I Hate People Aged 20-30 Right Now



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    ...Yellen, is tapering off on the printing.

    I doubt it. Every time they've tried to taper, the equities bomb because the only thing keeping them levitating is the massive influx of cash. In fact, that's the only thing the printing is doing, other than driving high levels of inflation in food, energy and housing. But they're not going to let the stock market crash which means the printing will continue until something makes them stop.

    That was what Bernanke did. But she actually got the FOMC to "vote to reduce the pace of its monthly asset purchase program by $10 billion to $55 billion" in March. Also tougher talk about raising interest rates.

    I'll believe it when I see it. Also, the asset purchases aren't the only way they're "injecting liquidity". Shit, they're outright financing most government debt in the US right now.

    I mean, seriously, they couldn't even taper if they wanted to. Do you think the Feds will stop running up debt? No? Somebody's got to buy it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    ...Yellen, is tapering off on the printing.

    I doubt it. Every time they've tried to taper, the equities bomb because the only thing keeping them levitating is the massive influx of cash. In fact, that's the only thing the printing is doing, other than driving high levels of inflation in food, energy and housing. But they're not going to let the stock market crash which means the printing will continue until something makes them stop.

    That was what Bernanke did. But she actually got the FOMC to "vote to reduce the pace of its monthly asset purchase program by $10 billion to $55 billion" in March. Also tougher talk about raising interest rates.

    I'll believe it when I see it. Also, the asset purchases aren't the only way they're "injecting liquidity". Shit, they're outright financing most government debt in the US right now.

    I mean, seriously, they couldn't even taper if they wanted to. Do you think the Feds will stop running up debt? No? Somebody's got to buy it.

    I don't know WTF you're talking about, because those purchases are part of how they are financing the debt (in addition to keeping interest rates extremely low). And...uh...reducing by $10B is the tapering. Obviously, they'll have to raise interest rates eventually, but with all the debt the Fed has taken off the market, demand is artificially high (though tapering off, of course). The bigger thing that's kept us afloat in deficit spending is that the rest of the world is basically worse off, and the money has to go somewhere. There is a lot of ruin in a country, and we still have more than most left in us.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I don't know WTF you're talking about, because those purchases are part of how they are financing the debt (in addition to keeping interest rates extremely low). And...uh...reducing by $10B is the tapering. Obviously, they'll have to raise interest rates eventually, but with all the debt the Fed has taken off the market, demand is artificially high (though tapering off, of course). The bigger thing that's kept us afloat in deficit spending is that the rest of the world is basically worse off, and the money has to go somewhere. There is a lot of ruin in a country, and we still have more than most left in us.

    There are plenty of ways they're guaranteeing debt gets purchased; the asset purchases are but one. The Fed will continue to ensure a steady demand for Treasuries just by guaranteeing the rate to borrow is lower than the interest paid on the Treasuries. Anyway, the taper only affects the asset purchase program, and the only reason they're probably going to do that is that it's proven to be somewhat ineffective--banks are flush with cash but unemployment is high and the economy still sucks.

    So they may taper asset purchases, but overall the liquidity injections will continue, or else the stock market will fall apart. Anyway, even if you were to eliminate all other methods of injecting liquidity, the Fed would still be obligated to purchase Treasuries or to at least provide liquidity to keep the PDs afloat. Do you seriously think there'd be a point where any Treasuries they government wants to sell won't be bought?



  • @bridget99 said:

    8) They're materialistic. This is backed up by studies, but any trip to a "cool" bar will betray this fact as well. Everyone under 30 seems to have some goddamned business idea to pitch. There's no plan for like there beyond being the next Jobs or Zuckerberg. The question I ask is this: how does Zuckerberg feel about the fact that he'll never know if anyone actually loves him or not? I'd feel pretty shitty, but I'm 41.

