Just reading a list of inventions from 19th century through to today.
It appears as if there is a major technical invention every 3-5 years from about 1800-1990. Starting in 1990, technical progress seems to hit a brick wall and the pace of invention seems to die off, continuing through to today.
The one possible exception is bio/drugs.
This is partly due to my own interpretation of what is a "big" invention. I don't actually think Google or YouTube or most "internet inventions" are particularly major inventions. Buying a $2000 computer every 2 years + a $50/month internet connection so you don't have to maintain a home reference library at a few hundred dollars per month... hmmmmmmmm...
The Dark Ages Are Already Here???
I think we have to many dis-incentives currently...
I think Google and YouTube are just the edge of the larger change that's been slowly happening. The resistance to book public domain scanning has been strange.
Gutenberg's printing press led to a revolution. Sure some monks and academics didn't like the spread of literature as it stole a bit of their power and prestige as gatekeepers, but spread it did. The internet for all it's promise has more than a few groups holding it back. Media companies want to sell physical products and are resisting, political and religious groups want to censor that which they disagree with, etc. It could be the universal source of knowledge, a giant entertainment Jukebox, etc. but "everyone" wants it to obey their rules, not disrupt their businesses, not challenge their beliefs, and so forth. It's potential is still there, realizing it though is going to be slow.
I think cheap fuel is also holding back technology. That will have to change as peak oil is inevitable, but for now it's still life in the bubble.
I think Google and YouTube are just the edge of the larger change that's been slowly happening. The resistance to book public domain scanning has been strange.
Gutenberg's printing press led to a revolution. Sure some monks and academics didn't like the spread of literature as it stole a bit of their power and prestige as gatekeepers, but spread it did. The internet for all it's promise has more than a few groups holding it back. Media companies want to sell physical products and are resisting, political and religious groups want to censor that which they disagree with, etc. It could be the universal source of knowledge, a giant entertainment Jukebox, etc. but "everyone" wants it to obey their rules, not disrupt their businesses, not challenge their beliefs, and so forth. It's potential is still there, realizing it though is going to be slow.
I think cheap fuel is also holding back technology. That will have to change as peak oil is inevitable, but for now it's still life in the bubble.
@methix -- I'm excited by the prospect of a public domain/giant Jukebox future. Imagine also what would happen if a large portion of popular artists/writers/filmmakers were ERE--that is, if they weren't needing to pay rent with their next, rushed, pandering project, but were rather free to express without over-regard for the marketplace. As someone with creative leanings, this is a compelling vision indeed.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"I don't actually think Google or YouTube or most "internet inventions" are particularly major inventions. Buying a $2000 computer every 2 years + a $50/month internet connection so you don't have to maintain a home reference library at a few hundred dollars per month... "
I see the internet as being a bigger deal than this suggests, DP. A home reference library is a collection of books. The internet permits interaction with the people you are learning from. Many people learn far more effectively when interaction is part of the experience (this is part of the reason why it is better to hear a great teacher in person rather than just to read his or her book). So I see the potential here as being huge.
Rob
I see the internet as being a bigger deal than this suggests, DP. A home reference library is a collection of books. The internet permits interaction with the people you are learning from. Many people learn far more effectively when interaction is part of the experience (this is part of the reason why it is better to hear a great teacher in person rather than just to read his or her book). So I see the potential here as being huge.
Rob
@TheDude - the internet is really only open to those who can afford it. As you can imagine huge swaths of the world are not on the internet.
I actually think that the prior system of "physical" distribution of knowledge was better off for the developing world and poor.
For instance an encyclopedia set is much cheaper than a laptop + monthly internet charges. In fact you can build a pretty serious reference library for what you pay for a laptop + monthly internet charges.
I do in general believe that the Internet as an invention was big, right up there with steam engine, combustion engine, etc.
My problem is that now it seems as if all of our smartest minds are "internet-izing" things, which often offers very little value to society. Facebook is my classic example here, it offers only a little more than an address book + actually phoning people (one could argue it has a negative impact on society).
Instead these great brains could be solving much harder problems that exist in the world.
I actually think that the prior system of "physical" distribution of knowledge was better off for the developing world and poor.
For instance an encyclopedia set is much cheaper than a laptop + monthly internet charges. In fact you can build a pretty serious reference library for what you pay for a laptop + monthly internet charges.
