Consumerism

[Hotdoger]

Ah yes, i see it now, third line of the constitution right?

Are you blind to the fact that the personal choice one makes is not a freedom?
Are "freedoms" only those enumerated in the constitution?

Ah, personal insults, the hallmark of any truly intelligent person, bravo for pulling that one out.

Did you not chose the screen name?



If you did not want to be associated with it, why did you chose it?

It is obvious that you have Randall Flagg thought traits.

Um, someone who researched time management maybe?

So somehow now you are the great decider because you researched it and the minions should do as you say?

 

[Hotdoger]

Can one of you guys elaborate on this?

I'll take a shot.
Some believe you are "spending more than you earn" when you borrow money to purchase something.
I think you still have to service the debt with your earnings so the idea is flawed from the start.
Also other worlds economies are servicing debt too so the idea we would be 5th or 6th is flawed thinking.

 

[Fletch]

Can one of you guys elaborate on this?

If everybody cashed in their chips and started living within their means, the economy would tank. Indeed, that's what happened in part to cause the current recession... Folks stopped borrowing (because they couldn't, generally, not because they got all responsible), and things started falling apart.

However, that's only half the story. Once the factors of production were re-allocated in the face of new economic reality, the economy would rebuild and the problem would go away. And without all of that unsustainable debt, it would have stronger fundamentals and be an overall better economy to live in. The one big obstacle to all this is federal price controls on credit, which keep it too cheap. It can be gotten around with massive amounts of personal financial discipline ion the part of everyone, but that's like trying to keep all the bullfrogs in the wheelbarrow.

 

[Randall Flagg]

I disagree with blaming the banks. People still had to be stupid enough to take what was being offered.



Yes, yes, it is. Don't have time to explain yourself more fully, but still have time to respond individually to every perceived point of opposition? Talk about wasting time.

LOL, i did not have the time for Eddie's post because i wanted to get to Fletch's post.

And again, you know two things about me: jack and squat. But on the basis of some armchair psychology

As always, some of the topics i post are above people's understanding of them, i realize not everyone is going to get it and that's ok, psychology is not for everyone. I guess i could explain group dynamics to you and why i don't have to know you, but you would not get that either.

and a conspiracy theory about modern advertising

Ah a conspiracy theory eh? Man you bring out the heavy guns to try to get out of the debate don't you.

you're going to say that corporate mind control is the only reason I'd buy an iPhone.

Not at all, there are 2 and only 2 reasons you would buy an iPhone for.

1. Because you needed it in a professional capacity(i.e. you could run servers remotely,etc)
2. Because you desired it.

We want things because we either need them or desire them. We already have gone over the fact that you don't need it for work and that you desired to have it.

But you have yet to tell us why, because i wanted it works well when debating with 10 year olds, but we are adults on here i thought? Maybe you don't know yourself, what compelled you to buy it.

"We tend to believe, If I've heard of [a product] before, it's probably because it's popular, and popular things are good," says Dan Goldstein, an assistant professor of marketing at London Business School.​

In 2002, he and Gerd Gigerenzer, a psychologist at Berlin's Max Planck Institute for Human Development, dubbed this effect the recognition heuristic and started detailing how it is used to manipulate consumer decision making. Gigerenzer's new book, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, describes a study in which people tasted peanut butter from three jars. Each jar contained the same peanut butter, but 75% of participants thought the contents tasted better in the jar that had a name-brand label on it. In another study, published this month by researchers at Stanford University, children given the same French fries and chicken nuggets in different packaging preferred the taste of the food delivered in McDonald's wrappers. ​

Read more: Why We Buy the Products We Buy - TIME​

Your assertions are all over the place. You had to wait in line, but you could easily purchase it anywhere in 5 minutes, and there is only one store on the planet where there was a line. Which of these is what you're actually trying to say?

I'm an Apple developer. I've been to WWDC a handful of times. I'm currently plotting to make my travels of the next few years include PAX, San Diego ComicCon, and BlizzCon. Why? Because nerd culture is my culture. I like these people. I like hanging out with them. Standing in that line was like a mini-convention of Apple nerds. You don't have to understand it (and clearly you don't), but it's the same kind of camaraderie one gets from rooting for the same football team, hanging out with fellow gunnies at the range, or chilling at your local watering hole. I'm not sorry I did it, and I'll probably do it again some day. Just because you don't get it doesn't make your point any more valid.

