Unfortunately, we don’t find that governments unconcerned with re-election (e.g. dictatorships) tend to be especially good in matters of resource allocation and pollution.
By allowing people the freedom to decide on their own which resources they want to utilize based on where they want to spend their money? And by allowing the price of those resources to fluctuate in response to their availability and demand?
So, do we then rely on the civic virtue of businessmen to restrain themselves from using their power and wealth to influence government in ways that benefit their own selfish interests to the detriment of the public good?
Free Market Mouseketeers are sternly disapproving when it comes to government interference with business, but seem rather muted in their concerns when it comes to business interfering with government.
IOW, you gots nuffin. Well, that’s hardly surprising. Thanks for playing though…we have some nice parting gifts, including this fine ceramic dog…
-XT
Certainly paltry in comparison to the volumes of erudite citation you have brought to the discussion.
Similarly, you don’t see all that concerned that Obama was bought and paid for by the unions.
In any event, I think the basics of democracy itself do a good job of stopping undue interference by any group on the government. If the people feel that a candidate or party has been unduly influenced by any group, they can vote for the other candidate or party.
The irony burns like the fires of 10000 suns. I must bow to your superior abilities to make content free posts AND insult and belittle people on subjects you obviously haven’t a clue about, all while avoiding any kind of mod spankage. You are a Real American Hero queue Bud-light sing-a-long
-XT
I’ve got to agree with those who have responded to you. I can see the potential for a coherent argument somewhere behind your comments, but you are not actually making it and your use of belittling phrases, (that do not even seem to have cultural history or even alliteration to support them), are simply driving this thread toward a Pit Lite rant.
= = =
Mind you, the majority of the posts in this thread appear to be pretty content free, but more thought and fewer insults might turn this into an interesting discussion.
[ /Modding ]
I object! ATMB? Is that the correct “bitchin’ about mods” forum?
This is also does nothing to keep the discussion on track or to keep down the unnecessary heat.
[ /Moderating ]
Ah, I see it’s been taken care of. Fair enough. Will tone it down.
-XT
The pressure should be easy. You don’t contribute to society, society doesn’t contribute to you. You want to spend that money you earned? You better be giving it back to society. Ultimately every evil in the world comes from selfishness. But society doesn’t really want to get rid of evil, just give people what they want.
As far as I’m concerned, if you make more money than you need, but don’t use that money to help others, you are an immoral fuck. Since all your money exists because we as a society have deemed to give it to you, we should have the same power to take it away. But we don’t. Because people use emotions like the “right to own whatever I want” as justification to let the rich control the poor. And until society negates that, there will always be evil in the world. And as long as there is evil, there will be unhappines.
You don’t want to give out of altruism? Then your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is forfeit.
It’s precisely because this is not the case that immoral greedy fucks can control the world.
As for the whole “no such thing as manufactured demand” thing: again, bullshit. Let’s take a nice example from my own life.
When I was a kid, saw a commercial for a “flash screen”, a toy that really appealed to me. Before I saw the commercial, did I feel I wanted that item? Of course not. Now that I’ve seen it? I do. Ta-da: manufactured demand. What I didn’t want before, I now do.
Yesterday I bought a bag of potato chips. I did not need that bag of potato chips. Therefore, I had more money than I needed, since I spent it on something I didn’t. Worse, I ate the bag of chips myself, as opposed to using it to help others. This means that, by your terms stated here, I am the very definition of an immoral fuck, based solely on the fact I bought and ate potato chips.
This inspires two reactions. One, since I’m already an immoral fuck, I might as well start going around killing people, since I’m a terrible person anyway. Secondly, I think you are falling into the same trap as the OP - you’re using the undefined difference between “want” and “need” as a basis for value judgements without stating what that difference is. (Though frankly your value judgement here is a lot more extreme than the OPs.)
Personally I don’t think this thread is really about rich people and their gold-plated toilet seats. I think it’s about me and my oversized (as in, non-zero) DVD collection. It’s about the fact I have several boxes of computer games. It’s about the fact that I (and lots of other people) find it easy to spend money I should be saving on things less morally upstanding than stopping world peace.