I do in general believe that the Internet as an invention was big, right up there with steam engine, combustion engine, etc.
My problem is that now it seems as if all of our smartest minds are "internet-izing" things, which often offers very little value to society. Facebook is my classic example here, it offers only a little more than an address book + actually phoning people (one could argue it has a negative impact on society).
Instead these great brains could be solving much harder problems that exist in the world.
@dpmorel In poorer countries, internet cafes seem much more popular than in countries where computer ownership is more common. So, I wouldn't entirely count out those who are poor but not in complete poverty from having internet access. I do agree that bright minds could stand to be a little less focused on internet startups / finance in favor of science, but that's the free market I guess.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17120
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I consider the internet to be a revolution on par with the printing press---greater than telephones. That said, I do have a take on the Dark Ages; there's a section in the book on it.
I also submit that the rate of innovation is slowing down. The industrial world paradigm is very advanced and in a stagnant stage. Due to specialization most people actually ARE in the Dark Ages. The only thing that is holding civilization up is the system we built. Individually, humans are woefully incompetent to an almost scary degree. Individually, most people are superstitious and worship technology. The technology are controlled by a small part of the population, scientists and engineers. This is really no different from witch doctors. People believe that scientists and engineers can magically solve all their problems. The faith in this is immense. Rather than believing in a world where Gods are above humans. The myth is now that of infinite human progress. We are in the Dark Ages of enlightenment. We have all the benefits, but we no longer have any of the understanding. If I may bring in some politics, you see a similar problem when people have forgotten the intentions of the Constitution and use and abuse it according to whatever is expedient. This civilization has become weak.
I also submit that the rate of innovation is slowing down. The industrial world paradigm is very advanced and in a stagnant stage. Due to specialization most people actually ARE in the Dark Ages. The only thing that is holding civilization up is the system we built. Individually, humans are woefully incompetent to an almost scary degree. Individually, most people are superstitious and worship technology. The technology are controlled by a small part of the population, scientists and engineers. This is really no different from witch doctors. People believe that scientists and engineers can magically solve all their problems. The faith in this is immense. Rather than believing in a world where Gods are above humans. The myth is now that of infinite human progress. We are in the Dark Ages of enlightenment. We have all the benefits, but we no longer have any of the understanding. If I may bring in some politics, you see a similar problem when people have forgotten the intentions of the Constitution and use and abuse it according to whatever is expedient. This civilization has become weak.
We are in a Dark Age because humanity has reached the point where next stages of advancement are so difficult or morally contentious. CERN cost over 10 billion dollars and while the questions it could answer are huge, compare it to the oil drop experiment and the questions that experiment answered. Research in cloning and stem cell research could potentially have the largest positive affect on humanity, but are stymied by ethical concerns.
The internet is huge and its effect on society will continue endlessly. Its a tango between us molding what the web does for our lives and it molding us and how we live life. The internet is the next stage of the destruction of time and space after the telegraph and printing press and we have only begun to understand its effect.
The problems in the world right now and have not been for a long time, technological. They are political, cultural and moral solvable. But because they are cultural, political or moral they are unsolvable. Because of this technology will be used for superficial means like facebook and 3D televisions.
The internet is huge and its effect on society will continue endlessly. Its a tango between us molding what the web does for our lives and it molding us and how we live life. The internet is the next stage of the destruction of time and space after the telegraph and printing press and we have only begun to understand its effect.
The problems in the world right now and have not been for a long time, technological. They are political, cultural and moral solvable. But because they are cultural, political or moral they are unsolvable. Because of this technology will be used for superficial means like facebook and 3D televisions.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17120
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Jon - That is a very good point. Technology/science are about 500 years ahead of the other fields of human understanding.
I think to some degree that is because methods now exist to make it possible to rely on the scientific and technological understanding of the few (mass production).
Similar distribution methods do not exist for sociology, morals, ethics, etc. In many ways those cater to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest.
I think to some degree that is because methods now exist to make it possible to rely on the scientific and technological understanding of the few (mass production).
Similar distribution methods do not exist for sociology, morals, ethics, etc. In many ways those cater to the lowest common denominator rather than the highest.
-
GetLaidOff
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:23 am
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_t ... ation.html
(Oops.. posted the wrong link the first time.)
Very compelling, but I'm wondering if there are drawbacks to this approach..
