When I see a rich car, I always think "heh I guess this guy likes to rub in our faces that he has more money than us... this is why I could never buy a nice car."

I'll probably drive a used corolla for my whole life just out of unwillingness to make people feel like I'm better than they are.

I have similar troubles flying business class. At least let business class be a separate plane >.>

Look at it this way: conspicuous displays of wealth are very cheap signals for the rational members of the human race to pick out what we call, in technical sociological language, "wankers".

Indeed, nice cars say to me: "there's a moron who lacks taste/perspective, and probably is really bad at managing their life and money. They probably have large amounts of debt and leverage.".

You can call me judgmental, but its an infinitely better attitude to take than anything approaching admiration/jealousy.

Yeah the guy in a 1982 Volvo spewing black smoke and rusting to pieces is obviously more financially savvy and responsible than someone driving a BMW.

Luckily for his point there are the other hundreds of millions of reliable cars on the spectrum between a broken one and a premium one!

Depends on the intrinsic value of a flashy car, or what you think flashy is I guess.

A car with air con is clearly better than one without in many countries for example.

Same with business class - clearly having a bed to sleep in on a 10 hour flight is better than sitting up, how much better depends how much you value your sleep.

A Porsche 911 is in almost every sense a less practical car than a Toyota Corolla.

That is true. I suppose that is why the 911 is in the sports car category.

I disagree. I think BMW, at least, offer more than showing off for driving. Safety and comfort.

Also if I'm flying 12h, I'd really enjoy the business class. The reason I don't pay for it now is because, well, eh, it is expensive and I'm still young. But I can't imagine 10 years down the line flying economic class for work/tourism on a 10 hours flight. It's too much torture to be worth it.

I look at those cars and think that someone has a monthly payment and cant manage their money.

I rather give money to charity than have an expensive car to sit in traffic with. I find people around me similar, there seems less of a desire to chase luxury products.

Personally, I'd rather hold the money and maintain financial independence and lifestyle optionality than have the luxury car or anything else.

And he/she would rather have the experience of owning the car they have always dreamt of, while still giving to charities. Or he could be a drug-dealer ruining peoples lives while rubbing it in your face that being a criminal and bad person pays of. We have no way of knowing.

When I see an expensive car the only thing I can think is "wow, what a good way to blow money on useless shit".

The best car I ever had cost 5000€, used it for almost 100Mm until I switched to public transport and ended up selling it.

Why would I pay 60k on a car if I can get to where I want just as fast with 5k? (my only requirement is "have radio, have A/C, pass inspection for the next 10 years")

> When I see an expensive car the only thing I can think is "wow, what a good way to blow money on useless shit".

I'm not alone in this then. I find it incredibly odd how much money people seem willing to sink into cars. Why would anyone take out a loan to purchase an asset that will depreciate rapidly and provides practically no extra value? Why do people buy pickup trucks when they don't need to haul things around all the time (and in fact would probably balk at the idea because it would damage the bed)? People are weird, man.

>Why do people buy pickup trucks when they don't need to haul things around all the time

Why do cars have a second row of seats and two doors that rarely get used? Your average Audi doesn't exactly get used to it's potential every day either.

Ignoring luxury and performance vehicles, vans, trucks and cars are all just four wheel vehicles optimized for different types and quantities of cargo.

>(and in fact would probably balk at the idea because it would damage the bed)?

Cars have cup-holders yet some people refuse to eat/drink in their cars.

At some point the line between needs and wants becomes blurry. When I see someone in a nice car I think "good for them, I hope they enjoy having nice things"

> Why do people buy pickup trucks

Because the back-end of that truck is an almost precise corollary to a Peacock's tail: practically useless, but designed to impress others with the ability of its owner to carry something useless and thrive.

This sounds like the view of someone who has never owned a pickup truck. I did once, because I needed transportation and a friend had a reliable one to share.

Every time a friend needed to move apartments, they would ask what I was doing. Pickup trucks are really useful for moving large objects like furniture or lots of big boxes. Depending on how you live they may be an affectation, but in my brief experience the utility was real. (As opposed to SUV's which don't seem to really hold more space than vans, and almost never go off-road.)

Sure, but I was specifically talking about people who buy pickup trucks and don't use them for hauling things, which is what I assume the comment you're replying to was referring to specifically.

I have since sold my pickup, but it was durable & reliable as hell & easy to work on, and it really was great when I occasionally wanted to tow something large or move something heavy & dirty, most often dirt & mulch. It's the challenge of, I do certain things occasionally but not often. New plan is to rent a trailer, we'll see how it goes.

Many of the benefits of a good pickup are really the benefits of a ladder frame chassis, but few non-pickups are made on a ladder frame now. 4-Runner, Xterra, it's a short list.

I'm guessing you live in The Bay or maybe New York?