    Being a Zuckerberg or a Jobs has a few benefits in itself; if you're careful with your money, you don't have to worry about financial security in your old age, and if you want, you don't have to do that thing where you get up early in the morning and sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half, followed by at least eight hours of working on a boring, poorly-architected information system, followed by another hour and a half of gridlock.  Also, there's the whole Being in The History Books thing, as opposed to leaving this world obscure and unsung.  

    As someone just ahead of the upper limit of your provided age range, I can attest that there was a lot of indoctrination in the self-esteem movement in our generation early on.  We were all Special and Destined for Great Things. Many of us learned the hard way that we weren't, and that if we worked our asses off, we might be mediocre at best.  Can you blame people for wanting more than that?  Hell, if they try and fall on their asses, at least they made an attempt.  That seems better to me than embracing a mind-numbing career path with open arms.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And compared to today? Look, I fuckin' hate ricers, but I'd rather have a Civic with an absurdly large spoiler than a 5.0 Mustang. Then there's stuff like the M3, the C7 and C5 to really get your juices flowing. Hell, even the current Mustangs aren't so awful, although I'm tired of seeing them.

    I've driven all three of the current-gen American muscle cars in that price range, and the Mustang is by far the worst (of the worst).  Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.  The Challenger is roomier and easier on the eyes, but its 5.7-liter is inadequate and there's too much body roll in the turns.  The SRT8 fixes those problems, but well-equipped it costs as much as a Corvette.  As for the third, I own one.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Use Rockomax-brand rockets to do it.

    Nah man, it's all about the Kerbodynes now.  Two stages to a Moho intercept.  Seemingly overpowered for now, but they cut part counts and we'll need them when Gas Planet 2 and its moons come out.

     

     




  • @Groaner said:

    @bridget99 said:

    8) They're materialistic. This is backed up by studies, but any trip to a "cool" bar will betray this fact as well. Everyone under 30 seems to have some goddamned business idea to pitch. There's no plan for like there beyond being the next Jobs or Zuckerberg. The question I ask is this: how does Zuckerberg feel about the fact that he'll never know if anyone actually loves him or not? I'd feel pretty shitty, but I'm 41.

    Being a Zuckerberg or a Jobs has a few benefits in itself; if you're careful with your money, you don't have to worry about financial security in your old age, and if you want, you don't have to do that thing where you get up early in the morning and sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half, followed by at least eight hours of working on a boring, poorly-architected information system, followed by another hour and a half of gridlock.  Also, there's the whole Being in The History Books thing, as opposed to leaving this world obscure and unsung.  

    As someone just ahead of the upper limit of your provided age range, I can attest that there was a lot of indoctrination in the self-esteem movement in our generation early on.  We were all Special and Destined for Great Things. Many of us learned the hard way that we weren't, and that if we worked our asses off, we might be mediocre at best.  Can you blame people for wanting more than that?  Hell, if they try and fall on their asses, at least they made an attempt.  That seems better to me than embracing a mind-numbing career path with open arms.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And compared to today? Look, I fuckin' hate ricers, but I'd rather have a
    Civic with an absurdly large spoiler than a 5.0 Mustang. Then there's
    stuff like the M3, the C7 and C5 to really get your juices flowing.
    Hell, even the current Mustangs aren't so awful, although I'm tired of
    seeing them.

    I've driven all three of the current-gen American muscle cars in that price range, and the Mustang is by far the worst (of the worst).  Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.  The Challenger is roomier and easier on the eyes, but its 5.7-liter is inadequate and there's too much body roll in the turns.  The SRT8 fixes those problems, but well-equipped it costs as much as a Corvette.  As for the third, I own one.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Use Rockomax-brand rockets to do it.

    Nah man, it's all about the Kerbodynes now.  Two stages to a Moho intercept.  Seemingly overpowered for now, but they cut part counts and we'll need them when Gas Planet 2 and its moons come out.

     

     


    I love that you average one post a month, and you wasted April's on this thread.



  • @Groaner said:

    Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.

    Yeah, although the Shelby is nicer (albeit pricey.) And they don't offer an auto, which is just pathetic.



