Consumerism

[Fletch]

I'll respond to one of the later points first:

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.

If you click my name and then "view public profile", you'll wind up on my user page. Once there, you'll see my name again, with a link below it called "user lists". Click this, and in the resulting menu click "add to ignore list". I invite you to do so now, and disregard the rest of this post.

(remember at the begining you were not a consumer because you had no debt...lol)

I never made that assertion. Of course I am a consumer; everyone is, even the poorest chump in the middle of the DRC who doesn't have 2 sticks to rub together. But unless this provides the basis for a tautological "proof" of consumerist theory, the point is moot.

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?

It's funny how I'm the one making arguments to support my position, and you're just chortling and talking about how smart you are.

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?

I never made that argument, and I am not likely to.

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.

Go ahead and cry, it might make you feel better. Then when you dry your tears, go back and read what you quoted of my post. Here, allow me to fill it in with a less generic example, one from the real world, one which applies to me at this very moment:

Me: I want to cut down this tree in my yard.
You: WHY?
Me: Because it's dead.
You: WHY?
Me: Because it has ceased to live.
You: WHY?
Me: Go take a biology class. Now, I want to cut this thing down and put the pieces in my wood pile. This will give me something to burn in my fireplace next winter and keep me warm.
You: WHY?
Me: Because staying warm in the winter is something that all mammals need to do, and the human mammal lacks fur to help in this endeavor.
You: WHY?
Me: Let's just cut to the chase and accept that eventually I'm going to have to tackle the problem of making a standing tree fall down, and realize that my bare hands are probably not going to accomplish much in that pursuit. I must now cast about and look for something that will help me accomplish my goal. Perhaps someone else knows a way to do it, and has managed to manufacture a suitable tool. If so, and if what they want in exchange is a price I'm willing and able to pay, then cool -- I can go about my business. If not, then I'll have to put my human ingenuity to work and see if I can come up with a tool on my own to do it. Otherwise, I'll have to content myself with being cold this winter, and hope I survive it.

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.

As above, I have never made the assertion that I am not a consumer. My thesis is more of the "so what?" variety.

Constant insults? What kind of conspriacy theory is that?

Your insulting behavior is separate from your conspiracy theory. In the main, I have been describing consumerism as a conspiracy theory because it has always struck me as such. I don't have a lot of respect for it or for half a dozen other half-baked ideas that various folks have come up with. You are not the first to present consumerism to me, and my attacks have been directed at consumerism, not at you.

Your behavior is just a creamy little bonus on top of that. Your attacks have been directed at me, not at my objections. This works on the playground, but not in an actual debate.

Besides the fact that i dont play nice with people who have 10 majors

I'm looking... and don't see anywhere that I've claimed to have had 10 majors.

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.

And you're forgetting that there is no way to accurately predict whether the values passed on will be positive or negative values.

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.

Opportunity costs are also subjective, because all value is subjective.

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.

I'm happy to be able to entertain your wife.

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'll be waiting for you to explain yourself better instead of filling the page with insults, and I'll be happy to respond when you do. Unfortunately, you won't be able to respond to me, since you've already taken a public vow not to, and I trust that you're a man of your word.

 

[Eddie]

The problem I see with the arguments about consumerism is that they assume that someone else can tell me what I do and what I don't need. That reminds me of those old sumptuary laws; the ones that said how much jewelry a person could wear or how many servants a person could have.

If I am paying my bills and saving for the future then who says I can't allocate a portion of my funds for leisure? If I enjoy having the latest guns or the latest gadgets and I can afford to pay for them in cash then who is to say that I am wrong in spending my own money?

If I already own five T.V.'s and I want to buy two more: one to put in the bathroom so I can watch cartoons while I bathe and another to take out and shoot for my own amusement I see nothing wrong with that behavior if I have already paid the bills.

Consumerism to me sounds like jealousy. Some academic was unhappy that they couldn't afford a sports car so they came up with a theory to say that its wrong for someone who could afford one to buy one.

