R
Riman643
Guest
Hey ralfy I have an economics book. Would you like me to send it to you?
- Status
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Has anyone noticed that we have slowly but surely changed over the decades from “citizens” to “consumers” the OP is extremely relevant to the capitalistic picture of the world that we participate in. Work for $$$ is important because it paints a picture of the accessibility to enhance the comfort-ability & therefore happiness for all humanity.
To rely on sheer market growth such as everyone from 18 to 100 with a job & perpetual growth of industry, coupled with endless ways to have consumers feel a need for something that is probably not a necessity, would most certainly stretch the non-renewable resources (on this planet at least) to breaking point. The real issue lies within our own perceptions of comfort-ability & happiness, what is it you think you need rather than what you want?
We will all have different reasons for our necessities & fair enough, we are all different & capitalism is the tool that makes or breaks us. Capitalism could work a whole better if we change the way we consume & our very own perception of necessity over wanting.
We the consumers have so much to do with the challenges humanity currently faces. The world of throw away items has to be curved as endless consumption of the unnecessary may be the last straw for us & the planet.
To rely on sheer market growth such as everyone from 18 to 100 with a job & perpetual growth of industry, coupled with endless ways to have consumers feel a need for something that is probably not a necessity, would most certainly stretch the non-renewable resources (on this planet at least) to breaking point. The real issue lies within our own perceptions of comfort-ability & happiness, what is it you think you need rather than what you want?
We will all have different reasons for our necessities & fair enough, we are all different & capitalism is the tool that makes or breaks us. Capitalism could work a whole better if we change the way we consume & our very own perception of necessity over wanting.
We the consumers have so much to do with the challenges humanity currently faces. The world of throw away items has to be curved as endless consumption of the unnecessary may be the last straw for us & the planet.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
They had minimal staffing; and students with variable schedules worked there - including those injunior college.
And this was in 1963.
And this was in 1963.
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
The catch with this is that you save from what you earn, but you earn if others buy. If they buy less, you earn less, which means you end up having less to save.
In addition, when you save by investing or lending it, which is what takes place with banks, then you can only get a return from that loan if the borrow uses it to make things or provide services to sell, and profits from those sales, which means others have to buy.
In addition, when you save by investing or lending it, which is what takes place with banks, then you can only get a return from that loan if the borrow uses it to make things or provide services to sell, and profits from those sales, which means others have to buy.
O
otjm
Guest
In the 1960’s there were two panics; one was that the world was going into another ice age, and the second was that population would grow exponentially but food supplies only arithmetically. Neither issue was shortly thereafter dismissed; it took some time n the population growth to show the rate of growth had actually slowed; and food production grew far faster than projected.I think we will be hearing people use that argument that “Climate always changes” for milleniums, and every time we will have to repeat this same counter argument
Both China and India are the top producers of pollution; getting rid of gasoline and natural gas sources of energy in the US will not impact that in the least.
And short of a complete overthrow of both the government and big business in Brazil ( A project the CIA is tottaly incompetent to accomplish) we are not likely to see a return to planting trees in any significant amount. Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and emit oxygen, and young trees are the most efficient at doing so. Yet the continued deforestation there (as it has the largest concentration) as well as elsewhere throughout the world would make an impact positively.
Studies done recently showing the amount of carbon emitted from mining through processing to make an all electric vehicle, and through its normal life span indicate that the equivalent gas powered vehicle actually accounts for somewhere between 10% and 25% less total carbon. And that does not include the fact that there are not currently sufficient known mineable metals (including but not limited to lithium) to even begin to approach a complete turnover from gasoline to all electric vehicles.
L
LilyM
Guest
There used to be just as many people employed fixing and restoring old stuff as making new stuff - because it was designed to last.and be fixed rather than scrapped within a split second.