  •  @bstorer said:

    I love that you average one post a month, and you wasted April's on this thread.

    The Monty Hall thread was more fun to watch than partake in, and I have little to add to the numerous threads on Firefox's imminent journey down the shitter, or the free-market debates.  Hence I lurk.

    But it makes me happy to see that you were able to keep Jeb alive that long while using craft like that.

     



  • @Groaner said:

    I've driven all three of the current-gen American muscle cars in that price range, and the Mustang is by far the worst (of the worst).  Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.  The Challenger is roomier and easier on the eyes, but its 5.7-liter is inadequate and there's too much body roll in the turns.  The SRT8 fixes those problems, but well-equipped it costs as much as a Corvette.  As for the third, I own one.

    You have a Chevy Cruze?! Did you opt for the 1.4L turbo, or the 1.8?

    Seriously, though, all of the American muscle cars feel so shoddy. The trim feels cheap, the suspensions are clumsy, and reliability is, well, non-existent. I know the 'Vette especially has made great strides of late, but it's still not where it ought to be. Call me when the Maloo comes to the US next year.



  • @bstorer said:

    You have a Chevy Cruze?! Did you opt for the 1.4L turbo, or the 1.8?

    Seriously, though, all of the American muscle cars feel so shoddy. The trim feels cheap, the suspensions are clumsy, and reliability is, well, non-existent. I know the 'Vette especially has made great strides of late, but it's still not where it ought to be. Call me when the Maloo comes to the US next year.

     

    The 1.8 of course.  There is no replacement for displacement.

    What reliability problems?  I'm 40k miles in and have had no major issues (and expect none until the powertrain warranty dies at 100k) - is there some dirty secret I should know about?  Sure, tires and brakes are more expensive, and fuel/maintenance costs are higher in general, but that's a fact of life for performance cars.

     



  • @Groaner said:

    @bstorer said:

    You have a Chevy Cruze?! Did you opt for the 1.4L turbo, or the 1.8?

    Seriously, though, all of the American muscle cars feel so shoddy. The trim feels cheap, the suspensions are clumsy, and reliability is, well, non-existent. I know the 'Vette especially has made great strides of late, but it's still not where it ought to be. Call me when the Maloo comes to the US next year.

     

    The 1.8 of course.  There is no replacement for displacement.

    What reliability problems?  I'm 40k miles in and have had no major issues (and expect none until the powertrain warranty dies at 100k) - is there some dirty secret I should know about?  Sure, tires and brakes are more expensive, and fuel/maintenance costs are higher in general, but that's a fact of life for performance cars.

     

    I don't think 100k miles is the great accomplishment it used to be. It's like a minimum nowadays, not a huge landmark. According to Consumer Reports, the Vette has seen markedly improved reliability the last couple years, but the Mustang is iffy, and the Challenger is downright hopeless. But what do you expect; it's a Dodge. I don't think I'd take a Dodge even if I only had to pay for the registration.


  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Groaner said:
    Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.

    Yeah, although the Shelby is nicer (albeit pricey.) And they don't offer an auto, which is just pathetic.

    I've heard a lot of criticism of the Shelby's suspension. There's always the supercharged Saleen to consider; I know they make an automatic. And the Roush with the ridiculously-named Aluminator engine is supposed to be a beast.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Groaner said:
    Cheap plastic interior, crappy handling... it quickly becomes obvious why it's the cheapest.

    Yeah, although the Shelby is nicer (albeit pricey.) And they don't offer an auto, which is just pathetic.

    I've heard a lot of criticism of the Shelby's suspension. There's always the supercharged Saleen to consider; I know they make an automatic. And the Roush with the ridiculously-named Aluminator engine is supposed to be a beast.

    I tend to agree that the interior of the current generation of Mustangs is just not attractive. I can deal with plain old hard plastic, but it needs to be tasteful. Today's Mustang just tries too hard to look like a 1960s Mustang, and that applies to both the interior and the exterior. I'm not interested in "retro."