(Oops.. posted the wrong link the first time.)
Very compelling, but I'm wondering if there are drawbacks to this approach..
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"Shouldn't teaching then be done in person???? Surely stats must show that actually talking to somebody in person makes learning much richer??"
My thought is that the best education would be done in person. But that's also the most expensive form of education. A great teacher can only interact with so many students in a given amount of time. For practical reasons there are limits to how much learning can be achieved through one-on-one instruction.
A book written by a great teacher comes at only a fraction of the cost of a personal appearance. And, if the reader is motivated enough, a book can offer even greater benefits (because it can be reread whole the personal interaction is a one-time thing). But few students are sufficiently motivated to put the effort into reading a book needed to get the same experience that would come from a personal interaction (in fact, a large percentage of the books purchased are never read a single time -- a book that sits on a shelf is obviously not providing much of a learning experience).
The internet IN THEORY (not in reality today in most cases) provides the best of both worlds. Say that the goal is to teach John Bogle's views on investing. On the internet, you could start by reading his most important speeches (there is a web site that contains the texts of them). That gives you the book experience.
Then you could go to the Bogleheads.org discussion board. There you could ask any questions you have and start threads teasing out the implications of ideas not examined in depth in the speeches. Best of all, you could make friends with people who follow these principles. There's real magic in that. People TRUST friends in ways that they do not trust book authors. That means that they will let their hair down with them and ask the questions that really trouble them, which in many cases relate to things that the author of the book never even considered (not because he is dumb but because he comes from a different set of life experiences).
The internet COULD be used to revolutionize the learning process, in my view. When that happens, it is going to bring on growth in every field of human endeavor. The multiplier effect here is potentially so big that we cannot estimate how big it is today.
We're not there yet because this stuff is no new that we haven't had a chance to take it in and get serious about how to put it to its best use. Today there's a lot of anti-learning going on on the internet (many people use internet sites not to be exposed to new ideas but to confirm existing biases because that is a more comforting experience in the short-term). Humans!
Rob
My thought is that the best education would be done in person. But that's also the most expensive form of education. A great teacher can only interact with so many students in a given amount of time. For practical reasons there are limits to how much learning can be achieved through one-on-one instruction.
A book written by a great teacher comes at only a fraction of the cost of a personal appearance. And, if the reader is motivated enough, a book can offer even greater benefits (because it can be reread whole the personal interaction is a one-time thing). But few students are sufficiently motivated to put the effort into reading a book needed to get the same experience that would come from a personal interaction (in fact, a large percentage of the books purchased are never read a single time -- a book that sits on a shelf is obviously not providing much of a learning experience).
The internet IN THEORY (not in reality today in most cases) provides the best of both worlds. Say that the goal is to teach John Bogle's views on investing. On the internet, you could start by reading his most important speeches (there is a web site that contains the texts of them). That gives you the book experience.
Then you could go to the Bogleheads.org discussion board. There you could ask any questions you have and start threads teasing out the implications of ideas not examined in depth in the speeches. Best of all, you could make friends with people who follow these principles. There's real magic in that. People TRUST friends in ways that they do not trust book authors. That means that they will let their hair down with them and ask the questions that really trouble them, which in many cases relate to things that the author of the book never even considered (not because he is dumb but because he comes from a different set of life experiences).
The internet COULD be used to revolutionize the learning process, in my view. When that happens, it is going to bring on growth in every field of human endeavor. The multiplier effect here is potentially so big that we cannot estimate how big it is today.
We're not there yet because this stuff is no new that we haven't had a chance to take it in and get serious about how to put it to its best use. Today there's a lot of anti-learning going on on the internet (many people use internet sites not to be exposed to new ideas but to confirm existing biases because that is a more comforting experience in the short-term). Humans!
Rob
@jon,@jacob - I wonder if the hypothesis that most periods of enlightenment require an initial major act of "invention" in sociology, morality, etc would hold true.
For instance:
...Confucianism->China's Longest Held Dynasty
...Islam->Islamic Golden Era
...Personal Liberty -> Period of Enlightenment
...Founding of US Constitution->American Greatness
...Civil Rights/Equality->"Current boom"
And so on.
I also wonder if studying the rate of "recent innovation" has a myopia problem. For instance, its hard to tell what major inventions were discovered until about 50 years after they were invented.