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
Those may be explanations, but that doesn’t make it right. At the end of the day it’s still a company willingly making a choice that is directly detrimental to the customer. To use phones as an example, most people will buy a new one even if the one they currently has still works because the new one is flashier, more novel, and probably has some improvements over the previous one. Planned obsolescence is basically the company making sure that people who want to use the same phone for 15 years can’t because they specifically designed it to break down after 1.5 years.
As for your point about having more employees each year, for many companies it’s the opposite. Due to mechanization companies can double their productivity while still laying off employees. This isn’t the sole cause of unemployment but it’s a contributing factor.
As for your point about having more employees each year, for many companies it’s the opposite. Due to mechanization companies can double their productivity while still laying off employees. This isn’t the sole cause of unemployment but it’s a contributing factor.
Last edited:
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
Which is why it’s a trap.
In a hunter gatherer economy, for instance, if you need fur or meat, you go out and hunt.
You might hunt extra to tide you over in times of scarcity, or to help the weaker members of your tribe.
But the economy is local, and once your needs are met (which is the purpose of material objects), you stop working.
As opposed to going out and spending money on frivolous things like the latest shiny toys or restaurant meals to “stimulate” the economy .
If our economy can’t sustain itself with people who are savvy savers, then it’s not an economy based on anything stable.
I do a lot of thrift shopping and yard saleing and save a lot of money and still have pretty things.
And I’m spending my money the way I choose.
(And yard sales are tax free)
In a hunter gatherer economy, for instance, if you need fur or meat, you go out and hunt.
You might hunt extra to tide you over in times of scarcity, or to help the weaker members of your tribe.
But the economy is local, and once your needs are met (which is the purpose of material objects), you stop working.
As opposed to going out and spending money on frivolous things like the latest shiny toys or restaurant meals to “stimulate” the economy .
If our economy can’t sustain itself with people who are savvy savers, then it’s not an economy based on anything stable.
I do a lot of thrift shopping and yard saleing and save a lot of money and still have pretty things.
And I’m spending my money the way I choose.
(And yard sales are tax free)
N
new-kirishitan
Guest
I would consider consumerism as something close to gluttony, and gluttony is a sin.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Planned obsolescence is the worst idea corporations have ever implemented. It’s almost unbelievable that they have managed to keep it secret for so long. But now the cat is pretty much out of the bag, and any small company can now step forward and be the “innovator” who will “build things to last” and clean up on the slow moving giant corporations.
I’ve thought for many years now that the best advocate for socialism and communism is bad capitalism. Corporations in the US have a habit of sabotaging their future for short term gain. I blame the stock market culture and 401K culture for making this problem exponentially worse in recent decades. Is it no wonder then why socialism is sounding so appealing to many younger people lately.
I’ve thought for many years now that the best advocate for socialism and communism is bad capitalism. Corporations in the US have a habit of sabotaging their future for short term gain. I blame the stock market culture and 401K culture for making this problem exponentially worse in recent decades. Is it no wonder then why socialism is sounding so appealing to many younger people lately.
Last edited:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
About the first paragraph, I don’t know how it is relates to the topic. Climate change can also be a current “panic”, but, unlike those two other problems you mention, it is accumulative, because greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate if we don’t have carbon neutral emissions.
I wasn’t talking about just the US, all countries should be the most sustainable possible. Even if I did talk about the US, the US is the second country that emits more GHGs, only behind China, so, even if only the US tried to reduce its emissions, we could reduce a bit more than 10% of the current GHG, which is a lot. That’s not the case, however, as I was talking worldwide.
I didn’t know that, but I think there are solutions to this, like urban mining (recycling metals). And I would expect emissions of mining to be reduced even more if they are also done with all the electrical equipment possible and with chemical processes that don’t emit as much GHGs.
Last edited:
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Engineered obsolescence is morally wrong for consumers & the planet, but I guess there are no morals when it comes to profit. It may be morally wrong but it is not illegal, stinks of absolute greed.
O
otjm
Guest
There are solutions to everything, pretty much. However, there is no solution which does not have ramifications. Another way of saying that is that they are subject to the law of unintended consequences.