    The previous generation of Mustang was better, in my opinion, even though it had less power at every trim level. It was more of what a Mustang should be: cheap, and as fast as possible in the quarter mile. People bitched about the 5-speed transmission, and lusted after the Borg-Warner T-56... the nice thing about the transmission Ford actually used was that it only required you to shift twice in the quarter mile, and was also a lot lighter then the T-56. That's good Mustang thinking.



    My feelings about the current Camaros are similar. I don't like the way the back looks. It's just not very creative or contemporary-looking. I liked the prior generation more. It was contemporary, and fast, in a cheap way.



    The Dodge musclecars seem pretty decent to me, other than being Chryslers. They didn't really have a prior generation.



    I doubt any of these cars truly have a reliability problem. People tend to drive them hard, and they generally start up and run well anyway.



  • @bridget99 said:



    I doubt any of these cars truly have a reliability problem. People tend to drive them hard, and they generally start up and run well anyway.

    This doesn't make sense. I'm not suggesting any of them is a Yugo, likely to have the rear fender fall off during the test drive (which actually happened to my father). Pretty much any car will give you a solid first 40,000 (except, of course, for my TDI Jetta about 8 years ago, which required a team of techs to be flown in from Germany to see if they could fix it, before it was even out of the bumper-to-bumper warranty). But there are clearly cars that last longer and have fewer issues than others, and American cars are unquestionably not near the top of that list. There's a reason American cars tend to lose value on the used market far sooner than their Japanese counterparts. There are sixty billion Camrys out there because they're fucking bulletproof.

    And the entire Chrysler family of brands is routinely at the bottom of reliability lists. The fact that they merged with Fiat, a company known for their own utterly unreliable cars, is just hilarious.



  • @bstorer said:

    likely to have the rear fender fall off during the test drive (which actually happened to my father).

    Your father's rear fender fell off while someone was test driving him?

    @bstorer said:

    ..and American cars are unquestionably not near the top of that list.

    Eh, depends on the car. American sports cars aren't very reliable, but I've known plenty of pickups that have run for decades. Even the domestic econoboxes nowadays are pretty rock-solid.

    Meanwhile, I had a Benz which was a fabulously reliable car, but was expensive as hell to maintain once it got out from under warranty. Six hundred bucks to change oil, belts and pads.. shit.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I've known plenty of pickups that have run for decades
    Oh, Americans clearly rule the pickup market. Toyota somehow botched the Tundra, despite basing it on the nigh indestructable Hilux. The only thing that gives me pause on the pickups is that everyone agrees that American pickups are the best, but they disagree on which ones. The only war more likely to go nuclear than Pakistan/India is Ford/GM. But there's hope! When the Holden Maloo gets here, everything will be perfect forever.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Even the domestic econoboxes nowadays are pretty rock-solid.

    Look, I'm not just making anecdotal generalizations here, people. I am stating this based upon analysis of vehicle reliability. THERE IS SCIENCE BEHIND MY WORDS!

    I am not just shitting on American cars (except Dodges, because it is mathematically proven that they're fucking terrible). I've had a few good American cars, and the worst car I've ever owned was the aforementioned VW Jetta. But I'd rather have an M3 or S4 than the American sports cars (though the Z06 is a great step forward after the terrible late-90s Vettes). Maybe I'm just in some sort of pre-mid-life crisis where sports sedans appeal to me.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Meanwhile, I had a Benz which was a fabulously reliable car, but was expensive as hell to maintain once it got out from under warranty. Six hundred bucks to change oil, belts and pads.. shit.

    The latest Consumer Reports brand reliability rankings actually have the German brands in the middle of the pack (other than Audi). I wonder whether this is influenced by the perception that more expensive cars should be more reliable, so minor issues are over-reported. I don't know about CR's methodology to speak to that, though.



  • @bstorer said:

    Look, I'm not just making anecdotal generalizations here, people. I am stating this based upon analysis of vehicle reliability. THERE IS SCIENCE BEHIND MY WORDS!