Sorry i was a little over the place with that reply.

1. you said you stood in line for 3 hours, but the only time i heard of the line being that long was when the phone first came out and was priced at 600 bucks.

2. you said the phone was priced at 199 suggesting that you paid 199 bucks for the newer iPhone, but yet we never heard of a store having a 3 hour wait except when the phone was going for 600 bucks.

When did you get your IPhone?

Just to nitpick on your time management comment, I would assume the same "professionals" would argue that publishing a blog with c/p articles from other websites is a waste of time as well.

If that was all i did, perhaps, but as the blog is used as a tool for spreading information to my family,friends and town, then when they become prepared for the collapse, i benefit in numerous ways that money could never buy.

i will always consider my friends,family and town being able to take care of them self no matter what, time well spent.

I do however realize standing in line for a new phone when your old one works is a noble thing to do however.

At least the surly curmudgeon cranks out original commentary.

As do i from time to time, again as time allows, but because i don't have time to explain or comment does not mean i should not post information that most mainstream news is not telling them, correct.

That's not an personal attack, rather a critique of an argument you presented. There is no legitimate reason to dictate the value of time, money, etc. to others. That is a personal decision.

And i did not take it that way, spirited debate is always welcome my way, insults are not. And your right, it is a personal decision, if someone(most Americans) want to waste their time standing in line or watching the tv, that's their decision, but there is always going to be opportunity costs with ANY choice you will ever make.

And, yes, the free exchange of goods and services is the hallmark of freedom, regardless of need.

What country do you live in partner? It sure ain't the USA. In this country you need a business license to open up a lemonade stand.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZLAL5p0xw[/ame]

Free exchange, haha, that was rich brother. While i agree with you that what you say is true, that ain't our system now is it?

Part of that freedom also involves living with the consequences of your consumer actions.

Of course, but remember we are social creatures and social perceptions mean a lot to us.

As others have pointed out, if you are truly in favor of ending "consumerism" educating individuals on how to set up and execute a budget is preferred over limiting the free market.

Do you think 40% of people who spend more then they earn dont know what a budget is or how to use one? Clearly it's the higher earning crowd that has enough credit to spend more then they earn every year, not likely a 6th grade education stoner.

We can't end consumerism, it would be the death of the country, people HAVE to spend more then they earn to keep this system going now.

Of course consumerism exists, of course branding is used. If you entered the market as a business owner you would soon find a need for such devices if you wished to remain competitive.

I have and i know

Fletch is the one who thinks branding, crowd psychology and group dynamics are conspiracy theory's.

But a person who simply decides to buy something because they like it or believe they'll derive some use/pleasure from it... that's not necessarily consumerism.

Fletch bro, listen, if you buy a tv, when you already own a tv, that is consumerism as well. Consumerism is also branding, i.e. only using one brand of something because it's the good stuff, or what you have always trusted.(please read studys on peanut butter above)

LOL, it's making a cause and effect connection. Call it explaining or blaming, same difference. I don't disagree though. The availability of credit where it once didn't exist is obviously a key contributor. But the individual's behavior is still the ultimate factor.

Ah, but has not the consumers behaviour been modified from a thrifty nation(1900's) to a buy anything you can until your 5 bedroom house, 2 car garage and storage unit is filled nation(today).

Did anyone watch the video i posted in the op?

Are you blind to the fact that the personal choice one makes is not a freedom?

Are you aware that everyones personal choice is rarely personal and hardly ever "their" choice?

Are "freedoms" only those enumerated in the constitution?

Consumerism is in no way a "freedom", personal choice, yes, consumerism, no. The freedom to be brainwashed into believing that i need a new tv when my old one works fine is for sure, 100%, NOT a freedom brother.

Did you not chose the screen name?
If you did not want to be associated with it, why did you chose it?
It is obvious that you have Randall Flagg thought traits.

Steven king is one of my fav writers, the stand is one of my fav books, and yes i have not always been a nice guy

what any of that has to do with consumerism, i have no clue, well except for you to insult me instead of talk about the point addressed.

So somehow now you are the great decider because you researched it and the minions should do as you say?

I never said that, but way to strawman, what i said was it was a waste of time. However, if polled, i'm sure the American public(well clearly the ones who did not stand in line) would agree that standing in line for a phone is a waste of time. Sitting in your house in the corner all day is also a personal choice, and you might have great fun doing it, it's still a waste of time.

