For an acquisitive Wall Streeter, the money saved by choosing a practical car can be put toward the cost of some pricier means of mobility - like a plane.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The auto industry must acknowledge that a rational transportation policy should seek a balance between individual convenience, the efficient use of limited resources, and urban-living values that protect spaciousness, natural beauty, and human-scale mobility.
I love the practicality of a good car. You know what I mean? And when I say 'practicality,' I mean the complete practicality of a Ferrari 458, a wonderfully fantastic every day car.
Building a road might create temporary jobs, but does it really create wealth if it doesn't also shorten commute times or otherwise make society better off?
Those who do not need to provide or have not built the vehicles of their own sustenance can afford to be less hardworking and driven than those who carry the burden of necessity.
We believe that there are many buyers who want a stylish, sporty car that sends a positive message about their concern for the environment as they drive it down the street.
You have to think about whether that Mercedes-Benz you have is actually worth how much it costs to you.
I had the notion that, OK, so now we have all of this wealth, we could buy not only one expensive car, we could buy all of them. As soon as you realize that you could buy all of them, then none of them are particularly interesting or satisfying.
Flying cars are not a very efficient way to move things from one point to another.
A car for every purse and purpose.
It turns out that if you optimize the performance of a car and of an airplane, they are very far away in terms of mechanical features. So you can make a flying car. But they are not very good planes, and they are not very good cars.