I've lived in Salt Lake and Las Vegas, and the idea of someone who owns a pickup truck not using it to carry stuff because it would damage the bed....

Like I've never even heard that as a joke. It's a sad world out there if that's really happening.

Midwest

I should probably note that the 5k€ car was basically a pickup with less benefits (it was basically a gigantic trunk behind the driver seat that happened to also house some passenger seats).

The real joy was that the engine was absolute overkill in torque (but not HP) for the car so you could pull 8 tons (and did) despite the car being rated for no more than 2. Sadly the wheels were rather small so none of that torque goes on the street unless you load the car up.

It's incredibly useful when you do happen to need it.

100 Mm = 100 000 km. I think this is the first time I've seen someone use the unit "megametres" correctly.

>> When you see someone driving a nice car, you rarely think, “Wow, the guy driving that car is cool.” Instead, you think, “Wow, if I had that car people would think I’m cool.” Subconscious or not, this is how people think.

> Just realized that that is how I think... :facepalm:

When I see someone spending too much money on unnecessary things (unnecessary according to my current view) I think: "If I get rich I should donate a lot of my money to people in need." But along with, I do also think: "Did this guy too would/did think the same if [s]he is in short of money?" or "Will I change my mind if I get too much money?"

We can do dream or think of our actions in many hypothetical situations. But we can't ever be sure what we would actually do if such a situation happen.

And he/she could already be giving a lot to people in need. We have no way of knowing, so should not judge.

But there is a point where being a rational human being is defined by judgement. After all, knowledge and wisdom is the judgemental discernment between the good and the bad.

Smoking, ceteris paribus, generally has bad effects.

Lack of fitness and personal nutritional health, ceteris parbius, is a bad.

Lack of education and pride in ignorance, ceteris paribus, is bad.

In the same way, although we shouldn't throw out or disown members of the human species just because they partake in objectionable or flawed activities (after all, none of us are perfect), it would be a better world if we could recognise that conspicuous consumption, ceteris paribus, is a "bad thing", not something to be admired or desired.

Had to look up a lot of fine words to discern that answer. But I still stand by that you cannot equal expensive cars with conspicuous consumption as in the definition "the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxury goods and services to publicly display economic power".

You can buy expensive cars for other purposes than showing off.

And you cannot equal driving in expensive cars with evil/bad. The striving for that expensive car can be the exact motivation that made that guy or girl work extra hard for creating something valuable to the world.

Life is easier if you put people into boxes, but in reality you have no idea about their way of life, struggles. motivations or contributions to society.

Hence the phrase "ceteris paribus".

A man MIGHT have committed murder through altruistic means and ends, maybe smoking two packs a day or his cocaine habit got him through some hard times and energized him to achieve some good, and maybe the obese man put off exercising while he wrote the greatest novel the world has ever seen, but all those edge cases are nought when communicating in vaguely normal language.

Could the man in the Ferrari be a saintly dynamo of productive energy who bought the car due to some deep seated fundamental need for a luxury vehicle independent of ego or insecurity, having been unaffected in his character in all other regards and character-constituent corollaries? I suppose we must admit it a physical possibility, but one utterly unlikely and useless if we wish to discuss conspicuous consumption just like we reasonably discuss everything else.

More so, judgemental neutrality is sometimes not neutral. There comes a time when positioning yourself in a position of non-judgement makes you work as an apologist/stooge of the very persons and interest that profit from being able to partake in such activities with no one holding them to account.

Just as the ability to say "let it be" in terms of markets and life often displays wisdom, there is also a time when it intently supports the unjust and corrupt.

Some people have so much cashflow, that they need to spend it. Most banks are only FDIC insured up to 1 million bucks max. Most are only 250k actually.

If you make 1 million per year... you gotta spend that money some how. Even if you lived modestly in a middle class neighborhood, and saved/invested 600k per year, you could afford a new 100k car every year if you wanted.

I think I generally think, would it be fun to drive that car?

The I think “maybe I should rent one on vacation sometime.” And after three days with a BMW Z4 convertible, I get that out of my system for well under $1k. I also resolved my interest in Jeep Wranglers this way.

It's a good idea. Renting in general has proved to be too much trouble for me.

I actually bought my last car because it was too much a pain in the ass to rent a SUV!

I needed a new car anyway, so I figured it was a $1,500-$2k discount if I just bought one.

The Honda CRV has been fairly decent: I use it for what it is good for, too. Winter trips with multiple people.

I question the functionality of the car and the individuals decision making. Granted I live in a mountainous region with plenty of back/dirt roads in Idaho and usually drive around them because they are going to slow. I do see a lot of Range Rovers and usually wonder if they perform well in adverse conditions.

I guess most (all?) of us had a few facepalms after reading the entire article. :)

There's a good comment on that by a car seller here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/44111

That's directly from Rene Girard mimetic theory.