However, that's only half the story. Once the factors of production were re-allocated in the face of new economic reality, the economy would rebuild and the problem would go away. And without all of that unsustainable debt, it would have stronger fundamentals and be an overall better economy to live in. The one big obstacle to all this is federal price controls on credit, which keep it too cheap. It can be gotten around with massive amounts of personal financial discipline ion the part of everyone, but that's like trying to keep all the bullfrogs in the wheelbarrow.

Tell me something brother, how do you pay off a dollar debt when there is only 50 cents in the whole world? You really dont understand the problem do you?

 

[Fletch]

As always, some of the topics i post are above people's understanding of them, i realize not everyone is going to get it and that's ok, psychology is not for everyone. I guess i could explain group dynamics to you and why i don't have to know you, but you would not get that either.

Cheap, thinly-veiled insults will not get you anywhere. I understand psychology and group dynamics just fine. I probably had the same courses in college, given that one of my majors was psychology. I understand consumerist theory, I simply reject it as inadequate. More about that below.

Ah a conspiracy theory eh? Man you bring out the heavy guns to try to get out of the debate don't you.

If I wanted to get out of the debate, I would not have half a dozen posts in this thread already. I'm not the one resorting to insults in the face of opposition. You are not Moses, this is not Mt. Sinai. Get off your high horse.

Not at all, there are 2 and only 2 reasons you would buy an iPhone for.

1. Because you needed it in a professional capacity(i.e. you could run servers remotely,etc)
2. Because you desired it.

And this tautology does not explain why we desire things. Consumerist theory holds that #2 is entirely the result of marketing, and that this explains all non-need consumption. It refuses to deal with quality of life as a concept, and simply assigns human beings to one of two categories: mindless consumer drones, and cynical corporations who exploit the mindless consumer drones.

Like most social theories, consumerism has the opposite problem of the old cliche: it can't see the trees for the forest. Human beings are individuals, and as such they will arrive at their desires differently. Some no doubt do fall for the marketing ploys.

But others arrive at their desires in a different way: I want to do X. I will endeavor to find a product that helps me do X. If I can't find said product, or if said product costs more than I want to pay, I will find a way to do X differently or I will substitute another product that will do what I want to do to an adequate degree.

This is the purchasing model for adults. In the words of Dave Ramsey, children do what feels good. Adults devise a plan and follow it.

I'm also a fitness buff. I have a home gym. On the basis of your consumerist theory, you should be able to predict what kind of shoes and clothing I wear to work out, and what kind of equipment is in my gym. Consumerist theory would lead someone to conclude that I wear Nike or Adidas shoes, Nike or UnderArmor clothing, have a Chuck Norris Total Gym and a Bowflex and one of those newfangled Bowflex Treadclimber things, because these are the most heavily marketed items in the fitness sector.

Consumerist theory would be wrong on all counts. I own none of these things. I bought my shoes by going into the shoe store and trying on every pair I could get my hands on, regardless of brand, until I found a pair that was comfortable and flexible enough to do what I wanted to do. My shorts and shirts are $3 pieces of crap from Wal-Mart. The equipment is stuff that answered the question "how do I do X without seriously hurting myself (again)?"

We want things because we either need them or desire them. We already have gone over the fact that you don't need it for work and that you desired to have it.

But you have yet to tell us why, because i wanted it works well when debating with 10 year olds, but we are adults on here i thought? Maybe you don't know yourself, what compelled you to buy it.

I do know myself, as anyone who's read my blog for the past 7 years can readily attest. I test myself and my motivations regularly, and see introspection as a responsibility of all human beings. But on the basis of my disagreement with the vaunted wisdom of consumerist theory, you think you know me better. Again, get over yourself.

You believe me to be seriously fretting over my social standing, but all you have to do is read my posts here to understand that popularity is not one of the things I value. I've argued in favor of sex offenders and illegal immigrants to the "God, guns, and good ol' USA" crowd here. It's not a way to win friends and influence people. So when I say that you assume too much about me, it's because I don't fit into your neat little category of mindless consumer drone. Some people certainly do, but it's debatable just how many of them there are.

1. you said you stood in line for 3 hours, but the only time i heard of the line being that long was when the phone first came out and was priced at 600 bucks.

So on the basis of your ignorance, my argument is invalid. Neat trick.