    Yes, and the analysis shows that American economy cars to be fairly reliable.

    @bstorer said:

    The latest Consumer Reports brand reliability rankings actually have the German brands in the middle of the pack (other than Audi). I wonder whether this is influenced by the perception that more expensive cars should be more reliable, so minor issues are over-reported. I don't know about CR's methodology to speak to that, though.

    I dunno, CR is kind of this-and-thatness. The last time I read their reviews they were marking down the German cars because, I shit you not, the in-dash entertainment UI wasn't as "intuitive" as Sync. What the fuck? I mean, admittedly those things have become more complicated and I can understand being frustrated if one is badly-made, but really? We're gonna count "takes an extra click to switch to satellite radio" the same as "has piston skirts that snap off like they're made of Play-Doh"? Fuckin' priorities, CR.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:
    Look, I'm not just making anecdotal generalizations here, people. I am stating this based upon analysis of vehicle reliability. THERE IS SCIENCE BEHIND MY WORDS!

    Yes, and the analysis shows that American economy cars to be fairly reliable.

    Not compared to their foreign counterparts. Japanese cars score better in reliability than American ones across nearly every segment, including economy cars (Notable exceptions are pickups and large SUVs). Which is why I criticize the reliability of American cars. Compared to the market right now, they could be much better than they are. Yeah, on the scale of all cars ever, modern American cars are fucking great. They're way more reliable than a 1935 Hudson Terraplane, but that's not particularly informative.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @bstorer said:
    The latest Consumer Reports brand reliability rankings actually have the German brands in the middle of the pack (other than Audi). I wonder whether this is influenced by the perception that more expensive cars should be more reliable, so minor issues are over-reported. I don't know about CR's methodology to speak to that, though.

    I dunno, CR is kind of this-and-thatness. The last time I read their reviews they were marking down the German cars because, I shit you not, the in-dash entertainment UI wasn't as "intuitive" as Sync. What the fuck? I mean, admittedly those things have become more complicated and I can understand being frustrated if one is badly-made, but really? We're gonna count "takes an extra click to switch to satellite radio" the same as "has piston skirts that snap off like they're made of Play-Doh"? Fuckin' priorities, CR.

    I don't disagree with this in general; overall scores should be taken with a grain of salt and your own test drive. But I was referring specifically to their brand reliability ratings, not their overall vehicle scores.

    On a related note, the MyTouch Sync system is apparently super buggy (which contributed to Ford's markedly low reliability scores this year). That kinda makes it ridiculous to use it as a basis for comparison.



  • @bstorer said:

    Not compared to their foreign counterparts. Japanese cars score better in reliability than American ones across nearly every segment, including economy cars..

    What are you basing that on? Who is scoring them better and using what criteria?

    @bstorer said:

    On a related note, the MyTouch Sync system is apparently super buggy (which contributed to Ford's markedly low reliability scores this year). That kinda makes it ridiculous to use it as a basis for comparison.

    Yeah, this was a couple of years ago, when everyone thought Sync was the shit. Personally I don't want a mediocre MP3 player and out-of-date-before-it-rolls-out-of-the-factory GPS integrated into the damn car. Just give me bluetooth audio, an aux port and somewhere to put my phone, which is what's going to immediately fulfill any and all functions of the fucking in-dash system.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Even the domestic econoboxes nowadays are pretty rock-solid.

    Look, I'm not just making anecdotal generalizations here, people. I am stating this based upon analysis of vehicle reliability. THERE IS SCIENCE BEHIND MY WORDS!

    Next you'll be telling us how we're better off to have the ribbon.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:
    Not compared to their foreign counterparts. Japanese cars score better in reliability than American ones across nearly every segment, including economy cars..

    What are you basing that on? Who is scoring them better and using what criteria?

