Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 555 posts

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#461

Post by airstrike »

flangola7 wrote: post #421
wiseowise wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people really have enthusiasm for nothing but making money. As long as those people have morals, what’s wrong with that?

Greed has long been understood to be fundamentally immoral by many civilizations and cultures throughout history.

It has also been understood to be fundamentally inherent to humanity as a consequence of our "need to survive", so trying to regulate it away is just inviting people to skirt said regulation

Since it's unavoidable, the best next thing is to design a system which takes greed as an input and outputs productivity. That system is called Capitalism and that is why it always wins.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#462

Post by gambiting »

ryandrake wrote: post #458
MandieD wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in Germany, a very large portion of new BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and even boring things like Toyotas and Fords are corporate leases, often driven by individual employees who get them at their employer's negotiated rates and sometimes as part of their compensation. This results in a fantastic pool of 3-4 year old cars with low odometers and scrupulous maintenance records, keeping the rest of the used market in c…

No matter how many times I read this, it just blows my mind. I can't believe how many people buy new cars--and then dump them right after the steepest part of the depreciation curve. I mean: Thank you, people, for making horrible financial decisions and eating all the depreciation, and then providing a nearly-new car to the market at a steep discount!

It's just that unfortunately the financial system is geared toward making this the "best" option. I don't know about Germany specifically but here for instance if you run a company you can't buy a car and expense it(or get a loan and expense payments for the loan), but a lease is technically a rental so you can expense it, which means that "renting" a brand new car for 3 years is actually cheaper for your company than buying it and keeping it for longer. So yes, you have loads of companies essentially paying for that worst depreciation period in a vehicle's lifetime and then immediately these cars hit the market again.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#463

Post by Marsymars »

windowshopping wrote: post #91
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

It's interesting how it takes reading someone else's writing to realize how little profanity adds to the substance of a comment. You never realize it when it's your own comment.

I’ve found profanity can add impact when I’m a regular reader of someone who normally doesn’t use profanity and I’m familiar with their normal lack of profanity.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#464

Post by kelnos »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #427
beerpls wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for being a voice of righteousness in a sea of simps. It’s hard to tell on this site, are people really this devoted to corps or are they shills? Even with what you said there are still so many people defending this behavior. The world is full of weak and/or deceitful people.

I am against the government deciding that contracts between two people are illegal. No one is forced to buy a mercedes. There is nothing even close to a monopoly when it comes to cars. If Mercedes wants to charge customers every time they push a button in their car, why should the government decide to stop them.

Then you must be against child labor laws, and laws that prohibit people selling themselves into slavery because they have few choices in the world.

Power imbalances mean that some people will use contracts to exploit others. Protecting people from that is valuable.

Certainly a Mercedes purchaser is not quite in the same league there, but it's not like we haven't heard of similar subscription ploys on lower-end cars too.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#465

Post by sokoloff »

wnevets wrote: post #189
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

> The average length of new car ownership in the US is between 8 and 11 years I would wager thats not actually true for Mercedes, they don't last that long before becoming a money pit. If you really want a Mercedes just lease then bail.

I've had excellent service from several Mercedes after buying them at 4-7 years because people believe they turn into money pits. Dealer service is expensive; the solution is to use an indy mechanic or DIY. (They're quite DIY friendly for consumables.)

I'm glad other people are willing to buy or lease them from new so there are cheap ones available secondhand.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#466

Post by ShroudedNight »

windowshopping wrote: post #91
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

It's interesting how it takes reading someone else's writing to realize how little profanity adds to the substance of a comment. You never realize it when it's your own comment.

I disagree, the information it communicates is visceral in nature rather than 'rational', but it provides a much broader cross-section of a person to relate to (or feel alienated from).

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#468

Post by vannevar »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #235
vannevar wrote: post #64

The first EV startup that emerges with a dumb EV (minimal software to actually operate) for around $30K will have a best-seller. Nobody actually wants the subscription-based car, it's gradually being forced on consumers via industry collusion.

When you say subscription-based car that just sounds like a lease, which is fine.

Sure, if you want to lease a car, lease a car. But the idea that I can buy a car but have to pay a subscription for heated seats is ridiculous. Not everything in our lives needs to be a subscription.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#469

Post by mwint »

z3ugma wrote: post #426
kulahan wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for you. I have no interest in paying for this subscription, but a trolley or tram or train would not solve my problem without an absolutely mind-boggling amount of infrastructure investment, and there are so many things I would rather pay for. I've never enjoyed public transit, here or in Europe. It's a pain in the ass to some degree, no matter how good it is. An individual car is the epitome of freedom, so yo…

> an absolutely mind-boggling amount of infrastructure investment You mean like roads?

Roads are stupid cheap compared to a certain Californian light rail project.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#470

Post by dragonwriter »

mwint wrote: post #469
z3ugma wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an absolutely mind-boggling amount of infrastructure investment You mean like roads?

Roads are stupid cheap compared to a certain Californian light rail project.

> Roads are stupid cheap compared to a certain Californian light rail project.

What California light rail project are you thinking of?

Post reply on HN