For the record, the original iPhone was released in the summer of 2007. It was initially priced at $599. Two months later, the price dropped to $399, and Apple sent out partial refunds to the early adopters. I was not one of these people.

In the summer of 2008, the iPhone 3G was launched with a carrier-subsidized price of $199. Just like the original iPhone, there was a surge of people wanting to get their hands on one, and they lined up at AT&T and Apple stores nationwide. I was one of these people. The line was 3 hours long in Oklahoma City.

In the summer of 2009, the iPhone 3Gs was launched, and it picked up some rollover folks from the original iPhone, but on the whole was a lot more subdued than the previous two rollouts.

This year the iPhone 4 is being released, and my prediction is that the lines will probably return. I won't be in them. I will probably get an iPhone 4 because of the limitations of my 3G vs. the upcoming operating system upgrade, but I see no reason to get it before iOS 4 is released.

Fletch bro, listen, if you buy a tv, when you already own a tv, that is consumerism as well.

It is if you want everything to fit into your myopic little view of the world. Of course, it doesn't account for the fact that I may be dissatisfied with my current TV because it doesn't work as well as I'd like, or because my wife is constantly watching crap I can't stand, or because I'd like one in another room to watch while I do another activity.

Consumerism is in no way a "freedom", personal choice, yes, consumerism, no. The freedom to be brainwashed into believing that i need a new tv when my old one works fine is for sure, 100%, NOT a freedom brother.

And here we are again with the brainwashing conspiracy theory. There are people who buy whatever is advertised, I have and will grant you that. But these instances do not account for 100% of all redundant TV sales. The consumerist theory can only stretch so far, and you want it to be a theory of everything. That dog don't hunt.

Steven king is one of my fav writers, the stand is one of my fav books, and yes i have not always been a nice guy

I'm failing to see how, with your constant insults, you can be considered a nice guy now.

I never said that, but way to strawman, what i said was it was a waste of time. However, if polled, i'm sure the American public(well clearly the ones who did not stand in line) would agree that standing in line for a phone is a waste of time. Sitting in your house in the corner all day is also a personal choice, and you might have great fun doing it, it's still a waste of time.

The value of time is subjective. What we do with our time is a result of our values, and anyone with different values will necessarily see our time as "wasted". Of course, only supercilious folks like yourself will feel the need to deride any values that don't match your own, and dress it all up as academia.

Tell me something brother,

In the words of Damon Wayans, I am not your damn brother.

how do you pay off a dollar debt when there is only 50 cents in the whole world? You really dont understand the problem do you?

I understand the problem very well, but I'm beginning to understand the ways in which you do not. Unfortunately, since you seem to believe that there is a fixed supply of wealth in the world, there's not a lot we can talk about in economic terms until and unless a whole lot of groundwork has been laid.

You really need to understand, as many who have gone before you have not, that just because you're on a gun forum does not mean you're in the company of bubba-esque rubes who need to be educated by your mighty intellect. Folks around here are intelligent and most are fairly knowledgeable. Do not presume to talk down to them, because you won't last long if you do.

 

[Hotdoger]

Quote:
Are you blind to the fact that the personal choice one makes is not a freedom?
Are you aware that everyones personal choice is rarely personal and hardly ever "their" choice?

Just in your mind.

Quote:
Are "freedoms" only those enumerated in the constitution?
Consumerism is in no way a "freedom", personal choice, yes, consumerism, no. The freedom to be brainwashed into believing that i need a new tv when my old one works fine is for sure, 100%, NOT a freedom brother.

I watched a buddys 52in for several weeks . The fact now that I am looking for another TV is a choice I have made. Why? Because the programs I watched on the 52in were far more enjoyable to watch than my old 26in cathode ray tube TV. No one has told me or brain washed me into knowing what that.
Line a billion people up and tell them to pick which is the better product for viewing and no doubt the choice would be unanimous, except for the few channeling Ted Kaczynski.


It is freedom of choice by me!

The "consumersim" theory is busted eveytime one makes a personal choice.

Steven king is one of my fav writers, the stand is one of my fav books, and yes i have not always been a nice guy

what any of that has to do with consumerism, i have no clue, well except for you to insult me instead of talk about the point addressed.

How can it be an "insult" when YOU chose to identify yourself by it ?

 

[Fletch]

How can it be an "insult" when YOU chose to identify yourself by it ?

I've been wondering that one myself. Clearly it's his mindless consumption of the Stephen King brand so that he can be seen as cool by the rest of us.

