|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted July 26, 2010 12:19 PM |
|
|
But this requires medical studies, right? In Poland they take almost 12 years before you're a doctor with all the papers you need. Unless you want to be a half-butted doc with no specialization. Which is pointless.
I'd say, after 12 years of learning by rote, they deserve to work 4 hours per day.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 12:28 PM |
|
Edited by ihor at 12:34, 26 Jul 2010.
|
12 years? Maybe for doctors.
My friend's father became rich on sunflower seed oil maybe for just 1 year. Now he works maybe 3 hours per day. And the system which was built by him just brings him money.
Some are very lucky to guess the things they should do and to get into the right place with right people at right time.
Edit:
Yes and putting 2 millions on deposit is not quiet clever decision. Money makes money. One can have much more profit from business rather than those dividends and you can build your own business, so you will have enough free time.
And all in all maybe some global financial crisis will make you beggarly if you put your money in bank  .
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 12:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
buying implies being a consumerist, no
No. It implies being a consumer.
what's the difference?
Quote:
Actually, no, you cannot choose, because if you work for yourself, you have to work at least enough to keep you in the business, which is generally a lot more than people work, who do it for a boss.
hence the problem with money
Quote:
If you take a look at the development of humanity you'll see that in the beginning most humans worked basically 16/7 just to get their lifes reproduced. Only in recent times things have changed, not only to people working less, so we are at a roundabout 8/5 now, but that this work time is sufficient to go for more than just the basics.
in the beginning of the industrial age? I read that people didn't always use to work that much. sometimes, they also had slaves not to have to work, and some of those slaves may have had better working conditions than many of us.
Quote:
I never tried it myself, but I heard that you need a lot of dedication and time in order to make your private business work.
yeah, because of competition, people who are in similar businesses only expect you to fail and disappear.
joonas : you may realize that most people don't have such chances?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What kind of nonsense is that?
What other reason except consumerism is there to accept and tolerate capitalism?
Gee, maybe the idea that I am the only one entitled to the fruit of my labor. That you don't have a right to use a politician to force me to support you while you sit on your butt and I bust mine.
Quote:
I'm so darn sick of reading how great it all is, because you have so many choices. Because it's just bull, since the most important choice of all you do NOT have, and that is the choice of how long to work, which is equal to deciding how much money you earn.
Nonsense. There are part time jobs and also the possiblity of self-employment. For example, you could chose to work as a landscaper and only have one of two clients, thus limiting the number of hours you work.
Also, certainly it is true that in Marxist societies there are precious few choices available to you, thus making life "simpler" if you are the sort of person who has trouble making his own decisions and planning his own life.
You also have the option of being a drifter and living off handouts if you don't want to work at all. Of course I realize in a Marxists state one can just demand that the people provide him with the essentals of life because of an "entitlement" mindset that socialism imparts.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 06:30 PM |
|
|
Actually, in some jobs, hours are negotiable to some extent. And, of course, if you're self-employed, you have even more flexibility. My parents are self-employed, so I know this is quite possible.
Quote:
Consumerism is just a negative handle for what is actually fuelling the system.
That's highly debatable. Saving "fuels the system" as well, by enabling capital formation. If we didn't save the surplus and instead immediately consumed everything that was produced, we would never have gotten out of the stone age. As they say, "C + I + G".
Quote:
what's the difference?
A consumer buys non-investment goods. Consumerism is making a cult out of buying. Buying a TV is being a consumer. Buying a 50" TV when you have a 40" TV is being a consumerist.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 06:57 PM |
|
|
I see, it's wisecrack time again. Guess what, I'm self-employed, and my wife is as well. Moreover, a lot of our friends and acquaintants are either. I've even a self-employed physiotherapist as an acquaintant, and that guy is working his ass off, and not because he wants to drive a Lamborghini - he switched a 15-year old Toyota Corolla recently against a new Skoda Fabia, big deal.
Forget the self-employed myth - well, at least if you live in Germany. Sure, there ARE some people who work 3 or 4 days a week or can afford to works as short as they want, respectively, but we are not talking about a a couple of people here, we are talking about general society.
And general society, self-employed or not, has to take, what's on offer.
However, that's not even the point. The point was, remember, that IF you haven't got the option to rechange your surplus money back into time, what else are you going to do with that surplus money than make the available time as pleasant as possible?
Now, don't get me wrong - having spare time at all and being able to spend money on pleasanteries is of course a lot better than working the whole day just for your bare life.
