Considering that to a large extent one is `held hostage`to depreciation following the purchase of a new motor.
`Give examples of behaviour amongst peers or customers that could be interpreted as showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome when in interaction with main dealers`
Edited by oilrag on 30/06/2009 at 09:37
|
|
Is there any other product in our lives that takes the size of depreciation hit with in days of purchase that a vehicle does ?
|
Is there any other product in our lives ................
Yacht
Rolex Oyster watch
House extension
Kitchen refitting
Bathroom refitting
Gucci handbag
Fur coat
|
|
Surely a house extension adds value, as does a kitchen / bathroom. The kitchen / bathroom will wear out over time so will lose value but not by a couple of grand the following month ?
|
Surely a house extension adds value ...........
It doesn't add anywhere as much value as it costs.
|
Ref Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes, I'd say it applies to any large purchase. Before you do the deal, you are keen to demonstrate that you know how to extract a good bargain and aren't going to be fobbed off. You have invested some of your manliness in the contract.
Afterwards, you feel vulnerable to an inner voice that says you paid too much. So you suppress the thought, by colluding with the seller in maximising the alleged benefits and minimising any downside, especially depreciation.
Some people go completely native and take on the role of sales agent for the dealer. The more people you can influence into also buying, the better you feel because there is safety in numbers, and you become part of a movement, not just an isolated gullible hostage.
|
I'm not quite sure where the 'Stockholm Syndrome' comes into this - it is, after all, connected to the paradoxical empathy that develops between hostage & captor in terrorist hostage taking situations - more generally applied nowadays to situations where a victim fixates in some way on their abuser.
Anyway, disentangling the thread subject I take it to mean where we're willing accomplices in our own (pecuniary) 'downfall' in some consumer related activity.
I'm not sure 'dealers' can be in any way equated with having the power of terrorists - they're subject to market forces just as we are. They don't set depreciation levels - we do!
Other examples given here, such as houses (and associated improvements) are again dependent on which part of the economic/housing cycle you were lucky (or unlucky) enough to buy in.
Rolex watches? I can only say my Oyster (bought 20 years ago) seems to have maintained its value - there again, I bought a 'sensible' one with stainless steel case & leather strap & air-king-date functionality.
One example perhaps though, is the 'fashion' industry - in any of its forms. Integral to the deal is that you're buying built-in obsolescence - without that 'guarantee' fashion is pointless even within its own rationale.
|
I'm not quite sure where the 'Stockholm Syndrome' comes into this - it is after all connected to the paradoxical empathy that develops between hostage & captor in terrorist hostage taking situations -
I'm not sure 'dealers' can be in any way equated with having the power of terrorists - they're subject to market forces just as we are. >>
They, and the manufacturers, are absolutely typical of hostage takers. They have now managed to take the government and the entire tax-paying nation hostage. We are totally in their thrall, and will willingly pay any price to keep them in business. They have successfully brainwashed us into believing that their interests, and the national economy's, are identical.
Anyone who denies this proves my point :)
|
|
|
|
>> Surely a house extension adds value ........... It doesn't add anywhere as much value as it costs.
Really? Surely it depends a lot on the size of house, area the house is in and the size of the plot. Usually adding bedrooms and living space adds more than the cost of doing it.
|
|
If you extrapolated the time frame to value 12 months after purchase, the house extension should have added more value than it cost. Almost anything else will be worth less.
|
We are totally in their thrall, and will willingly pay any price to keep them in business. They have successfully brainwashed us into believing that their interests, and the national economy's, are identical.
Well, they may or may not have gone out of business without the scrappage scheme (which is what I assume you're referring to..) - I don't really know. I'm neither supporter nor apologist for the car industry.
What is plain though, in light of the dramatic collapse in demand for new cars, is that the govt. thought it expedient to underpin this vast industry for the greater good. Whether you like it or not, the 'great car economy' (to borrow a phrase from an illustrious former leader) is a fact, together with the housing market - they're the primary drivers & sustainers of economic activity.
It's abacus-level ecomonics, whether we like it or not - until the Great Green (or other) Revolution comes at least.
|
It's not economics, it's brainwashing.
The whole purpose of the motor industry is to serve the economy, not create it. If people have decided that they are happy with the present level of car consumption then it is wasting money and damaging the economy to try to bribe and cajole them into buying more.
|
>>The whole purpose of the motor industry is to serve the economy, not create it
Sorry, but that's rather skewed logic IMHO. Any economic activity 'creates' the economy - it's another (probably political/philosophical) question entirely whether that's in some way 'good' or not.
Economic activity is completely agnostic - it doesn't 'care' if activity is created by people making worthy products or selling cheap'n'nasty plastic ducks. It's worth remembering that natural disasters (below a critical magnitude of course..) are generally good for economic activity & therefore living standards.
Same thing with 'wasting' money trying to get people to buy cars they probably don't need.
|
Some keen, well argued points here.
Mr X - do you have a view informed by the Daily Mail?
|
|
|
