Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
American cars of the '40s and early '50s weren't all that huge. See for instance the links to Chevys from 1950-1959: the car nearly doubled in size in that decade. Same for Ford, etc.
And you're STILL evading the question I've been asking, which is why on earth did so many Americans want (or accept, at least) those large cars? And why did & do the US automakers go on building them, when the invasion of the VW Beetle (1959, if I'm not mistaken), followed by the Japanese, demonstrated that there were a sizeable fraction of Americans who do want smaller cars?
|
I'll attempt to answer the question. Americans accepted the bigger, "better" cars and lifestyle because they had precious little choice other than to do so. The mentality is one of making progress or being
progressive by 'going with the flow'. If there were no small cars made or available to the market, you didn't have the option of buying a small car as a consumer choice. And the few small cars that were available were usually poorly made.
"Bigger & better" as touted or suggested as being progressive and/or patriotic by the government and big business (read: car manufacturers) in the absence of any other choices, amounts to
compulsive consumption touted and encouraged by a hyper-stimulated economy, sponsored by government policy. In the past decade, American politicians have relied upon the advice of their economic advisers to increase both their personal and political power: we can run or rule the world via the American economy, through advancing the idea that one's life will
always be
ever increasingly better by constantly buying (consuming) more. It works up to a point, especially following a dearth or lack of widespread material abundance. Eventually, once things reach the opposite extreme, material glut ensues. It's like realizing on the day after, that an abundance of presents does not a satisfying Christmas make.
But remember this: capitalism does not equal consumerism; it merely ends up giving it a bad name, which benefits the anti-capitalist detractors. Lack of material abundance is depressing, both economically and mentally and in no way beneficial. But lack of choice by design is NOT "free trade" nor freedom of choice - no matter how much our government labels it that.
And this is an interesting tangent - but it has nothing to do with deer.
Oh dear, oh deer.