For instance:
...Confucianism->China's Longest Held Dynasty
...Islam->Islamic Golden Era
...Personal Liberty -> Period of Enlightenment
...Founding of US Constitution->American Greatness
...Civil Rights/Equality->"Current boom"
And so on.
I also wonder if studying the rate of "recent innovation" has a myopia problem. For instance, its hard to tell what major inventions were discovered until about 50 years after they were invented.
Actually on further reflection here is an interesting "fact". The rate of invention in health, pharma and biotech actually still seems to be quite high.
So I wonder if this is a *big issue*, e.g. re-aligning morale compass, over specialization, maturation curve of or civilization, etc...
Or if its a minor issue... sub-optimal allocation of resources.
So I wonder if this is a *big issue*, e.g. re-aligning morale compass, over specialization, maturation curve of or civilization, etc...
Or if its a minor issue... sub-optimal allocation of resources.
@dpmorel
You are seriously selling the internet short. The following is a list of things I can do in minutes on the internet. These things would have cost more, taken me hours or maybe not have been possible without the net:
1) Use Google Earth and Zillow to thoroughly examine a potential property purchase (what similar properties have sold for, property around my property, how long on the market, etc.)
2) Plan a trip and instantly get all possible flight times and cost.
3) Get dirt cheap 4-5 star hotel rooms.
4) Get way more info than any guide book can provide.
5) Change others lives (I'm sure Jacob has done this with his blog)
6) Buy individual stocks for less than $50 a transaction (it was higher than that at most major brokerages). This fee essentially eliminated the small investor.
7) Ensure the price I pay for a car is reasonable.
8) Easy access to cheap goods or goods not available in your area.
9) Research a subject and get up to the second information. Try Lexis-Nexis once, it makes encyclopedias look like a stone tablets.
10) See what 200 people had to say about a new product. Is it reliable? Does it do what it advertises? etc.
11) I would also argue that Google is 1,000 times more efficient looking up a reference than any home library.
I could go on and on and on. A nice reference library can do none of this.
You are seriously selling the internet short. The following is a list of things I can do in minutes on the internet. These things would have cost more, taken me hours or maybe not have been possible without the net:
1) Use Google Earth and Zillow to thoroughly examine a potential property purchase (what similar properties have sold for, property around my property, how long on the market, etc.)
2) Plan a trip and instantly get all possible flight times and cost.
3) Get dirt cheap 4-5 star hotel rooms.
4) Get way more info than any guide book can provide.
5) Change others lives (I'm sure Jacob has done this with his blog)
6) Buy individual stocks for less than $50 a transaction (it was higher than that at most major brokerages). This fee essentially eliminated the small investor.
7) Ensure the price I pay for a car is reasonable.
8) Easy access to cheap goods or goods not available in your area.
9) Research a subject and get up to the second information. Try Lexis-Nexis once, it makes encyclopedias look like a stone tablets.
10) See what 200 people had to say about a new product. Is it reliable? Does it do what it advertises? etc.
11) I would also argue that Google is 1,000 times more efficient looking up a reference than any home library.
I could go on and on and on. A nice reference library can do none of this.
@ Jon and Jacob
I never really thought about the issues like that, but it really makes sense. Our tech/science is way ahead of our other fields of human understanding.
Though, I'm not sure it will ever be possible for the other fields to catch up, as tech can be moved forward with just a few people making a choice. The other fields have to be moved forward by majorities mostly.
I never really thought about the issues like that, but it really makes sense. Our tech/science is way ahead of our other fields of human understanding.
Though, I'm not sure it will ever be possible for the other fields to catch up, as tech can be moved forward with just a few people making a choice. The other fields have to be moved forward by majorities mostly.
@Chad - the problem is that none of those things are free. In fact they are quite expensive. They are roughly $1500 every 2 years (for a computer) + $50/month for internet + maybe $20/month of subscriptions on the internet... this equals about $130/month.
You could have done each and every item on your list before the internet for far cheaper. Let me give you an example... buying a car. This is how I bought my first car:
1. I walked about 20 seconds to the convenient store on my street and bought copies of the Autotrader for about 30 cents each for the 3 major regions around me.
2. I went to 3-4 major car lots and looked at cars (which you should do even if buying off of the internet).
I also submit that this has created a global dual class structure the "Have Internets" and the "Have Not Internets". Unfortunately "nobody" is focused on low-tech solutions anymore for the several billion people who need these solutions more than middle class man who can absorb slight market place inefficiencies.
