▲ 1630 ▼ Compare american vs japanese craftsmen-cars (feddit.de) submitted 3 years ago* by Freeman@feddit.de to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 366 comments fedilink hide all child comments Comparison left vs right for a craftsman who doesnt know which one he should buy: l/r same bed size r lower bed for way easier loading/unloading r less likely to crash r less fuel consumption and costs r less expensive to repair r easy to park r easy to get around in narrow places like crowded construction sites or towns r not participating in road arms race l You get taken serious by your fellow carbrained americans because ""trucks"" are normalized and small handy cars are ridiculed. So unless you are a fragile piece of human, choose the right one.
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -9 points 3 years ago (2 children) What's important for you specifically is not what is important to the customer base writ large. You have problems with fellow consumers that you blame on manufacturers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 years ago (2 children) Capitalism does not follow the desires of consumers, it follows the desire of shareholders. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Falmarri@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago This is the most braindead comment I've read in a long time. permalink fedilink source parent [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago (2 children) That doesn't even make sense in the logic you've presented. Shareholders want to maximize value, which means selling more things to consumers, which means selling things consumers want. If your entire worldview falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, it may be time to re-evaluate said worldview. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) When you consider that marketing is intended to manipulate consumers into thinking they want your product, it's more about convincing people that your product has value, and that they need it, rather than selling something that consumers actually need. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -12 points 3 years ago* (1 child) You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation. Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Look up manufactured scarcity. Great way to make money for shareholders without providing more to consumers. You charge them more for less. Notice any of that recently? Notice any record breaking profits in any industries? Notice any shortages of important things like IDK ... housing?!?! I'll also give you another example of capitalists not giving a fuck about what consumers want: electric cars back in the 1990s. The auto manufacturers realized they would lose their parts and repair businesses, as electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, the oil companies got pissed, so they put some power together and used the federal government to overturn californias electric car act that consumers voted for. The also forcefully recalled electric cars from consumers and crushed them. They did not care if there was demand if they could make more money in the short term by staying the same. Hell, the very existence of exxon mobile disproves your ideas that companies will innovate in response to demand because they spent their money lying to the public about climate change so they could avoid any innovation at all for as long as possible. So WTF do you mean they care about demand? Your logic that capitalists only do what consumers want is whats basic and flawed. If thats true, WTF is advertising? You think it's just a fun hobby that doesn't work? If advertising doesn't create false demand, why do it? We have evidence advertising creates demand, therefore advertising works, therefore you need to adjust your worldview to allow for the fact that some amount of the shit that consumers buy is nothing more than light brainwashing. Including you dear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent [–] spiphy@lemm.ee 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Given the usage patterns, most people in the US do not need large trucks. They have been convinced that need them because the auto manufacturers make a lot of money selling trucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) That's why the compact trucks are selling like hot cakes. People want trucks, but they don't necessarily want these behemoths. I love my Santa Cruz. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Even compact trucks are not nearly as small as light trucks from a couple decades ago before regulations encouraged manufacturers to go bigger to avoid penalties. Basically if you have two trucks with the same engine, but on a smaller wheelbase, the smaller one might be penalized for not being fuel efficient enough while the larger one isn't. Might as well go big to avoid the cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 years ago (2 children) Capitalism does not follow the desires of consumers, it follows the desire of shareholders. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Falmarri@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago This is the most braindead comment I've read in a long time. permalink fedilink source parent [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago (2 children) That doesn't even make sense in the logic you've presented. Shareholders want to maximize value, which means selling more things to consumers, which means selling things consumers want. If your entire worldview falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, it may be time to re-evaluate said worldview. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) When you consider that marketing is intended to manipulate consumers into thinking they want your product, it's more about convincing people that your product has value, and that they need it, rather than selling something that consumers actually need. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -12 points 3 years ago* (1 child) You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation. Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Look up manufactured scarcity. Great way to make money for shareholders without providing more to consumers. You charge them more for less. Notice any of that recently? Notice any record breaking profits in any industries? Notice any shortages of important things like IDK ... housing?!?! I'll also give you another example of capitalists not giving a fuck about what consumers want: electric cars back in the 1990s. The auto manufacturers realized they would lose their parts and repair businesses, as electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, the oil companies got pissed, so they put some power together and used the federal government to overturn californias electric car act that consumers voted for. The also forcefully recalled electric cars from consumers and crushed them. They did not care if there was demand if they could make more money in the short term by staying the same. Hell, the very existence of exxon mobile disproves your ideas that companies will innovate in response to demand because they spent their money lying to the public about climate change so they could avoid any innovation at all for as long as possible. So WTF do you mean they care about demand? Your logic that capitalists only do what consumers want is whats basic and flawed. If thats true, WTF is advertising? You think it's just a fun hobby that doesn't work? If advertising doesn't create false demand, why do it? We have evidence advertising creates demand, therefore advertising works, therefore you need to adjust your worldview to allow for the fact that some amount of the shit that consumers buy is nothing more than light brainwashing. Including you dear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Falmarri@lemmy.world -1 points 3 years ago This is the most braindead comment I've read in a long time. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago (2 children) That doesn't even make sense in the logic you've presented. Shareholders want to maximize value, which means selling more things to consumers, which means selling things consumers want. If your entire worldview falls apart at the slightest scrutiny, it may be time to re-evaluate said worldview. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) When you consider that marketing is intended to manipulate consumers into thinking they want your product, it's more about convincing people that your product has value, and that they need it, rather than selling something that consumers actually need. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -12 points 3 years ago* (1 child) You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation. Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Look up manufactured scarcity. Great way to make money for shareholders without providing more to consumers. You charge them more for less. Notice any of that recently? Notice any record breaking profits in any industries? Notice any shortages of important things like IDK ... housing?!?! I'll also give you another example of capitalists not giving a fuck about what consumers want: electric cars back in the 1990s. The auto manufacturers realized they would lose their parts and repair businesses, as electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, the oil companies got pissed, so they put some power together and used the federal government to overturn californias electric car act that consumers voted for. The also forcefully recalled electric cars from consumers and crushed them. They did not care if there was demand if they could make more money in the short term by staying the same. Hell, the very existence of exxon mobile disproves your ideas that companies will innovate in response to demand because they spent their money lying to the public about climate change so they could avoid any innovation at all for as long as possible. So WTF do you mean they care about demand? Your logic that capitalists only do what consumers want is whats basic and flawed. If thats true, WTF is advertising? You think it's just a fun hobby that doesn't work? If advertising doesn't create false demand, why do it? We have evidence advertising creates demand, therefore advertising works, therefore you need to adjust your worldview to allow for the fact that some amount of the shit that consumers buy is nothing more than light brainwashing. Including you dear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) When you consider that marketing is intended to manipulate consumers into thinking they want your product, it's more about convincing people that your product has value, and that they need it, rather than selling something that consumers actually need. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -12 points 3 years ago* (1 child) You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation. Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -12 points 3 years ago* (1 child) You are not the arbiter on what people "need," and people do not only purchase or consume things based on "need." As a hilariously easy example, neither of us "needs" to be here right now having this conversation. Again, it's time to re-evaluate the entire worldview permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) I never claimed to be the arbiter of what people need, but im just saying consumers dont have as much freewill as they claim when they're actively being manipulated at every corner. Marketing is literally intended to make you feel like you need a product you didn't previously want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SCB@lemmy.world -11 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Consumers absolutely have free will. Do you have free will? You're not unique. Also that is not the purpose of marketing. Marketing is designed to A) raise awareness of a product and B) show how the product is superior to other products. Throw out the brain rot my dude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) I didn't say they had no freewill, i said. Consumers do not have as much freewill as they claim And no, that is exactly the purpose of marketing, as defined in my college marketing classes. Marketing is designed to "Create value" for a product to a consumer. That is to say, make them feel like they want to buy it. And as far as tactics, its all manipulation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 3 years ago* There is a no percent chance you got a good grade in that class of you don't understand the concept of creating value Gonna go ahead and assume that was an undergrad class permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) Look up manufactured scarcity. Great way to make money for shareholders without providing more to consumers. You charge them more for less. Notice any of that recently? Notice any record breaking profits in any industries? Notice any shortages of important things like IDK ... housing?!?! I'll also give you another example of capitalists not giving a fuck about what consumers want: electric cars back in the 1990s. The auto manufacturers realized they would lose their parts and repair businesses, as electric vehicles have fewer moving parts, the oil companies got pissed, so they put some power together and used the federal government to overturn californias electric car act that consumers voted for. The also forcefully recalled electric cars from consumers and crushed them. They did not care if there was demand if they could make more money in the short term by staying the same. Hell, the very existence of exxon mobile disproves your ideas that companies will innovate in response to demand because they spent their money lying to the public about climate change so they could avoid any innovation at all for as long as possible. So WTF do you mean they care about demand? Your logic that capitalists only do what consumers want is whats basic and flawed. If thats true, WTF is advertising? You think it's just a fun hobby that doesn't work? If advertising doesn't create false demand, why do it? We have evidence advertising creates demand, therefore advertising works, therefore you need to adjust your worldview to allow for the fact that some amount of the shit that consumers buy is nothing more than light brainwashing. Including you dear. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) The difference is that efficient demand incentivizes h switchover. You're blaming businesses for... Not leading with changes their customers don't want permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WheeGeetheCat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 years ago I guess I shouldn't have tried to talk about several concepts at once since your brain skipped past the manufactured scarcity concept, which is far more integral to capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity Note that capitalists have been practicing the art of 'just burn the shit I can't sell so no one can have it' since the Dutch East India company burned islands full of spices to make them rarer. O such innovation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spiphy@lemm.ee 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Given the usage patterns, most people in the US do not need large trucks. They have been convinced that need them because the auto manufacturers make a lot of money selling trucks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) That's why the compact trucks are selling like hot cakes. People want trucks, but they don't necessarily want these behemoths. I love my Santa Cruz. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Even compact trucks are not nearly as small as light trucks from a couple decades ago before regulations encouraged manufacturers to go bigger to avoid penalties. Basically if you have two trucks with the same engine, but on a smaller wheelbase, the smaller one might be penalized for not being fuel efficient enough while the larger one isn't. Might as well go big to avoid the cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) That's why the compact trucks are selling like hot cakes. People want trucks, but they don't necessarily want these behemoths. I love my Santa Cruz. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Even compact trucks are not nearly as small as light trucks from a couple decades ago before regulations encouraged manufacturers to go bigger to avoid penalties. Basically if you have two trucks with the same engine, but on a smaller wheelbase, the smaller one might be penalized for not being fuel efficient enough while the larger one isn't. Might as well go big to avoid the cost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 3 years ago Even compact trucks are not nearly as small as light trucks from a couple decades ago before regulations encouraged manufacturers to go bigger to avoid penalties. Basically if you have two trucks with the same engine, but on a smaller wheelbase, the smaller one might be penalized for not being fuel efficient enough while the larger one isn't. Might as well go big to avoid the cost. permalink fedilink source parent