If people truly wanted to end the greenhouse gasses to levels which the earth could naturally process (as in synthesis), then the world would move rapidly to nuclear for energy, The new designs of plants are far, far safer than Fukushima; and several years ago I saw that there were about 80 nuclear plants either being proposed or constructed.
Solar has been tried in California, with mixed results. Demand for electricity according to one study is great enough that the solar generation from panels is not sufficient to allow collection on any significant scale; meaning that what is generated is going (basically) directly to the grid instead of storage batteries, and when the sun goes down the generation stops. And while California has the reputation of lots and lots of sun (and likely, skin cancers), it also has days and weeks in areas in which solar generation is reduced.
Another study noted that the state has a goal of 60% renewable energy and to get there the proposal is to overbuild solar, so that even on low production days (cloudy, e.g.) that the goal is met. California has had periods where solar was take off line as the total production was beyond needs. No one, however, is explaining how this overbuilding is going to be paid for, Normally, rate payers foot the bill of increased production facilities; and the state has some of the highest energy costs now. Add to that the out-migration currently and you now have fewer people to pay a higher bill; and yes, fewer people demanding electricity = lower production, but that does not necessarily = lower cost; it is just fewer people to pay the current cost. It will have to come in taxes, direct or indirect. and I don’t know anyone saying the current tax structure is low, or even moderate. Requiring all roofed buildings (house and business) ti install solar panels is just an indirect tax.
(continued)
O
otjm
Guest
(Continued)
Wind power depends on wind; and the issue now is starting to be where and how will the blades be dealt with when they need replacing. Fiberglass currently is essentially nonrecyclable. There is a company trying to make a sheetrock product; I wonder if that is just a new form of the “asbestos” problem we still have with us. My recollection is that fibers of fiberglass do no one’s lungs any good.
The Green Deal being proposed by AOC and company would shock the socks off you if you read it and comprehended what it actually would result in. Our indigenous Marxists (primarily those under 30 and their professors) are anti capitalists - never mind that two primary Marxist countries - China and Vietnam, have both figured out that Marx had no clue what he was talking about, and neither did Lenon, Stalin or Mao. Of course, facts have no bearing on our indigenous Marxists, so maybe we can be another Venezuela. They seem to think that a managed economy is righteous. Somewhat a variation on “Don’t confuse me with facts; I already have my mind made up!”
Wind power depends on wind; and the issue now is starting to be where and how will the blades be dealt with when they need replacing. Fiberglass currently is essentially nonrecyclable. There is a company trying to make a sheetrock product; I wonder if that is just a new form of the “asbestos” problem we still have with us. My recollection is that fibers of fiberglass do no one’s lungs any good.
The Green Deal being proposed by AOC and company would shock the socks off you if you read it and comprehended what it actually would result in. Our indigenous Marxists (primarily those under 30 and their professors) are anti capitalists - never mind that two primary Marxist countries - China and Vietnam, have both figured out that Marx had no clue what he was talking about, and neither did Lenon, Stalin or Mao. Of course, facts have no bearing on our indigenous Marxists, so maybe we can be another Venezuela. They seem to think that a managed economy is righteous. Somewhat a variation on “Don’t confuse me with facts; I already have my mind made up!”
ralfyman
New member
My intention is not to justify planned obsolescence but to explain why it’s taking place. In this case, it’s to maintain the business cycle and increase profitability. That in turn is based on companies’ by-laws which usually state that the goal of the business is to maximize profits for investors. This explains why several companies even lay off employees while profitable if it leads to more profits. It’s not ethically right but that’s how competitive capitalism works.
About your second point, mechanization can’t lead to fewer employees because machines aren’t customers. That is, investors fund automation, mechanization, etc., because it increases productivity or does the same work at lower cost (they prefer the former because they want to maximize earnings), but gains from increased productivity take place only if there are more sales. And those sales come from customers who buy using income earned from being employed. In which case, it becomes pointless to mechanize if it will lead to fewer workers, as the same workers are expected to buy more of what is produced through mechanization.
