Clown Car Rant!

[NoStacheOhio]

Doesn't matter what you drive, just as long as a person can actually afford what they drive. Definitely many opportunity costs at work there.

Interesting premise - one I haven't quite accepted as of yet.  To be sure people shouldn't go aroudn driving cars they can't afford, but do we give a pass for everyone else just because they can afford it?  AT what point does it stop?  Ridiculous consumption continues to be ridiculous even when a person has millions in the bank.

The whole MMM philosophy is centered around whether spending money on X thing brings you commensurate joy.

For someone who genuinely enjoys cars, the equation works out differently compared to someone who views them as an appliance. To my mind, there's a limit, but my "desert island" car is a manual E46 BMW M3 in Laguna Seca Blue. I'll never buy one, but hypothetically, if I was appropriately secure (say ... $3m+ stash), I wouldn't hesitate, because it's worth the cost to me.

Is it, though?  MMM's written repeatedly about the (not-so) secret focus on sustainability and 'earth-friendly' choices (a better term doesn't jump into my head at present).
I'm not saying that owning a E46 BMW M3 is a bad choice, but where do we draw the line at conspicuous consumption?  There was some negative discussion about a poster's neighbor building a 24,000 square foot home.  I'm not willing to give someone who wants to drive a tricked out Oshkosh JLTV on suburban streets each day even if he/she can afford it.  The impact from these choices don't just influence the owner.

tl/dr; This attitude that choices are just about me and whether I can afford it seems to be a systemic part of our consumeristic society.

I sort of qualified my statement with the "there's a limit" part. I think negative externalities are absolutely an important consideration. From my own example, I don't think there's an unconscionable amount of negatives to outweigh the enjoyment of driving that specific car, at given the current automotive landscape.

I totally agree that a heavily-armored off road vehicle is way over the line.

On the other hand, I work with someone who bought a lightly used Chevy Tahoe to replace his 200k+ mile Tahoe. I've lost track of how many times he's saved my bacon because "it's in the truck" is the standard response to "crap, we need xyz piece of equipment that we totally didn't think we would need." Given the utility and work benefits he gets from driving a full-size SUV, I'd say it's a reasonable choice for him.

[nereo]

Doesn't matter what you drive, just as long as a person can actually afford what they drive. Definitely many opportunity costs at work there.

Interesting premise - one I haven't quite accepted as of yet.  To be sure people shouldn't go aroudn driving cars they can't afford, but do we give a pass for everyone else just because they can afford it?  AT what point does it stop?  Ridiculous consumption continues to be ridiculous even when a person has millions in the bank.

The whole MMM philosophy is centered around whether spending money on X thing brings you commensurate joy.

For someone who genuinely enjoys cars, the equation works out differently compared to someone who views them as an appliance. To my mind, there's a limit, but my "desert island" car is a manual E46 BMW M3 in Laguna Seca Blue. I'll never buy one, but hypothetically, if I was appropriately secure (say ... $3m+ stash), I wouldn't hesitate, because it's worth the cost to me.

Is it, though?  MMM's written repeatedly about the (not-so) secret focus on sustainability and 'earth-friendly' choices (a better term doesn't jump into my head at present).
I'm not saying that owning a E46 BMW M3 is a bad choice, but where do we draw the line at conspicuous consumption?  There was some negative discussion about a poster's neighbor building a 24,000 square foot home.  I'm not willing to give someone who wants to drive a tricked out Oshkosh JLTV on suburban streets each day even if he/she can afford it.  The impact from these choices don't just influence the owner.

tl/dr; This attitude that choices are just about me and whether I can afford it seems to be a systemic part of our consumeristic society.

I sort of qualified my statement with the "there's a limit" part. I think negative externalities are absolutely an important consideration. From my own example, I don't think there's an unconscionable amount of negatives to outweigh the enjoyment of driving that specific car, at given the current automotive landscape.

I totally agree that a heavily-armored off road vehicle is way over the line.

On the other hand, I work with someone who bought a lightly used Chevy Tahoe to replace his 200k+ mile Tahoe. I've lost track of how many times he's saved my bacon because "it's in the truck" is the standard response to "crap, we need xyz piece of equipment that we totally didn't think we would need." Given the utility and work benefits he gets from driving a full-size SUV, I'd say it's a reasonable choice for him.

I think the 'limit' part is what's so difficult and subjective to determine.  As I said, I have no qualms about someone wanting an M3 if that's really what they're into and have the means to buy one, but others might set the bar at a different point. It's made harder in-that a meaningless excess for one person can make sense for another.  Your friend's Tahoe makes more sense than my father's Pilot, a cringeworthy purchase for an empty-nester with no need for a large vehicle (even he calls it a big mistake).

anyway, hope no offense was taken.  I just don't like the standard of "if I an afford it that's all that matters" for reasons discussed above.  It's  close cousin of the deeply-held belief that one should be able to do whatever the hell they want on their own property.  It's "me! me! me!" attitude that, IMO, drives most of the problems we have.

[NoStacheOhio]

anyway, hope no offense was taken.  I just don't like the standard of "if I an afford it that's all that matters" for reasons discussed above.  It's  close cousin of the deeply-held belief that one should be able to do whatever the hell they want on their own property.  It's "me! me! me!" attitude that, IMO, drives most of the problems we have.

Not even close to offensive. I'm probably guilty of some of what you're describing, but I try to temper it by having moderate aspirations. That straight six though ....

I'm probably blessed with fewer insecurities than what I see in other people just by nature of my personality, so I don't associate cars and status as much. It's truly about the form and function.

It's the whole concept of "enough" coupled with trying to have some conscience.

[Slee_stack]

I like the 'exotic' comment above too.

Turns out I drive one...a 2008 Saab 9-3 manual Wagon..ahem...'Sportcombi'.

There's a couple around, but far fewer then every Porsche, AMG, M_, etc...   :D


It was pricey by MMM standard...$12500, but its been an enjoyable car for the past 6 years.

[OurTown]

"Porsche Cayenne" rhymes with "Moshe Dayan." 

[facepalm]

THAT car cost §116,500 and up!?

It's just a car shaped car!

To be fair, it's a car shaped car that can zero to sixty in 3.8 seconds...

I have a $13K KTM 1190 that will smoke it in the quarter mile. (10.6/11.8)

I sat in a Panamera, once. If I had money just running out of all orifices I would buy one, but only because I'm tall. They are kind of ugly, though. Money doesn't buy taste (or smarts).

[JLee]

THAT car cost §116,500 and up!?

It's just a car shaped car!

To be fair, it's a car shaped car that can zero to sixty in 3.8 seconds...

I have a $13K KTM 1190 that will smoke it in the quarter mile. (10.6/11.8)

I sat in a Panamera, once. If I had money just running out of all orifices I would buy one, but only because I'm tall. They are kind of ugly, though. Money doesn't buy taste (or smarts).

Not with four people and groceries in it, you won't. :P