Part 2, kinda

I guess I'm ranting here, but let's step back from this 'freedom to move around' argument and give it some space from 'freedom to own a car'. Moving around is a good thing - it breaks down barriers between 'tribes'. If you travel widely enough - and trade with the countries you visit - then it gets even better. If you have something you like, like a good trading partner, you keep 'em happy. So moving around and seeing what's on the other side of the hill is good.

It's also bad 'cause it means that you open your community to competition. Well some people see it as bad. That's why we see 'protectionist' policies - tariff barriers and import duties - and hot-headed lamenting about the 'good old days' when we made everything ourselves. Well it's true, we used to make (almost) everything in most '1st World' countries but because we are 1st World (don't like the term but can't think how else to express it) we don't do that anymore. We have evolved to a service-based economy. To go back to 'make it all here and damn the cost' will by definition drive up costs, reduce imports (what they want, essentially) and lower the standard of living - ie you'll drop to '2nd World' standards. This 1st, 2nd and 3rd World thing is horrible in prospect but essentially it simply describes the type of economy a country runs - an advanced 'service-oriented' high trade economy; or less advanced, less trade; or not very advanced at all with very little trade. We could try to modify these economies to get a better mix of protection vs free trade - it's been done before - but you always face competition with lower cost, more efficient economies. You will lose and go sliding backwards. So keep all that in mind as I press ahead.

Cars are a part of all this. They are an elaborately transformed good that empowers people to travel over a greater range than previously possible. As economies mature and go through this '1st-2nd-3rd World' hierarchy they get good at both making and buying cars and then come under pressure to let someone with a lower cost base make 'em instead; so you de-emphasise manufactured goods and get on with higher-tech and service-based industries. So you will see GM and Ford go down the tubes as Japan proves better at the game; then Japan will see Korea beat them; and then someone (probably China) will trump 'em all. For now.

So we end up with cheap, cheap, cheap cars but they are screaming around fouling the air and hitting things. Add in global warming and the increasing need to prop up inadequate road infrastructure, plus increased rates of obesity and diabetes and you can see that just letting everyone buy cars without due consequence has helped make us mobile and in some way more appreciative of our neighbours - whilst stuffing things up completely.

So what really matters here? The freedom of transport of course. What doesn't? The essence of differentiation in the car market - horsepower (or weight to power, or torque if you prefer). It matters when selling the car or truck but it actually doesn't give you any more freedom. Instead it's a trick, a con. We have compromised the hell out of safety and environmental impact to simply let car makers sell more cars. Don't be fooled by air bags and catalytic converters - these are poor compromises aimed at maximising the size of the market. And when you go to buy a car you choose irrationally. We all do.

More later.

Cheers, Rob.