The implication is similar to that of planned obsolescence: the ultimate goal of mechanization is to have more sales. The catch is that that can only be done with more buyers, and buyers who can do that from what they earn when employed.
About your second point, mechanization can’t lead to fewer employees because machines aren’t customers. That is, investors fund automation, mechanization, etc., because it increases productivity or does the same work at lower cost (they prefer the former because they want to maximize earnings), but gains from increased productivity take place only if there are more sales. And those sales come from customers who buy using income earned from being employed. In which case, it becomes pointless to mechanize if it will lead to fewer workers, as the same workers are expected to buy more of what is produced through mechanization.
The implication is similar to that of planned obsolescence: the ultimate goal of mechanization is to have more sales. The catch is that that can only be done with more buyers, and buyers who can do that from what they earn when employed.
ralfyman
New member
Some reasons for such packaging is to protect products while they are being shipped, and the same even applies to raw materials and components. Most manufactured goods and even processed food involve extensive supply chains across dozens of business and countries and tens of thousands of miles, which is why not just packaging but even containers involving even petrochemicals (used for thousands of applications, including all types of plastics) are used.
B
Buks
Guest
And let’s not forget packaging designed to increase visibility, taking more space even while gradually reducing the amount of food it contains. And occasionally making it nearly impossible to get the entire contents out (that’s right, Motts applesauce, I’m talking about YOU!).
Last edited:
ralfyman
New member
Nuclear energy has limitations as seen in economic feasibility of uranium to be extracted from the earth and from seawater as well as rare metal limitations needed for reactors. I think Albert at least argues that we can get only around 4 TW of power from it.
That means we will need to use all energy sources, from fossil fuels to nuclear to renewable energy, to provide enough power for basic needs of the world population in the long term.
The Green Deal isn’t helpful not because it’s based on Marxism but because most countries have never been able to cooperate throughout much of recent history, and likely never will. That means consumerism, planned obsolescence, and other effects leading to environmental damage on an incredible scale, among others, is likely until effects from the same damage and more become more pronounced, leading to less resource availability.
China and Vietnam are actually not anti-capitalist. Capitalism refers to the economic process of using surplus revenues for capitalization, which is why it appears even in such countries (in the form of state capitalism and public corporations). What Marx was against wasn’t capitalism but private ownership of the means of production.
What most countries did was go between and form mixed economies: private and public corporations.
Interestingly enough, of all countries that are expected to gain with the demise of Pax Americana (at least according to Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and others, which refer to the rise of BRICS and at least forty emerging markets), the two often mentioned are China and Vietnam. As for the rest, they mostly resemble countries that followed something like the East Asian Miracle rather than U.S.-style neoliberalism.
That means we will need to use all energy sources, from fossil fuels to nuclear to renewable energy, to provide enough power for basic needs of the world population in the long term.
The Green Deal isn’t helpful not because it’s based on Marxism but because most countries have never been able to cooperate throughout much of recent history, and likely never will. That means consumerism, planned obsolescence, and other effects leading to environmental damage on an incredible scale, among others, is likely until effects from the same damage and more become more pronounced, leading to less resource availability.
China and Vietnam are actually not anti-capitalist. Capitalism refers to the economic process of using surplus revenues for capitalization, which is why it appears even in such countries (in the form of state capitalism and public corporations). What Marx was against wasn’t capitalism but private ownership of the means of production.
What most countries did was go between and form mixed economies: private and public corporations.
Interestingly enough, of all countries that are expected to gain with the demise of Pax Americana (at least according to Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs and others, which refer to the rise of BRICS and at least forty emerging markets), the two often mentioned are China and Vietnam. As for the rest, they mostly resemble countries that followed something like the East Asian Miracle rather than U.S.-style neoliberalism.
- Status