    Consumer Reports, J. D. Power, US News & World Report. Whether looking at brand overall reliability or at the top-ranked cars in reliability by segment. I'm not understanding the dissent here; this isn't exactly a shocking revelation. @morbiuswilters said:
    Personally I don't want a mediocre MP3 player and out-of-date-before-it-rolls-out-of-the-factory GPS integrated into the damn car. Just give me bluetooth audio, an aux port and somewhere to put my phone, which is what's going to immediately fulfill any and all functions of the fucking in-dash system.
    I'm more intrigued by the coming approach where the in-dash system is essentially an extension of your smartphone. That's all I really want from the car:a bigger smartphone interface that falls easily to hand while driving.



  • @bstorer said:

    @bridget99 said:


    I doubt any of these cars truly have a reliability problem. People tend to drive them hard, and they generally start up and run well anyway.

    This doesn't make sense. I'm not suggesting any of them is a Yugo, likely to have the rear fender fall off during the test drive (which actually happened to my father). Pretty much any car will give you a solid first 40,000 (except, of course, for my TDI Jetta about 8 years ago, which required a team of techs to be flown in from Germany to see if they could fix it, before it was even out of the bumper-to-bumper warranty). But there are clearly cars that last longer and have fewer issues than others, and American cars are unquestionably not near the top of that list. There's a reason American cars tend to lose value on the used market far sooner than their Japanese counterparts. There are sixty billion Camrys out there because they're fucking bulletproof.

    And the entire Chrysler family of brands is routinely at the bottom of reliability lists. The fact that they merged with Fiat, a company known for their own utterly unreliable cars, is just hilarious.

    The last Mustang I bought brand new survived something like 90 passes down the dragstrip... never needed so much as a clutch or even a brake pad. It's anecdotal, of course, but I doubt a Toyota Corolla or whatever would have acquitted itself quite so well. It gets back to that old saying about "different horses for different courses." And Camrys aren't all that bulletproof... they had an engine sludge problem a few years ago, and they've had head gasket issues like anything else. You're really just reiterating a stereotype in your comments.

    That said, I drive a Subaru at the moment and it does come pretty damned close to the "bulletproof" ideal.



  • @bridget99 said:

    The last Mustang I bought brand new survived something like 90 passes down the dragstrip... never needed so much as a clutch or even a brake pad. It's anecdotal, of course, but I doubt a Toyota Corolla or whatever would have acquitted itself quite so well. It gets back to that old saying about "different horses for different courses."
    Well obviously. But that says nothing for the reliability of the Mustang or against that of the Corolla. Horses for courses is the whole point: you can slap a hitch on a Honda CR-V and tow 1500 pounds. But you'd be a moron to do that day in and day out, because it wasn't built for that. Whether or not a Ford F-150 can do that reliably is not relevant. You ought to be comparing it to other vehicles with the same purpose and typical use patterns. When you do that, you find that the American cars are less reliable.@bridget99 said:
    You're really just reiterating a stereotype in your comments.
    Did I have a stroke or something? Do the things I write come out in some nonsense language or something? Because I've said approximately six million times that I'm basing this on reliability reports from various sources. I'm reiterating the research done by such organizations as US News and World Report, Consumer Reports, and J.D. Power. If there's a more authoritative source I should be using, please let me know. But until that time, you need to face facts: American cars right now score poorly in reliability right now. GM is the best of the bunch, and they're average to slightly above average. Ford is poor, and Chrysler is utterly dismal.
    @bridget99 said:
    That said, I drive a Subaru at the moment and it does come pretty damned close to the "bulletproof" ideal.
    I love Subarus, and so do the reliability reports. The Forrester is considered perhaps the most reliable vehicle on the road right now. The early reliability reports for the BRZ (and the Scion FRS) are pretty bad, though. Not sure if it's just working the kinks out of a new model, but I expected a little better from Toyota and Subaru. They both know how to build solid cars.



  • @bstorer said:

    BRZ
     

    @bstorer said:

    Scion FRS

    Ah, pretend sports cars!