(nobody has exceptions like not for profit groups like engineers without borders... but capitalism is generally overallocating on the internet and less on the "no internet").
I also think Google's spam & ranking problems have made most google searches largely useless. I actually think that the library would be more efficient, have you never been frustratingly searching for hours on the internet for a basic piece of information? I get this all the time looking up baby stuff. "how often should my baby poo" - this is a non-trivial search on the internet, but a trivial search in medical reference.
One last point - commerce, travel & research existed before the internet. Some would argue they performed better before the internet age begun (I am for instance arguing that research & innovation is performing worse since the Internet).
You could have done each and every item on your list before the internet for far cheaper. Let me give you an example... buying a car. This is how I bought my first car:
1. I walked about 20 seconds to the convenient store on my street and bought copies of the Autotrader for about 30 cents each for the 3 major regions around me.
2. I went to 3-4 major car lots and looked at cars (which you should do even if buying off of the internet).
I also submit that this has created a global dual class structure the "Have Internets" and the "Have Not Internets". Unfortunately "nobody" is focused on low-tech solutions anymore for the several billion people who need these solutions more than middle class man who can absorb slight market place inefficiencies.
(nobody has exceptions like not for profit groups like engineers without borders... but capitalism is generally overallocating on the internet and less on the "no internet").
I also think Google's spam & ranking problems have made most google searches largely useless. I actually think that the library would be more efficient, have you never been frustratingly searching for hours on the internet for a basic piece of information? I get this all the time looking up baby stuff. "how often should my baby poo" - this is a non-trivial search on the internet, but a trivial search in medical reference.
One last point - commerce, travel & research existed before the internet. Some would argue they performed better before the internet age begun (I am for instance arguing that research & innovation is performing worse since the Internet).
Seriously Chad - I could kill that list on how it works in "non-internetized" world:
1. Travel planning & travel discounts - travel agents & phoning the actual airlines. Reading advertisements in newspapers for discounts, they run them in classifieds section. Booking travel on the internet is not fast! You compare multiple sites, look up reviews of hotels, etc. It takes me probably 2-3 hours to find a good priced hotel in NY if my one or two favourites are booked.
2. Buying property - real estate agents, friends who live in a local neighbourhood. Generally I stick to the idea that you should both look at properties in person and that you should ahve strong local knowledge where you buy property... or have someone you trust who has that knowledge. Google Earth doesn't see inside the house and Zillow does not replace real true local knowledge.
3. Getting reviews - consumer's review and the many other review magazines. Do internet review's even count? So many are bogus or not useful... I'd never even want 200.
4. Guide books - I think the best way to get advice is to talk to locals, esp local ex-pats which are easy to find if you simply find the local British/Irish Pub in the downtown section of a city. Guide books and online advice generally offer about 10% of what locals can.
5. Changing other's lives - I believe Martin Luther King, JFK, Tolstoi, and many other's rolled in their collective graves as you said this. But... you could simply get involved in community organizations and teach to other people in your locality. Or you could develop your writing skills and/or public speech skills and find your own pulpit to teach the word of whatever. In some ways blogging is actually a bad way to disseminate information. It has drove the value of good content to nothing, and put a premium on advertising/marketing within your content.
6. Easy access to cheap goods - mail order catalogues??? Local classifieds???
The only thing I don't have an answer for is stock trading fees. I argue that the price dropping isn't just because of the internet (it helped) but also due to retail banks, etc taking up stock trading and generally making trading more accessible to the average person. This may have happened independent of the internet. Hard to say. Another idea would be that higher stock trading fees would make people think more about how they buy stocks, virtually kill dollar cost averaging and "day trading". So maybe its a bad thing that the pay to play cost went away. Either way $50/transaction is a lot cheaper than buying a laptop.
1. Travel planning & travel discounts - travel agents & phoning the actual airlines. Reading advertisements in newspapers for discounts, they run them in classifieds section. Booking travel on the internet is not fast! You compare multiple sites, look up reviews of hotels, etc. It takes me probably 2-3 hours to find a good priced hotel in NY if my one or two favourites are booked.