 

[Fletch]

Consumerism to me sounds like jealousy. Some academic was unhappy that they couldn't afford a sports car so they came up with a theory to say that its wrong for someone who could afford one to buy one.

Yeah, pretty much. The politics of envy are nowhere as strong as they are on college campuses.

 

[Randall Flagg]

If you click my name and then "view public profile", you'll wind up on my user page. Once there, you'll see my name again, with a link below it called "user lists". Click this, and in the resulting menu click "add to ignore list". I invite you to do so now, and disregard the rest of this post.

I dont need to ignore you, you might have some good insite on another topic, just not this one.

I never made that assertion.

Really?

I for one stood in line for 3 hours to get an iPhone. I wanted one, and I could afford one. I didn't put a second mortgage on the house to get it, I just plunked down my cash and walked out of the store. That's not consumerism, that's just a guy buying something he thinks is cool.

If I had done so with a maxed out credit card, two car payments, and a double-mortgaged house, you might call it consumerism

Say again?

It's funny how I'm the one making arguments to support my position, and you're just chortling and talking about how smart you are.

Right, i'm the only one to provide links to reports,etc that back up at least some of what i'm saying, you provide retarded story's about trees, i can see the error of my ways now.

I never made that argument, and I am not likely to.

You said humans are individuals like we dont follow crowd psychology and/or peer pressure. Any person who admits to peer pressure, thus admits to consumerism that comes not from them, but others.

Your between a rock and a hard place, lets see your magic trick.

Go ahead and cry, it might make you feel better. Then when you dry your tears, go back and read what you quoted of my post. Here, allow me to fill it in with a less generic example, one from the real world, one which applies to me at this very moment:

You: i have no clue what your saying, thats why i'm using a tree as a rebuttal of consumerism????
Me: yeah i told you that you did not have a clue, maybe one of your friends on here could explain it to you.

how the heck did you fit these two thoughts in your mind and act like your doing ok buddy?

As above, I have never made the assertion that I am not a consumer. My thesis is more of the "so what?" variety.

and this one

In the main, I have been describing consumerism as a conspiracy theory because it has always struck me as such.

So you are a consumer, but it's a conspriacy theory? Interesting, very deep as well mind you.

You are not the first to present consumerism to me, and my attacks have been directed at consumerism

Your attacks have been at what you thought was consumerism(watching an ad and then going to buy said product(or what, you did not say that either, and i have to go back and quote you right)?

And you're forgetting that there is no way to accurately predict whether the values passed on will be positive or negative values.

MAn you really,really dont get what i'm saying do you? It dont matter if the values are good/bad/poor/super or whatever, the point was OUR VALUES/DESIRES ARE PASSED TO US thru our lovers/friends/family's/etc.

The WHOLE point of the thread was to show people that sometimes(but not all the time cheif) you buy things because of these forces and not because you just "want" to, that there are hidden subconcious activites that influence our buying.

Again, i have posted links to back this up, you have posted hot air about trees.

Opportunity costs are also subjective, because all value is subjective.

I was hoping to keep school you in economics out of this thread, but all value is not subjective.

I.E. the labour theory of value and also marginal utility which replaced it.

"The value of a thing in any given time and place", according to Henry George, "is the largest amount of exertion that anyone will render in exchange for it. But as men always seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion this is the lowest amount for which a similar thing can otherwise be obtained." https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/#cite_note-1

I'll be waiting for you to explain yourself better instead of filling the page with insults, and I'll be happy to respond when you do. Unfortunately, you won't be able to respond to me, since you've already taken a public vow not to, and I trust that you're a man of your word.

Sorry, i just could not leave people thinking your idiotic example of cutting down a tree had anything to do with what i was talking about.

After explaining myself three times, i am done replying to you in this thread, thanks for the halfway decent debate, next time please bring sources to back up hot air,thanks.

 

[Fletch]

You said humans are individuals like we dont follow crowd psychology and/or peer pressure.

