Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah yes you do need 50 varieties of breakfast cereal. Breakfast cereal is a quick handy meal. Inexpensive, No refrigeration needed, just add milk. However taste is everything. There are types that I can't stand the flavor of. I would hate to be limited to say Apple jacks, Total(and any vitamin heavy cereal), Corn puffs, raisin bran(or any cereal with raisins or any dried fruit in it).
I'd still hardly call this a necessity.
One can always get used to one of the 3 brands or just make do without.
do you think our ancestors really cared all that much if they had to go without such choices - unlikely.
It seems that the excess of choice creates artificial wants and ego-puffing.
One can always get used to one of the 3 brands or just make do without.
do you think our ancestors really cared all that much if they had to go without such choices - unlikely.
It seems that the excess of choice creates artificial wants and ego-puffing.
We can all easily make do without.
LOL, nope does not work like that. I recently for instance tried 3 dishwasher detergents. All three cleaned equally well.
However One was cheapest but it produced the most worse scent of them all! It smelled like leomonade and poolwater. I probably would have switched to it if I could have been out the house while the dishwasher was going.
The other worked well but was expensive. Well I kinda want to spend my money on other things if possible.It also smelled the best.
The third was cheaper than the 2nd, but more expensive than the first. I could tolerate it's smell.
That is what choice does it allows you to find what works best for you. It allows you to make tradeoffs.
Our ancestors lived without cereal (that was a late 19th century invention). Sure there are other choices. I mean you could go for grits or oatmeal but neither is as fast as a bowl of cornflakes as both need to be cooked. You could go for fresh fruit but that does not store as well as cereal.
Choice allows people to be able to evaluate does the product work for me or not and how well does it work. It does no good to produce a product that no one wants or has little demand of. Even in the case of Cereal, it was choice that made it possible. People in the 19th centaury choose to eat corn flakes creating a new industry.
There are lots of food products like that. Food products that are more convient than other choices. A hurried worker can have a bowl of cereal a lot faster and easier than he could cook something. That is an form of effceitcy(the meal took less time to prepare).
for instance, many of the kids I meet these days (those that have the money) , have a standard mobile phone, an i-phone, an i-pad and probably a lap top as well.
point?
It's all about status and pecking order - encouraged by capitalist avarice.
so we can see that capitalism promotes greed even at an early age.
for instance, many of the kids I meet these days (those that have the money) , have a standard mobile phone, an i-phone, an i-pad and probably a lap top as well.
point?
It's all about status and pecking order - encouraged by capitalist avarice.
so we can see that capitalism promotes greed even at an early age.
this is bad IMO.
LOL that is one rich kid but honestly lets look at the advantages of each piece of tech.
Most people I know have one mobile phone(iphone or not). It allows you to be able to call anwhere, anytime and be contacted anywhere/anytime. This is a major improvement over public phones.
I-pad still a high end item, but they could hold more books than a library and they are a lot easier to carry than lots of books. Not to mention all their other advantages. Like email, video, voice, game ect...
Laptops(or atleast a computer is a needed item for school) and laptops are cheaper than desktops were in the 1990ies. Laptops take up less space than a desktop and the portabilty allows you to set it up anywhere. Honestly unless you are a gamer or doing something odd ball a laptop would serve most consumer needs better than a cheaper desktop hence why people pay more for them and why the consumer desktop is getting rarer.
so why do these 12 year old kids have all at the same time - and they only ever use them for facebook or games anyway.
It's all about status, and me, me , me!
ie: look how much more important I am than you, because I have more objects.
this is indoctrination at a young age, aided by the crooked desires of capitalism, greed and dark selfish lusts.
This must be rectified.
Ah why?
Each of thoose items has a differnt use. laptops for instance at the moment work better for printing but are less mobile than ipad or iphone. Great when you need to type a long document and have it on paper. Mobile printing in this day and age leaves a lot to be desired at times.
It is like being upset that there are many differnt kinds of nails and screws. Different kinds of knives ect.
Would you want some outside force limiting your choice to phone or computer? Makes no sense.
Cell Phones need to be small enough to fit in your pocket, ipads don't.
Ipads can be larger and easier for reading. I would hate to type an homework assignment on an Ipad, Kindle, or Nook. However all three are small enough to easily fit in a ladies purse or into a briefcase.
Laptops can be larger still with built in Keyboard for fast typeing.