2. Buying property - real estate agents, friends who live in a local neighbourhood. Generally I stick to the idea that you should both look at properties in person and that you should ahve strong local knowledge where you buy property... or have someone you trust who has that knowledge. Google Earth doesn't see inside the house and Zillow does not replace real true local knowledge.
3. Getting reviews - consumer's review and the many other review magazines. Do internet review's even count? So many are bogus or not useful... I'd never even want 200.
4. Guide books - I think the best way to get advice is to talk to locals, esp local ex-pats which are easy to find if you simply find the local British/Irish Pub in the downtown section of a city. Guide books and online advice generally offer about 10% of what locals can.
5. Changing other's lives - I believe Martin Luther King, JFK, Tolstoi, and many other's rolled in their collective graves as you said this. But... you could simply get involved in community organizations and teach to other people in your locality. Or you could develop your writing skills and/or public speech skills and find your own pulpit to teach the word of whatever. In some ways blogging is actually a bad way to disseminate information. It has drove the value of good content to nothing, and put a premium on advertising/marketing within your content.
6. Easy access to cheap goods - mail order catalogues??? Local classifieds???
The only thing I don't have an answer for is stock trading fees. I argue that the price dropping isn't just because of the internet (it helped) but also due to retail banks, etc taking up stock trading and generally making trading more accessible to the average person. This may have happened independent of the internet. Hard to say. Another idea would be that higher stock trading fees would make people think more about how they buy stocks, virtually kill dollar cost averaging and "day trading". So maybe its a bad thing that the pay to play cost went away. Either way $50/transaction is a lot cheaper than buying a laptop.
I'm a professional researcher. Basically, I couldn't do my job without the internet, or it would take me forever. Most of the projects I do are so specific and small they don't even have books on them or the info would be buried so deep in so many books it would take me weeks to go through the books.
Your dollar figures are way off for internet access.
- You do not need a $1,500 computer every two years. $1,500 buys you a nice gaming rig, which has way more horsepower than you need to research on the internet. Half that is even more than you really need. And, you don't need to replace it every two years. I have had my work laptop for 5 years and it was used by someone else before I ever got it. It still runs everything but high end graphics (only really in games) fine.
- $50 per month is also very high for an internet connection. I have never paid more than $30.
- $20 for subscriptions? Subscriptions to what? The only thing I mentioned that cost money was Lexis-Nexis. Now that is expensive, but most people won't need that level of data.
"1. I walked about 20 seconds to the convenient store on my street and bought copies of the Autotrader for about 30 cents each for the 3 major regions around me.
2. I went to 3-4 major car lots and looked at cars (which you should do even if buying off of the internet)."
I agree everyone should do this, but this is only the beginning. How much do those dealerships pay for those cars? I bet they didn't show you the invoice (a few will, but not many). How much do they pay for transportation to the dealership per car? What is a good profit to give the dealership? Etc. If buyer is getting this info from the dealer they are probably getting a bad deal, as the dealer is controling all the info (new cars).
"I also think Google's spam & ranking problems have made most google searches largely useless." - They do pose a problem, but you know it's there and can mitigate it or focus your search by using the proper search parameters.
Your dollar figures are way off for internet access.
- You do not need a $1,500 computer every two years. $1,500 buys you a nice gaming rig, which has way more horsepower than you need to research on the internet. Half that is even more than you really need. And, you don't need to replace it every two years. I have had my work laptop for 5 years and it was used by someone else before I ever got it. It still runs everything but high end graphics (only really in games) fine.
- $50 per month is also very high for an internet connection. I have never paid more than $30.
- $20 for subscriptions? Subscriptions to what? The only thing I mentioned that cost money was Lexis-Nexis. Now that is expensive, but most people won't need that level of data.
"1. I walked about 20 seconds to the convenient store on my street and bought copies of the Autotrader for about 30 cents each for the 3 major regions around me.
2. I went to 3-4 major car lots and looked at cars (which you should do even if buying off of the internet)."
I agree everyone should do this, but this is only the beginning. How much do those dealerships pay for those cars? I bet they didn't show you the invoice (a few will, but not many). How much do they pay for transportation to the dealership per car? What is a good profit to give the dealership? Etc. If buyer is getting this info from the dealer they are probably getting a bad deal, as the dealer is controling all the info (new cars).
"I also think Google's spam & ranking problems have made most google searches largely useless." - They do pose a problem, but you know it's there and can mitigate it or focus your search by using the proper search parameters.