On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:Yeah, because who needs food anyways? Megacorps can do all that for us!
You could just walk to the store you know.
or take a bus, like I said, or a taxi, or if you are close enough to a city maybe the subway or trolley.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:They aren't given those, they basically sell everything for several decades to pay off their leases, and then they still have to return that equipment. No on short of a megacorp is ever going to provide them to a farmer for free, and even they force terms akin to slavery.
I understand they aren't given those, and I understand that megacorps are fucked up. The problem is that we already are ran nationally by megacorps anyways and nationalizing public transit and making it a standard isnt going to make them any more or less powerful. I honestly don't know how your point is an argument against the idea that cars should be one of the vehicles a farmer should be expected to work with and therefore should be funded by in part the hiring agent who provides them farming equipment as well. Your criticism is an argument of capitalism in general which I agree is fucked up, but the idea itself isnt bad and isnt argued against here.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:The amount of people in rural areas is high, but not high enough to warrant more than maybe 1 manufacturer, and they wouldn't be doing year-round production unless there were inbuilt features to prevent the vehicle from operating past a certain date. (planned obsolescence is the only way it could be profitable)
Why would they be doing year round production? Why do they even need to do planned obsolescence? If the same manufacturer are selling parts for maintenance and such they theoretically wouldn't need to profit from their vehicle sales and could profit from the vehicle repairs and check ups they do regularly.
I know the answer and the answer is that it wouldn't be profitable enough for them to remain in business in spite of their products being quality and everyone needing them and, again, this is a problem with capitalism itself preventing products with long life spans being more regularly made because once an individual buys a product that lasts a long time they aren't a customer anymore.
The answer is not, however, to allow car manufacturers to implement planned obsolescence or to allow them to destroy the planet with their garbage and ruin our freeways with traffic. And that is either what you seem to be implying or you are stating that there is no way to fix it, and therefore no point in trying which is an idea I fuckin hate, as you personally already know.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:It already isn't disposable for any but the richest people in the world, and it wouldn't just be going up a little, it'd go up by A LOT! My statement about it being in Ferrari pricing wasn't exaggeration, that was a finding by one of the companies that did studies about the feasibility of mass transit between Colorado Springs and Denver.
I'd like a link to that study if you don't mind because I'd like to read it myself [EDIT] Nevermind, ill do your arguing for you just this once since you gave an example, i'll read this article and come back to you, but besides that, I've met multiple people in my life who traded in their vehicles because they are old and they want a new model because it looks nice. Cars are disposable to a lot of regular middle class and upper middle class people. But thats not even my point. My point is that if you went looking for one, finding and buying a new car is absolutely not difficult whatsoever, and even less difficult to find a used one. If car's weren't on some level, disposable, they wouldn't advertise car's on TV all the time. Almost no one in America is going to buy a car as a brand new costumer, because you can't not own a car in America. The majority of people who car manufacturers advertise to are people who already own a car and can buy a new one by trading their old one in.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:I kinda do mind. This is easily searchable information on Google, so I won't insult you with a LMGTFY link.
Then why are you here? You came to my thread and made an argument, the burden of proof is up to you to defend your claim. I'm not going to go out of my way to prove your point for you, no matter how mad you are that you disagree with me. My argument is based of clearly observed data like how cities are constantly clogged with traffic, especially major cities like Los Angeles and New York, and I don't care how you spin it, those traffic jams, massive parking lots and record levels of emissions can not, in any way be profitable or good for the nation they are suppose to be supplying. Its a massive problem, it needs a solution, adding more lanes and pretending it isnt a problem isnt going to cut it, so this is my answer, and you aren't providing a good counter argument so far.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:And they still do, but not nearly by enough to be able to replace the automotive transport systems. Versatility has a LOT to do with it. You get to chose where you want to go, and don't have to go 10 miles and 30 minutes out of your way to get there. You can also transport stuff like a 4x8 sheet of plywood without having to contract out for someone else to transport it. (which would be extremely expensive in comparison)
Which is why I don't disagree with you! I think cars are still important and should be used, but we shouldn't be basing out entire transport structure around them and should try to limit how much it is used as much as possible, and in America this isnt happening whatsoever.
On 1/10/2022 at 3:27 PM, BTGBullseye said:That's because you don't use them for all that they are capable of. There's a LOT more to them than just moving a person from point A to point B eventually.
And so are trains more than just for moving cargo around eventually.
I'm not even really sure what you mean here its kind of unclear to be honest