 

[CarmelHP]

LOL, it's making a cause and effect connection. Call it explaining or blaming, same difference. I don't disagree though. The availability of credit where it once didn't exist is obviously a key contributor. But the individual's behavior is still the ultimate factor.

No, not the same. "Blaming" assigns a moral component, where none was intended. But have it any way you like, if it's that's important to you.

 

[level.eleven]

An interesting aside to the need vs. want debate....I don't know if that black and white theory would work with the gun crowd. You know, we tend to collect multiple firearms that technically, we don't need. I don't think any of these guys around here are buying the line that they don't "need" those firearms and would probably tell someone to pound sand if addressed on the subject.

Fletch has done a very nice job responding to the OPs points - not a lot more to be said.

 

[jsgolfman]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear he was related to smoking357.
Just another egotistical ass.

 

[HighStrung]

 

[9lock]

Affluenza = Happy Stockholders

 

[hornadylnl]

I can't say that I've ever seen a commercial advertising a problem and thought to myself I must have that. Not since I was a kid and watching a kid tv channel at the baby sitters.

 

[Hotdoger]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear he was related to smoking357.
Just another egotistical ass.

I think he is smoking357's college professor.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Cheap, thinly-veiled insults will not get you anywhere. I understand psychology and group dynamics just fine. I probably had the same courses in college, given that one of my majors was psychology. I understand consumerist theory, I simply reject it as inadequate. More about that below.

It was not an insult, very few people have the attention span to research psychology as it's very dry. But i know for a fact you don't understand what i'm talking about , much less consumerism(remember at the begining you were not a consumer because you had no debt...lol)

Btw how many majors did you have? I understand your like 50, so along with book knowledge you carry a lot of hands on as well , is that correct?

I simply reject it as inadequate

Well heck, we better call them boys at Stanford, tell them they were wrong and old fletch boy has got it all figured out.

Btw, that is one of the funniest things i have ever heard, your a real knee slapper

If I wanted to get out of the debate, I would not have half a dozen posts in this thread already. I'm not the one resorting to insults in the face of opposition.

All you have done buddy is blow hot air about how your right and i'm wrong, you talk a good game but back it up with nothing but your OPINION, oh hey, let me guess, i'm just supposed to believe you right?

And this tautology does not explain why we desire things. Consumerist theory holds that #2 is entirely the result of marketing, and that this explains all non-need consumption.

Not really, and i hate to school you among your friends, but i hate a know it all that dont have a clue.

Example: peer preesure
Location: your local high school
Data set: the local jock scene

Examples of peer preesure as it relates to consumerism.

Your son jimmy really wants to b metal/rock e friends with the metal dudes at school, it's his freshmen year, he listens to all the right music, but his plaid pants and flannel shirt just dont seem to cut it. His peers are all wearing tore up levi jeans and band shirts, even though his basic clothing need is meet, in order to fit into the group he must consume some new clothes that he dont need.

Thats just jimmy, dont get me started on suzy and how clothes go out of fashion every year...lol

It refuses to deal with quality of life as a concept, and simply assigns human beings to one of two categories: mindless consumer drones, and cynical corporations who exploit the mindless consumer drones.

Mindless consumer drones? Why if that were possible, they could get everyone to shop on one day, and generate 1/4th of the years profit on that day, no way people are mindless consumer drones, there is no such thing as black friday, um, i mean, yeah we are all free thinking folks, or something like that.

Like most social theories, consumerism has the opposite problem of the old cliche: it can't see the trees for the forest. Human beings are individuals, and as such they will arrive at their desires differently. Some no doubt do fall for the marketing ploys.

Humans are social creatures and go with what the group goes with, are you really going to try and say we are free people and need no social interaction?

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ptmoraldev.html

We, like many other animals, are social creatures, and, like so many prairie dogs, we are attuned to the emotions and behaviors of our fellow humans. When one of us is frightened, the rest go into high alert; when one of us is angry, we can rouse the ire of an entire mob; when one of us is laughing, others begin to laugh as well - even when they don't get the joke.

I do know myself, as anyone who's read my blog for the past 7 years can readily attest. I test myself and my motivations regularly, and see introspection as a responsibility of all human beings. But on the basis of my disagreement with the vaunted wisdom of consumerist theory, you think you know me better. Again, get over yourself.

