Driving and economic theories
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
Driving and economic theories
I was bored and somehow made a connection between how people drive and economic thought. I know the comparison is not perfect, as there are only three theories presented, but like I said I was bored.
There are generally three types of drivers, the person who goes full tilt, cuts people off and generally drives recklessly (think of the young guns who just got their license), the person who drives conservatively (many older people fit this bill), and those who are so polite they cause traffic problems. How they line up with economic thought is:
The full tilt driver lines up with unrestrained cutthroat capitalism. They make lots of money fast. They also lose lots of money fast. They don't really care about the consequences of their actions. This type of thought is great for stock traders, but not business people selling a product or service to customers, because they tend to anger their customers who then leave for a better business. These types of businesses are responsible for the bad image of many large corporations, that essentially have a monopoly on a business segment.
The older drivers line up with the more prudent business models. They play by the rules, and let people into traffic. They don't go overboard one way or the other. The business gives back to the community it is located in, but doesn't give the store away. These people/businesses are considerate but realize their actions also effect those coming after them and take the needs of those behind them into consideration. These type people do well in customer service type industries. They also do well in economies that require businesses to monitor and balance their needs with the needs of society.
The last category I hadn't seen until the other day. This person was so "polite" that at every intersection they stopped to let someone out or go past. It was so bad that they had stopped in the right lane of a four lane divided road so someone coming the opposite direction could turn. It did not matter that there was heavy traffic in the left lane and the person turning could not. The driver sat there waiting until the person turned. I thought it was a fluke, but at every intersection where a person was waiting to turn this person stopped and let them out. This person had no consideration for those behind them. It did not matter to this person that if they had continued on their way, the person they were being considerate to would get out just as quickly. It did not matter to this person that their actions almost caused three accidents. This seems to go along with an economic system that gives away the goods of those who earned it to those who have not (socialism/communisim). Some might say that is a jump, but this is where I'm coming from. When you are driving on the main road and you do not have stop signs or yield signs you have the right of way. You have "earned" your right of way, by getting on the main road. If you are on a side road you are waiting your time to earn the right of way and the ability to not have to stop of other traffic coming onto the road. When you are poor/disadvantaged, you are either waiting your turn (working your butt off) to have money, or sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to just give you money (like this driver). This type of personality is great for charity work, but really doesn't work well for generating money, income, or wealth.
Unfortunately many in power now are working toward the last thought and not the second. The only way to have a thriving economy is to have a majority of people/businesses in the second category. This is not to say that the other two classes aren't needed only that the majority needs to be in the second. If the people/businesses from the first two classes are forced into the last class the economy breaks down.
If people are expecting the business they are working with to be in the second category, but it is really in the first they will get screwed. The typical response now is the government needs to do something. The correct response is what could I have done better to vet the business I was working with. If everybody entered into a business transaction with a new company with the mindset that this company is trying to screw me, they can only be pleasantly surprised. If everyone goes into a business transaction with the mindset that this business will give me a fair shake, they can only be disappointed. I had the unfortunately instance to talk with my niece's husband the other day. He was complaining that cell companies sell 4G services in areas that don't have 4G coverage (this idiot bought the plan and he doesn't get 4G where he lives or works). He was very upset and couldn't understand why they would do that. He thought the government should step in and stop the practice. I didn't feel the need to show him what an idiot he was, but we live within 40 minutes of areas that have 4G service. Many people who live in our area commute to these places to work.
There are generally three types of drivers, the person who goes full tilt, cuts people off and generally drives recklessly (think of the young guns who just got their license), the person who drives conservatively (many older people fit this bill), and those who are so polite they cause traffic problems. How they line up with economic thought is:
The full tilt driver lines up with unrestrained cutthroat capitalism. They make lots of money fast. They also lose lots of money fast. They don't really care about the consequences of their actions. This type of thought is great for stock traders, but not business people selling a product or service to customers, because they tend to anger their customers who then leave for a better business. These types of businesses are responsible for the bad image of many large corporations, that essentially have a monopoly on a business segment.
The older drivers line up with the more prudent business models. They play by the rules, and let people into traffic. They don't go overboard one way or the other. The business gives back to the community it is located in, but doesn't give the store away. These people/businesses are considerate but realize their actions also effect those coming after them and take the needs of those behind them into consideration. These type people do well in customer service type industries. They also do well in economies that require businesses to monitor and balance their needs with the needs of society.
The last category I hadn't seen until the other day. This person was so "polite" that at every intersection they stopped to let someone out or go past. It was so bad that they had stopped in the right lane of a four lane divided road so someone coming the opposite direction could turn. It did not matter that there was heavy traffic in the left lane and the person turning could not. The driver sat there waiting until the person turned. I thought it was a fluke, but at every intersection where a person was waiting to turn this person stopped and let them out. This person had no consideration for those behind them. It did not matter to this person that if they had continued on their way, the person they were being considerate to would get out just as quickly. It did not matter to this person that their actions almost caused three accidents. This seems to go along with an economic system that gives away the goods of those who earned it to those who have not (socialism/communisim). Some might say that is a jump, but this is where I'm coming from. When you are driving on the main road and you do not have stop signs or yield signs you have the right of way. You have "earned" your right of way, by getting on the main road. If you are on a side road you are waiting your time to earn the right of way and the ability to not have to stop of other traffic coming onto the road. When you are poor/disadvantaged, you are either waiting your turn (working your butt off) to have money, or sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to just give you money (like this driver). This type of personality is great for charity work, but really doesn't work well for generating money, income, or wealth.
Unfortunately many in power now are working toward the last thought and not the second. The only way to have a thriving economy is to have a majority of people/businesses in the second category. This is not to say that the other two classes aren't needed only that the majority needs to be in the second. If the people/businesses from the first two classes are forced into the last class the economy breaks down.
If people are expecting the business they are working with to be in the second category, but it is really in the first they will get screwed. The typical response now is the government needs to do something. The correct response is what could I have done better to vet the business I was working with. If everybody entered into a business transaction with a new company with the mindset that this company is trying to screw me, they can only be pleasantly surprised. If everyone goes into a business transaction with the mindset that this business will give me a fair shake, they can only be disappointed. I had the unfortunately instance to talk with my niece's husband the other day. He was complaining that cell companies sell 4G services in areas that don't have 4G coverage (this idiot bought the plan and he doesn't get 4G where he lives or works). He was very upset and couldn't understand why they would do that. He thought the government should step in and stop the practice. I didn't feel the need to show him what an idiot he was, but we live within 40 minutes of areas that have 4G service. Many people who live in our area commute to these places to work.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 691
Likes: 1
From: Gulf Coast
I didn't really address how the "maniac" driver gains and loses. My bad, sorry. I'm sure everyone has seen it where someone blows past you then you catch up at the next stop sign or light. That would be the make money/lose money equivalent.