Nope, I said humans are individuals not to imply that crowd psychology is meaningless, but that it cannot describe the purpose behind all behavior.

You: i have no clue what your saying, thats why i'm using a tree as a rebuttal of consumerism????
Me: yeah i told you that you did not have a clue, maybe one of your friends on here could explain it to you.

No, my tree example was demonstrating a self-generated desire for some product, one that does not involve crowds or peers or even advertising. This was perfectly obvious to anyone who actually read the whole exchange instead of looking for yet another opportunity to insult folks who disagree with them.

MAn you really,really dont get what i'm saying do you? It dont matter if the values are good/bad/poor/super or whatever, the point was OUR VALUES/DESIRES ARE PASSED TO US thru our lovers/friends/family's/etc.

And my point is that this is useless information, because whether the value passed is negative or positive is impossible to predict. Since you didn't understand what I mean by negative or positive, I will respond with another example to illustrate, in hopes that you might be capable of wrapping your mind around the metaphor...

My brother and I were raised in a rural household. All of our extended family members (that we came into regular contact with) were rural as well. Rural folks have particular attitudes about property, neighbors, "public" services, and the like, that are not shared by suburban or urban people.

I now live in a rural setting. I did everything I could to get out of town and buy a house with property and so forth. Thus, rural life was passed on to me as a positive value -- something to be supported and desired.

My brother on the other hand lives in the middle of St. Louis, MO. He's planning to move... to the middle of Columbus, OH. He hates rural life, and cannot stand the idea of living there. Rural living was passed on to him as a negative value -- something to be avoided.

When we were 17, 18 years old, there was NO WAY to predict what kind of values would be passed on to us, in any category of value that one cares to dream up. Our parents are Baptists. I'm a Christian, but definitely not a Baptist. He's an atheist. Our parents are Republicans. I'm a libertarian, he's a Democrat. The fact that our parents passed on values to us cannot be denied, but one cannot simply look at our parents and predict whether the values they tried to pass on wound up being positive or negative ones.

The WHOLE point of the thread was to show people that sometimes(but not all the time cheif) you buy things because of these forces and not because you just "want" to, that there are hidden subconcious activites that influence our buying.

And I can certainly agree with "sometimes". But it doesn't apply uniformly, and it especially doesn't apply when people are aware of these things and actively work to obviate their effects. This is the entire purpose of Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace empire... to get people to understand how salesmen, advertisements, and other marketing strategies are working against them, and teach people how to resist those things and instead generate their own desires.

I was hoping to keep school you in economics out of this thread, but all value is not subjective.

I.E. the labour theory of value and also marginal utility which replaced it.

The labor theory of value is utter BS, as demonstrated by countless economists since.

Marginal utility is a measure of relative value, and as such is only relevant to a particular individual, which means the value remains subjective.

For example:

Imagine three individuals who are hungry. Fat Fred, Slim Steve, and Allergic Adam.

Fat Fred eats a hamburger. He's not quite satisfied, so he eats another one. And then another. The consumption of each subsequent hamburger is relatively less urgent than the one before it, until he reaches the point where he decides he doesn't want to eat another hamburger. The decreasing value of each hamburger in progression is a statement of his marginal utility, and the margin is the point at which he decides he doesn't want to eat another hamburger.

Slim Steve is also hungry, but he eats a hamburger and declares that he is done. His marginal utility is different from Fat Fred's, because the value he assigns to each hamburger is different. We might say that Steve will eat one hamburger and Fred will eat three, but the "units" of marginal utility are unknown, because all value is subjective. It might be that Fred could be convinced to eat a fourth hamburger, while Steve will absolutely refuse to eat a second.

Allergic Adam is hungry, but he won't eat a hamburger at all because he's allergic to sesame seeds (or whatever). The value he places on a hamburger is effectively zero, and his marginal utility could be argued to not even exist, since marginal utility is a measure of relative value for repeat consumption. If there's no value assigned to the first hamburger, there can be no value assigned to the second.