However, having no spare time and lots of spare money isn't necessarily better than having no spare money and lots of spare time, since you can have a lot of fun with other people which we all know, when we think back to our time in school, high school, college or university (or are actually there at the moment.
Plus, consumerism is just a matter of perspective - most people are consumerists in certain areas (oly). Collectors, fans, suckers for something - I mean, no one buys randomly any stuff.
But most people have an interest in something, a hobby, they spend a ton of money on: computer gaming; model trains; cars; hifi equipment; books; computer hardware; clothing; shoes; movies; discos; expensive food or drink; cell phones; paintings...
Whatever. Collectors are consumerists - and why not? It's your right to find the best use for your money.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 07:15 PM |
|
|
Nah, collectors are not consumerists. In fact, quite the opposite. Consumerists have short attention spans. The TV doesn't tell you to collect anything - it tells you to BUY BUY BUY. When's the last time you heard an advertisement for stamps? Consumerists don't go in-depth into any kind of product that they buy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 07:46 PM |
|
|
Ahhhh, I see, it's important to have the right reasons to buy stuff you don't need.
You know, that sounds a bit like a drinker meeting, everyone telling the story of their life, and what reasons they had to start drinking and what's their favorite stuff - except one who says he'd just like to drink, no matter what, and is frowned upon.
In short - nonsense. Plain and simple. And there is advertisement for collectables.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 08:13 PM |
|
|
"Stuff we don't need?" There's a lot of stuff that isn't necessary for life. But we buy plenty of things we don't need to survive. We buy things we like. But there's a difference between buying something you like and buying something the TV tells you to like.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 08:22 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Stuff we don't need?" There's a lot of stuff that isn't necessary for life. But we buy plenty of things we don't need to survive. We buy things we like. But there's a difference between buying something you like and buying something the TV tells you to like.
No, there is not.
Consumerism is really simple, and useful partially.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 09:45 PM |
|
|
Consumerism is indeed simple. But useful? To whom? To the advertising companies, it certainly is. To the people buying, it isn't, since they will not be satisfied, and will just lose money.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 09:55 PM |
|
|
|
Explain the difference in satisfaction, please. And don't forget to name the basic assumptions of your scenario.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 10:02 PM |
|
|
It's quite simple. Suppose you have a 30" TV, and a 40" TV is being advertised. If you are a consumerist, you will be unsatisfied - there's a bigger TV out there, and you MUST get it. Sure, it's expensive, but whatever, it's worth it - or so you think. So you go buy it and pay for it. The price is quite steep, but you're satisfied - until you turn your new TV on and see an advertisement for a 50" TV. You are no longer satisfied. What was the point of buying a new TV if it wasn't going to satisfy you?
A non-consumerist would have either not cared about the new TV, would have waited for the 50" TV, or been satisfied with the 40".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 10:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's quite simple. Suppose you have a 30" TV, and a 40" TV is being advertised. If you are a consumerist, you will be unsatisfied - there's a bigger TV out there, and you MUST get it. Sure, it's expensive, but whatever, it's worth it - or so you think. So you go buy it and pay for it. The price is quite steep, but you're satisfied - until you turn your new TV on and see an advertisement for a 50" TV. You are no longer satisfied. What was the point of buying a new TV if it wasn't going to satisfy you?
A non-consumerist would have either not cared about the new TV, would have waited for the 50" TV, or been satisfied with the 40".
Question: Does the consumerist like watching TV?
Answer: yes
If the answer would be no the consumerist would buy something else instead that he would like, because no one can buy everything, so everyone, even the consumerist is buying stuff they like better than other stuff.
So we already are comparing buying behaviour. That reduces to a consumerist buying something because it is better than the stuff they already have - which is how everyone is behaving. If you like watching TV, you DO care about new TV technology, and whether you buy every second new generation of stuff or every generation, doesn't matter much - if you every second generation you'll buy something different in between.
What's more: a collector is never satisfied for a long time: if acquiring a new piece and the collection isn't complete - which is virtually impossible for most collections - satisfaction vanishes as soon as there is enough money available to buy another piece, and that is at the latest.
So what are you actually telling me here?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 26, 2010 11:54 PM |
|
|
Basically, a consumerist is someone who spends money to feel good.
So a collector could be a consumerist, in a way, if he only buys things to feel better and actually has no proper use for them. Even if he uses them, it's different if he buys it just because he wants to have it, rather than buying it, because he wants to use it, becausin the former case he'll keep mentioning the fact he bought a widescreem television to his friends over and over.
Though, you might make a case if it's more about the object than the money being spent and if we continue from that it's more case-by-case study and it may depend on your values.