And by that view of this thread, you’ve just called 99.999% of people immoral fucks, including yourself, because you’re frivolously wasting precious electricity and bandwidth to post on this forum. Which seems a bit overbroad of a criticism to me.
Just to briefly add to what begbert2 said:
You have now defined every single innovation ever produced by human beings as ‘manufactured demand’. Didn’t know about that ‘fire’ thingy? Well, you didn’t know you needed it until you were shown it…the demand was manufactured (we got along just fine before it was discovered, after all). Didn’t know about those new fangled copper axe blades? Well, stone was good enough before that (of course, there was a time before that was discovered too, and the demand for flint axes was manufactured!). Bronze schmonze! Copper was good enough for my pappy, and I didn’t know I needed any of that bronze stuff before someone showed it to me and manufactured my demand for it!
It’s a silly way of defining the term.
And, FTR, I’m in begbert2’s 99.999%…as are you. Ironic, no? Here’s a paddle…start rowing…
-XT
Advertising provides a list of reasons why you should want a product. Some of them are facts about the product, and some of them are emotional manipulation. Beer can have fewer calories (fact) or it could be associated with the Swedish Bikini Team (not so much of a fact.) Toy ads from when I was a kid had the toys in elaborate setups that no kid would ever use, and often made the toys look like they did stuff they didn’t do. I got burned by this. Most kids back then did.
No way we should restrict manufacturing or product development in any way. If we wanted to reduce useless consumption, all we’d have to do is require advertising to be literally truthful. If after reading about something you decide you need it, fine with me. Most (but not all) advertising in the tech industry works this way, and things get sold just fine.
BTW, if you think people buy only what they can afford as you said on page 1, you must have been asleep before the housing bubble burst. I do, but I know plenty of people who don’t.
Sure, I agree. That’s what marketing is all about.
If what I said came out this way then it wasn’t what I intended. I’m well aware that people often buy much more than they can afford. I’m not sure which of my statements lead you to believe this is what I meant, so if you quote it I might be able to translate. It’s always possible I was less than coherent when I wrote whatever I wrote there.
-XT
This would be tricky to enforce, though, especially for television ads. You have somebody talking about the product to describe it to the viewers; must that person be Ben Stein, or can it be a vivacious perky and beautiful lady? With a low neckline? You’re within your rights to depict the proper use of the product; can the Swedish Bikini Team be the ones depicting the proper way to drink? Which presumably includes doing it while having a great time at a wild beach party, since staring morosely into your cups is not the manufacturer recommended usage, right?
Even with toys this could become an issue, because there are a number of television serieses that are basically twenty-two minute toy commercials. Okay, that transformer there is basically an unposeable statue - but it’s a representation of the much-more-mobile animated character; is it inaccurate to show the character the toy is a representation of? Or do we take it further and, noting that the shows are basically commercials, do we require that the characters in the show be accurate representation of the toys? (Eight inches tall and unable to move without human help - that’d be an awesome show!)
I think this makes my point; in order to leave sufficient lattitude to accurately represent the product (or not wander into absurdity), you’re almost forced to allow a certain amount of, shall we say, ‘liberal presentation’ of the product. And from there it’s a short step to having the Swedish Bikini Team tossing down a cold one with Optimus Prime.
That would be the least of the problems with my proposal - there is that pesky Constitution also. My point is really that admen do manufacture need, and that if we really cared about this issue this is a far better way to address it than forbidding the manufacturing of any particular product.
Actually the rules used to say, at least, that toys must be shown realistically, and that they could not be advertised on the programs based on the toys. (My kids are well passed this age, so this might have changed.) Sure, the programs inspire toy purchases, but so did the Star Wars movies.
Why? Prescription drug ads, for the most part, manage to stick to the facts reasonably well. Consider the difference between Viagra ads and Smiling Bob ads.
The real problem with my proposal, and with all to cut consumption, is that proponents must figure out how to keep people employed after production is cut. The Bush administration did a marvelous job in cutting consumption and increasing the savings rate by throwing lots of people out of work and making credit tight for the rest. Is that what we want in the long term? I buy a new care ever dozen years if I need one or not - if everyone’s consumption patterns were like mine we’d be in a real mess.