A) Cycling is not the new golf. The article you speak of was a NY Times article (which alone any trend being spouted on the NY Times either indicates it is bogus or past its fresh date). Not only was it in the Times, it was relating to networking in Silicon Valley. Look - I live in Denver, and work in the business community...guess what - even for this cycling centric part of the country, golf still rules when it comes to planning ways to entertain clients. The problem with cycling, is that if anyone is actually serious enough about riding for a business to consider entertaining said client through cycling, then the ride pace is going to be too fast for long chats.

B) As for cycling, and its cost....I think the cost has increased substantially in part because the technology has increased substantially in the last 30 years compared the previous 60 years. I think as carbon bike push the technological limits, and as more consumers realize that except for a few standout engineering shops (Cannondale, Cervelo, Trek, Colnago etc...), most are nothing more than bike painters (think Ridley or Bianchi (sad to say it) at this point). This is going to result in bikes becoming harder to differentiate. To be honest, the cost of carbon is going to be the main driver for cost in the future, and if they ever, ever find a way to lay carbon without human labor, then the costs is going to plummet.

C) That being said, in theory, you could speck a bike that is still better than any of the early 70's bikes (which we were told retailed for $250.00 back then, $900.00 in today's dollars). The only difference is that it is not top of the line. And quite frankly, if you either are not interested in racing, it does not matter. I wish we could get this through the heads of so many of the people on this forum...pay attention to your legs, and less attention to the cranks your legs are attached to.