You believe me to be seriously fretting over my social standing, but all you have to do is read my posts here to understand that popularity is not one of the things I value. I've argued in favor of sex offenders and illegal immigrants to the "God, guns, and good ol' USA" crowd here. It's not a way to win friends and influence people. So when I say that you assume too much about me, it's because I don't fit into your neat little category of mindless consumer drone. Some people certainly do, but it's debatable just how many of them there are.

Listen, i know you like to come off as the loner gunman/unibomber type anti people person, and using your posts on the internet to show me how you disagree with people so you must not crave peer approval from any source is a good plea, but alas you have missed most of my points thru out the whole thread, as this last post should show you and the rest that are trying to pat you on the back(man you should yell at them for accepting you, you loner rebel you!)

I'm also a fitness buff. I have a home gym. On the basis of your consumerist theory, you should be able to predict what kind of shoes and clothing I wear to work out, and what kind of equipment is in my gym. Consumerist theory would lead someone to conclude that I wear Nike or Adidas shoes, Nike or UnderArmor clothing, have a Chuck Norris Total Gym and a Bowflex and one of those newfangled Bowflex Treadclimber things, because these are the most heavily marketed items in the fitness sector.

Consumerist theory would be wrong on all counts. I own none of these things. I bought my shoes by going into the shoe store and trying on every pair I could get my hands on, regardless of brand, until I found a pair that was comfortable and flexible enough to do what I wanted to do. My shorts and shirts are $3 pieces of crap from Wal-Mart. The equipment is stuff that answered the question "how do I do X without seriously hurting myself (again)?"

While the most marketing might mean the most sales, it's not always true, and has NOTHING to do with what i was talking about, but i like your stories, please go on.

Btw, this whole time, i have never said anything about you seeing a commercial and you going to buy the product. Thats your view of what i'm talking about. I on the other hand am talking about consumerism, were your beliefs and sub concious drive your desires. While proaganda does play a part in the whole picture, it is not the only picture like you are trying to make it out to be.

But good try.

But others arrive at their desires in a different way: I want to do X.

I feel like i'm going to cry if i have to explain this one more time. WHY. Why do you want that item.

A perfect example is older men and sports cars, who does not know this one eh?

So on the basis of your ignorance, my argument is invalid. Neat trick.

Wholly cow i was mistaken, and man enough to admit it, you showed me the error of my ways, you sir are in fact NOT a consumer, bravo.

It is if you want everything to fit into your myopic little view of the world. Of course, it doesn't account for the fact that I may be dissatisfied with my current TV because it doesn't work as well as I'd like, or because my wife is constantly watching crap I can't stand, or because I'd like one in another room to watch while I do another activity.

I was using tv's as an example, but for the record, people feel the need to be entertained, thats why tv is the 3rd highest item americans spend thier time on, behind sleep and work. Their is a crapload more of subconcious reasons, but entertainment is number one.

And here we are again with the brainwashing conspiracy theory. There are people who buy whatever is advertised, I have and will grant you that. But these instances do not account for 100% of all redundant TV sales. The consumerist theory can only stretch so far, and you want it to be a theory of everything. That dog don't hunt.

Hammer meet thumb, cause this guy ain't getting it at all.

1. All products are advertised in some way or another. So yes everyone does buy products that were advertised(even if it was the generic shoes at wal mart advertised in the sales paper.)
2. As much as you would like to think you know what your talking about, it is clear you dont, i wont respond to any reply on this topic from you as it is a waste of my time.

I'm failing to see how, with your constant insults, you can be considered a nice guy now.

Constant insults? What kind of conspriacy theory is that? Besides the fact that i dont play nice with people who have 10 majors but yet still cant explain engineering of consent without googling it.

The value of time is subjective. What we do with our time is a result of our values, and anyone with different values will necessarily see our time as "wasted". Of course, only supercilious folks like yourself will feel the need to deride any values that don't match your own, and dress it all up as academia.

Man do you ever need a refresher on psychology bro, your values as well as your desires, are passed on to you from family,friends,lovers,co workers,etc.

Let me guess, you thought your beliefs were 100% your own right? out of 6 billion people, your the one with all original thoughts running thru your brain right?

And the value of time is not subjective, while you may try to say it is, again there is ALWAYS opportunity costs based on what you do with your time, even if you dont believe it, it's a fact.