Sure you could get a blue tooth keyboard and use the phone or the pad for some laptop tasks, but they are not as good at thoose tasks as a laptop. This is why communism is rather bad for advancing technology. With capitalism the user decides what products they will buy and thus can select the product that best fits thier need. With communism someone else decides what I may or may not have(and they may not fit needs).
So the kid could have an phone for when he is out in the street and parents need to contact him. There is a range of phones for instance(not all phones are iphones) and a range of cell phone plans.
The kid could use his ipad for his school books(a lot easier than lugging a heavy backpack around in my day). Or for enterainment when traveling. Some tablet devices can connect to the internet via 4g but not all(in fact not most--thoose connect via wifi which may or may not be available everywhere).
The kid could use his laptop at home and have the freedom to use it in whatever room he wants. Desktops don't travel well.
True in true communism there would be no central planning, but central planning is what makes society of any type work period. It would be impossible to despense with government without despensing with society and all it benfiets.
There will be a need to plan around inherent monopolies like roads and sewers but central planning implies one pair of underwear fits all.
Quote:
Which is best addressed via laws and remember a cartel only works if all memebers do so. If the price goes up and one memeber sells more than his share then the price will never go up as high as they all drove the price up. Opec members tend to pump more oil than opec wants at times.
That is what makes land so juicy. It has no direct competition and no one can completely dilute its value. There are few absolute cartels that society tolerates but anti-competitive acts are frequent and costly.
Quote:
They do have a capital reserve(the cows, eqiument , even raw manpower can all be sold to generate cash) and why not a profitable as before? There are all sorts of industries today that didn't exsist 10, 20, 30 years ago. Why not change from being a farmer to a programmer? Why not get a job at some other industry?
That isn't an issue when it spans a generation, but it sure is for a 45 year old.
Quote:
Well my city lacks rent controls(for better or for worse). If you raise the rent the tenants can move out and you will need to replace them with higher paying tenents. Housing is elastic too. Where I live rent can run as low as $500 to thousands per month. Tenants can also shack up(i.e. share the housing resource which splits the bill among a larger group). Property owners can choose to build more units(to increase profits) or take in renters. Most things are elastic. There are a few like healthcare are not but most resouces can be either subistuted or done with less/out.
Ground rents have no elasticity at all. In the more valuable locations, the ground is worth more than any building.
Quote:
That is the part of Marx I never figured out. How can any society work without some sort of goverment and once you have government you by default have some degree of control over what gets produced. From say the USSR total central planning to US tax policies(along with rules and regulations) all to some degree control what is produced.
Marx was a reactionary, not good for a practical implementation. His work in the descriptions of 19th century capitalism are first rate. He was also remarkably well educated in economic theory. There are flaws to discuss but the biggest one as you point out is that his solution is leaderless.
Quote:
Oh I agree about unregulated markets(a bad idea).
We could not agree more. How many people enjoy watching laissez faire basket ball or football? There are no free markets. They never remain free. A free market is like an untended garden and the biggest weed will win. A tended garden can be very productive just like a tended market system. It seems people become blind to all the laws that support competition, but its no different that the rules in sports meant to promote the athletic event we want to see.
The desire for consumer goods was characterized by fads for the most pricey goods as trophies of one’s wealth. The result was mercenary vulgarity. Wealthy Babbitts turning culture into a arena for shifting fashion to impress others. The largest factor defining status was the neighborhood where one’s home was located. Housing was not simply a basic living space “use value.” It established one’s position in society, duly enhanced by civic boosterism, public subsidy and infrastructure spending.
think of all the SUV's that drive around urban streets these days.
what is that about other than a statement of wealth and ego?
Everyone just wants to be the 'big man' and this exacerbates selfishness, bad attitude, and ultimately crime.
SUV's are big, but not that expensive (they start at $20K). I personally hate them but hey they have uses. For instance modern cars have no towing capacity SUV's that are body on frame do. SUV's can handle cargo better too, as well as offroad conditions. They also can haul more people than a car.
Anyway what drives the SUV craze is the desire to be in a larger car in case of a crash and the improved vision by being above the road. Also minivans are considered a bit unmacho compared to the SUV but are an alternative.
However trust me a Honda Smart or even my own little car cannot accommodate all needs. For instance children under 8 must ride in a child seat in my state and children under 12 cannot be transported in the front seat. If I had more than two children under 8 to transport, they would not fit in my car or frankly most cars on the market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
