormous deficit to contend with and an economy sliding downhill fast.  So tut-tutting the Dems for their spending is more than a little hypocritical.

As far as I am concerned both sides of the aisle have been derelict in their duties regarding the budget.  While they should be able to handle this on their own, it would seem like mandating that responsibility (via a Balanced Budget Amendment) is the only way to actually accomplish it.

It's rather like your argument about educating people and letting the markets be.  In theory, Congress is already educated and should be doing the right thing.  In reality, they haven't for 12+ years.  Time for a little "nanny state" treatment of the budget if you ask me.   

[Mr.Macinstache]

Politically speaking, I would like to see conservatives abandon their resistance to CAFE standards (mandatory MPG requirements).

I prefer letting the market sort it out. The best argument for CAFE, from my  conservative POV, was to reduce our reliance on oil obtained from people who want to destroy us -- but even that is already shifting in our favor organically with more domestic production.

We need to educate buyers about fuel mileage, instead of restricting the freedom of car manufacturers and buyers to be wasteful louts. We should always influence with smarts instead of legislating behavior, whenever possible.

This is along the lines of the conservative POV that says SS is a "nanny state" bad idea and we should teach people to save for themselves.  And while I agree in principle, in reality a great many people don't save nearly enough for their retirement so SS keeps a good many people out of abject poverty.

I'm all for a smarter populace, I just happen to live in the real world where they aren't that smart (and the market incessantly lobbies them to part with every two nickels they can rub together).  Hence, the occasional need for the "nanny state", as conservatives like to derisively call it.

What's wrong with letting people earn the choice to opt out? Instead, most all of the politicians what to keep you dependent and funding insolvent programs so they have a cookie jar to rob. Yes that is the nanny state, taking care of people by force.