Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

No, its handing too much power to the insurance companies, and removing their incentive to make insurance a GOOD thing in order to attract customers.

And I agree, up to a point. Let me backtrack and say that maybe mandatory insurance itself isn't bad, but the current implementation is bad. But really, I don't remember it being horrible when it WAS NOT mandatory 20 years ago. In fact, things seemed to work better to me.

Same here- you just open yourself up to too much risk without it.

But wouldn't it be nice to be able to self-insure realistically? It used to be quite possible, but now in the age of big jury awards for a chipped nail, and huge medical bills for real injuries, it just isn't possible. And I think those changes have been encouraged by mandatory insurance (among other things- its hardly the sole cause.)

Its mainly the driver, I think. They know that the owner thinks the world of the vehicle and isn't going to use it as a bludgeon on the highway.

One NEEDS a change when the car becomes more expensive to maintain than a new one is to purchase. That doesn't happen for many, many years- even with a generic people-mover like an Accord. If you pick a car you like to start with, rather than one that bores you to insanity after 5 minutes like an Accord would, there's no reason to dump it every 2 years. Yes, CERTAIN conditions might arise (a child born so the 2-seater doesn't work anymore) but that doesn't happen over and over and over, car after car after car.

You can put a period after the word "day" and that sentence would be correct."

If it were a "know-nothing chestnut" then it would have been pounced on. But its a fairly well-proven and well-accepted fact that leasing is a losing proposition. If it weren't, then leasing companies wouldn't earn profits. Their profits have to come out of SOMEONE'S pocket- and that someone is the lessor.

I have found out the cheapest way to drive a vehicle, hands down, is to buy a good, relatively low mileage,5 or six year old car at a reasonable price, maintain it well, and drive it untill the repairs start getting frequent and/or expensive.

The last car I bought for my wife was a 1988 model, purchased 6 years old with 100,000 KM on it. A $30,000 plus car when new, I paid $5700 for it. It has served us well for 10 years and 146,000 aditional Kms. Total repair cost over 10 years have been roughly $2000, not including tires, oil and filter, tuneups, and brake linings. Add tires and brakes and it's still not much over $3000. When over a period of 2 months I had to do brakes, replace a brake line, repair the muffler, replace a hose clamp to stop a fuel leak,and the trunk closer motor failed, along with the headlight door motor, I decided it was time to look for another vehicle. I'll likely get $1000 for the old one. I just bought an 8 year old car with 90,000 km on it, in like new condition, for $5000. With any luck it will do us for another

100,000km or more, and another 5 to 8 years before the repair frequency/cost starts to tell me it's time to replace it.

Now, if nobody leased cars, there would be fewer low mileage late model cars for sale for me to buy.

There are a FEW circumstances where leasing a car makes more sense than buying, but they are few and far between. And buuying used very often makes more sense than buying new. You only drive a NEW car ONCE. When it leaves the dealer lot, it is immediately a USED car.

That's simply silly. Both are outstanding cars and a delight to drive but they are unusually expensive to maintain, even relative to their cost of purchase.

So any transaction in which one's opposite number earns money is a "loser"? We both know that isn't true. Ford made money on the '65 Mustang and lost it on the '82 Escort; by your reasoning this makes the Escort the better choice. Is auto finance a "losing proposition"? Is obtaining a mortgage to purchase a home, rather than saving for thirty years and paying cash for one a "losing proposition"?

The fact is that the ownership and operation of automobiles is almost always a "losing proposition". The vehicle owner almost always loses money while others - dealers, mechanics, body shop owners, banks, wholesalers, detailers, the fine folks at AutoZone - earn a profit. Leasing offers people the opportunity to absolutely fix their costs. Anybody who leased, say, an Isuzu Trooper around the Consumer Reports scandal, or an Audi 5000, or a mid-Nineties domestic automobile, "made out" in that they spent far less money to lease the vehicle than they would have spent to "own" it for a similar period.

Yes, leasing has been abused. Auto time purchase has been abused. Trade-in practices have been abused. Heck, before Monroney *cash purchase* was abused... and don't forget all those folks who waited a decade for their KdF-Wagen savings plans to come to fruition. As noted before, the knowledgeable buyer will pay less than the sucker no matter how he arranges the acquisition of the car.

And therefore not worthy to be owned or driven. I see nothing "outstanding" about a car that is unreliable and expensive to maintain, unless its a 1932 Duesenberg.

Nope- but any transaction where there is an EXTRA party making money compared to a similar transaction without the extra party is a loser for the buyer.

Not if you use the full life of the automobile. Its only a losing proposition when you throw money away- EITHER by selling soon when the resale value is much lower than the utility value of the car, or by leasing. Cars are unique in that regard because while they perform like other "durable goods," their value artifically falls off much faster than other durable goods in the first months (hours!) of ownership. But the curves converge again out at around 10-15 years of ownership.

If you just HAVE to have a different car every few years, it makes 100 times more sense to buy a 1-5 year old used car than to buy or lease new. Then you're the one taking advantage of the artifically low resale value.

this is really about him, it's just a bunch of buloney he's made up in the attempt to make a point.

******** You're right; this is not ONLY about me. It's about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of poor folks & families out there that it's very obvious YOU don't care about. YOU are what's WRONG with this country!!! ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Sure...if you don't STARVE to death first!!!! LOL!

--Geoff