I understand the problem very well, but I'm beginning to understand the ways in which you do not. Unfortunately, since you seem to believe that there is a fixed supply of wealth in the world, there's not a lot we can talk about in economic terms until and unless a whole lot of groundwork has been laid.

Let me guess, one of your other majors was in economics, right...lmfao. Dude anytime you want to start laying any groundwork on economics, please feel free to do so. No wait, i'll start another thread so as to not derail this one.

You really need to understand, as many who have gone before you have not, that just because you're on a gun forum does not mean you're in the company of bubba-esque rubes who need to be educated by your mighty intellect. Folks around here are intelligent and most are fairly knowledgeable. Do not presume to talk down to them, because you won't last long if you do.

No way dude are you kidding me? And here my wife was so afraid that i would think she was bubba-esque for posting on this site, man what a relief to her, you really made her day now.

TBH i dont even think your bubba, and after explaining myself better, maybe you can get a handle on the topic and post something that makes sense.

I watched a buddys 52in for several weeks . The fact now that I am looking for another TV is a choice I have made. Why? Because the programs I watched on the 52in were far more enjoyable to watch than my old 26in cathode ray tube TV. No one has told me or brain washed me into knowing what that.
Line a billion people up and tell them to pick which is the better product for viewing and no doubt the choice would be unanimous, except for the few channeling Ted Kaczynski.


It is freedom of choice by me!

The "consumersim" theory is busted eveytime one makes a personal choice.

That was deep brother, i'm truly speechless, good job!!

How can it be an "insult" when YOU chose to identify yourself by it ?

Not the username, the "i can see why you choose that name", as if i somehow identified with the charcter and not the concept.

I suppose you identify yourself with penis correct?

See how that works?

An interesting aside to the need vs. want debate....I don't know if that black and white theory would work with the gun crowd. You know, we tend to collect multiple firearms that technically, we don't need. I don't think any of these guys around here are buying the line that they don't "need" those firearms and would probably tell someone to pound sand if addressed on the subject.

Fletch has done a very nice job responding to the OPs points - not a lot more to be said.

WHile you can only fire 2 at a time, you dont need more then 2, but, guns and ammo, are an investment and much of the gun community's and buyers i know realize this, and more research is needed, but from what i understand, guns have been thought of as a good investment for over 100 years if not longer.

And while the consumer has to wonder WHY he buys guns or more then he needs, and in some cases it might be to impress people. But i'm getting off track and want to get this post over with.

I can't say that I've ever seen a commercial advertising a problem and thought to myself I must have that. Not since I was a kid and watching a kid tv channel at the baby sitters.

Sorry, it's a bit confusing with fletch trying to explain what he thinks i mean.

I in NO WAY meant that you see a ad and run out and buy said product, if you ever do buy said product, while flecth was wrong about almost everything, he was right about us having different desires.

The older man and sports car is one example, the kid wanting the same backpack as her girlfriend is another, jimmy wanting to get a skateboard because johnny has one,etc.

It's a hard concept for a lot of people to grasp because we were brought up thinking we make all our choices and beliefs thru what he hear/see/read/etc. No one ever told us, that what we hear/see/read might be a lie to get us to believe this or that.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder because our belief systems are different based on what we have seen/read/heard/etc. But what we see/hear is not always the truth even though the mind excepts it as the truth.

If I didn't know better

You dont know better

 

[hornadylnl]

Randall

you clearly don't need your computer and Internet access. Please free yourself from the chains of consumerism and smash your computer. When you finish with that, you can live with the Amish.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Ah, so you dont get it either, enough said, thanks for the reply's.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ah, so you dont get it either, enough said, thanks for the reply's.

Oh I get it. You are the only person out 6 billion who is smart enough to not be a consumerist.

So what advertising caused you to buy the brand of computer you are using?

 

[Hotdoger]

How can it be an "insult" when YOU chose to identify yourself by it ? Not the username, the "i can see why you choose that name", as if i somehow identified with the charcter and not the concept.

I suppose you identify yourself with penis correct?

See how that works?

Out of the billions of people that know what a hotdog is, most think hotdog not a "penis".

My occupation involves selling hotdogs thus the descriptive screenname.

A screenname is a self identifier, reguardlesss of you abstract thinking it is not.

 

[Hotdoger]

Oh I get it. You are the only person out 6 billion who is smart enough to not be a consumerist.

So what advertising caused you to buy the brand of computer you are using?

His wife bought it, not him.