Though, a capitalist system probably benefits from consumerists because it take money from people who don't quite know how to spend it or be productive with it and gives it to someone else who might. Though, again, these are very vague concepts we are discussing and you guys know this. And then again, it may not benefit a capitalist system because consumerists just fuel markets that aren't built to last or markets that will just create more shiny objects without substance, like the people who buy 3D television sets and those glasses.
Both parties look at this quote:
Quote:
Basically, a consumerist is someone who spends money to feel good.
And twist it according to their argument.
To a socialist (like we know them in HC) all capitalists are consumerists.
To a capitalist (like we know them in HC) the term consumerism is a derogative term for bad or unthinking spending behaviour, solely done for making a person feel good.
I like to follow mvass' train of logic with which consumerists are basically magpies and they're all like: "ooh, shiny." rather than me being called a consumerist, even though I am because I buy books I don't even read. Though, I'm a mild consumerist, because I plan on reading them one day or maybe I'm just in denial
Of course, this argument is just moot all in all. I don't even know what you guys are arguing about.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 12:04 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 00:05, 27 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
Gee, maybe the idea that I am the only one entitled to the fruit of my labor.
Which is what makes it all the more surprising and hilarious you don't seem to claim that which you are entitled to.
Because tell me, how much fruit -exactly- do you think your labor entitles you to?
If you're content (which you show by not complaining and simply working) with what you're earning, clearly you don't think your labor is worth a lot of fruit.
Let me put it in other words; if your labor entitles you to 50 units of fruit, you're basicly letting your boss keep 47. THAT's Capitalism, and THAT's where profit comes from; exploitation of the poor, weak and dumb.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me put it in other words; if your labor entitles you to 50 units of fruit, you're basicly letting your boss keep 47. THAT's Capitalism, and THAT's where profit comes from; exploitation of the poor, weak and dumb.
Or... You know, free exchange.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 12:19 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Question: Does the consumerist like watching TV?
Answer: Yes, but no. He does like watching TV, but only if it's on the best TV he can afford. Thus, the consumerist keeps chasing for TV after TV, because what's "best" keeps changing. Thus, he's only happy for short snatches of time.
Quote:
satisfaction vanishes as soon as there is enough money available to buy another piece
No, not at all. When I was younger, I used to collect Yu-Gi-Oh cards. And while I enjoyed getting new ones, I was also happy with what I already had. And I could defer consumption to wait for the prices to go down, through a reprint, lower trading value, or something like that. So no, satisfaction does not vanish.
Moonlith:
Quote:
if your labor entitles you to 50 units of fruit
What does that mean?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2010 01:51 AM |
|
|
Lol, you guys are arguing over the definition of a very ambiguous word. It's like arguing over how many "several" is.
JJ: It sure is hot today! It's 34c outside.
Mvass: 34? That's not hot. Hot is over 40.
JJ: No way! I was working in the yard and sweating, that means it's hot.
Mvass: What does sweating have to do with it? Some people sweat more than others.
JJ: Of course sweat is relevant. If someone is sweating it means they're hot.
Mvass: But it doesn't mean it's hot outside. If someone is working hard they can sweat when it's cold. I've sweated when it was only 15.
JJ: 15? That's not cold. It's not cold until it's below 10. Unless it's windy, like a 10kph wind.
Mvass: 10kph is not windy, that's breezy. Windy is over......
OK, just to put in my 2 cents. I wouldn't define consumerism in terms of "stuff". I would define it in terms of cash flow. A person gets their paycheck and goes out and buys something. The store pays their employees who in turn go out and buy more stuff. That store pays their employees who buy more stuff. The more cash flow there is, the more consumerist it is. The less cash flow, the less consumerist it is.
(cash flow has a specific definition in accounting, that's not how I'm using the term)
However it's defined, I see consumerism and capitalism being independent of each other. Either one can exist without the other. *IF* the two coexist, they will become intertwined at a deep level. But just because they are intertwined does not make either one dependent on the other.
Economies take decades to develop and mature. As an economy matures over the years, it matures and grows with some given amount of consumption. The entire economy, skill level of workers, the type and level of education all develop around some level and type of consumption. Regardless of the level of consumption, if that consumption rapidly changes it can have undesirable effects on the economy.
Again, that doesn't make one dependent on the other, not in the sense of one being a requirement for the other to exist. The dependency is a time dependency. It's a dependency where one can't change rapidly without adverse affects on the other. The level of consumption can change, and it can change a lot. It just needs to do it slowly so the infrastructure can change with it.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