    I have to wonder if there is some selection bias in those reliability measurements, though.  People with fast cars are probably more likely to go to the strip/track, no?  And given that it would likely kill the warranty/resale value of their car to be truthful about such activities, they're more likely to lie about it, right?  So then you have a subpopulation that on average pushes their cars much harder than the population at large, which then has a higher rate of failures due to higher average load.  I would imagine it would be difficult to filter those out, unless you restrict the survey to 70+ year old retirees in both groups.

     It's like the old myth that red cars have higher insurance premiums.



  • @Groaner said:

    @bstorer said:

    BRZ
     

    @bstorer said:

    Scion FRS

    Ah, pretend sports cars!

    I actually like the idea of the BRZ. It's not a sports car, obviously, but it's still able to give you a bit more fun for much less expense. It's no different in that regard than a Golf GTI or the V6 Mustang. The biggest mistake BMW has made with the Mini is upping the price so much that it's no longer in this range.

    @Groaner said:

    I have to wonder if there is some selection bias in those reliability measurements, though.  People with fast cars are probably more likely to go to the strip/track, no?  And given that it would likely kill the warranty/resale value of their car to be truthful about such activities, they're more likely to lie about it, right?  So then you have a subpopulation that on average pushes their cars much harder than the population at large, which then has a higher rate of failures due to higher average load.  I would imagine it would be difficult to filter those out, unless you restrict the survey to 70+ year old retirees in both groups.
    Which is why you compare reliability by class. At least then you'll get somewhat more even usage. But, yeah, there's no way to account for, oh, I dunno, let's say the overwhelming number of tards driving WRXs.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bridget99 said:
    So you better not touch my Social Security (which has grown into quite a pile of imaginary money) because I earned it and I'll need it.

    Ha ha, fuck you.

    @bridget99 said:

    It's probably immaterial, though, since President Obama and his cohorts at the Federal Reserve have made some very good monetary decisions over the last few years, and if we can just avoid undoing them, I think everything will turn out OK for me.

    Yes, making the dollar worthless is a good way to pretend to honor obligations while not actually honoring them.

     

    This. 

     I'm also early 40's, not a baby fucking boomer, not those young twats that won't get off my lawn and can't often think their way out of a wet paper bag because they get distracted by, well, everything, and... shit, senility strikes again.  Can't remember what the fuck I was going to say.

    Oh, yeah, the cars of the 80's sucked.  The Carter era ripped out their engines and replaced 'em with squirrels that just crapped all over your driveway.  Well, they kind of had to - Carter was the first one I remembered that tried the "making the dollar worthless" gambit.  And, though there were good things to say about some of the cars from the 60's and 70's, they really did pretty much suck though at least had some style and at least pretended to do something interesting.

    Especially if by "interesting" you mean "rattled a lot and got wrapped around telephone poles far too often because of their totally crappy handling."


  • BINNED

    @bridget99 said:

    6) They're relentlessly orthodox. This is the generation that decided that, instead of having civil discourse in person and flame wars on the Internet, we'd have no discourse in person, and turn the Internet into an over-moderated echo chamber. "Just make sure you wear a jimmy hat and act tolerant and everything will be OK... right... right??"

    These days, instead of flame wars, we do the internet's equivalent of burning heretics at the stake. For example, if someone says publicly that they are into astrology or are against feminism, everyone else will line up to call them an idiot or something worse.


  • BINNED

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    ...Yellen, is tapering off on the printing.

    I doubt it. Every time they've tried to taper, the equities bomb because the only thing keeping them levitating is the massive influx of cash. In fact, that's the only thing the printing is doing, other than driving high levels of inflation in food, energy and housing. But they're not going to let the stock market crash which means the printing will continue until something makes them stop.


    Not to mention that the microscopic interest rates are the only thing keeping the interest on the national debt from being higher than collectible tax revenue.



  •  I would not say that I hate them all. I would say that a good deal fit into the lines that you have drawn but they are not all that bad.



  • I found this on one of my phone's file servers:


    Click Here


Log in to reply