Sorry, i just could not leave people thinking your idiotic example of cutting down a tree had anything to do with what i was talking about.

It did, you just didn't know how it did. I tend to speak in metaphors, because it generally helps folks understand what I'm trying to say. You're the first to complain about it.

After explaining myself three times, i am done replying to you in this thread, thanks for the halfway decent debate, next time please bring sources to back up hot air,thanks.

Somehow I doubt you'll keep your promise this time, but good job on slightly toning down the insults. Maybe someday soon you'll be able to make a post without any.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Somehow I doubt you'll keep your promise this time

YOur right, you have twisted the meaning so far from the op that is boardline another topic.

Nope, I said humans are individuals not to imply that crowd psychology is meaningless, but that it cannot describe the purpose behind all behavior.

Not all, but most.

No, my tree example was demonstrating a self-generated desire for some product, one that does not involve crowds or peers or even advertising. This was perfectly obvious to anyone who actually read the whole exchange instead of looking for yet another opportunity to insult folks who disagree with them.

While on the surface it looks right, when we dig deeper we find it ain't so.

example: your not running around cutting down dead trees everywhere.

your one line example of why you want to cut down the dead tree(to use as fuel) is a lot deeper then that, why use wood as a fuel for example? so while on the surface you might have done a c- job on explaining it, your still not getting it.

And my point is that this is useless information, because whether the value passed is negative or positive is impossible to predict. Since you didn't understand what I mean by negative or positive, I will respond with another example to illustrate, in hopes that you might be capable of wrapping your mind around the metaphor...

Parents pass on what they view as positive values(for whatever reason they view them that way), what happens when you take those views becomes positive reinforcement of those ideas or they dont.

i.e. my parents passed on the value that all police can be trusted to my brother and i. since then because of all the wrongs done to me by police, i view this as a negative value, while my brother never got in trouble, and he is now a cop.

The value comes to us as a positive(now if it is a positive is not known, but the person passing it on views it as positive) your experence's,beliefs,etc then all affect how you see and use that value from then on.

Imagine three individuals who are hungry. Fat Fred, Slim Steve, and Allergic Adam.

Fat Fred eats a hamburger. He's not quite satisfied, so he eats another one. And then another. The consumption of each subsequent hamburger is relatively less urgent than the one before it, until he reaches the point where he decides he doesn't want to eat another hamburger. The decreasing value of each hamburger in progression is a statement of his marginal utility, and the margin is the point at which he decides he doesn't want to eat another hamburger.

Slim Steve is also hungry, but he eats a hamburger and declares that he is done. His marginal utility is different from Fat Fred's, because the value he assigns to each hamburger is different. We might say that Steve will eat one hamburger and Fred will eat three, but the "units" of marginal utility are unknown, because all value is subjective. It might be that Fred could be convinced to eat a fourth hamburger, while Steve will absolutely refuse to eat a second.

Allergic Adam is hungry, but he won't eat a hamburger at all because he's allergic to sesame seeds (or whatever). The value he places on a hamburger is effectively zero, and his marginal utility could be argued to not even exist, since marginal utility is a measure of relative value for repeat consumption. If there's no value assigned to the first hamburger, there can be no value assigned to the second.

Does not matter what value, they place on the burgers as they dont own mac d's.

Tell you what, go by 1 burger at a time at mac d's, when buying each new burger, tell them, "since i just had a burger and am not as hungry as i was before i want to pay 5 cents less this time for the same product as before".

See where that gets you.

It did, you just didn't know how it did. I tend to speak in metaphors, because it generally helps folks understand what I'm trying to say. You're the first to complain about it.

Only because it creates a **** poor example of what i'm talking about. no one action is just one action, each THOUGHT goes thru 2 processes before it's even considered a THOUGHT.

 

[Fletch]

While on the surface it looks right, when we dig deeper we find it ain't so.

example: your not running around cutting down dead trees everywhere.

That's because people tend to get sore if you walk on their property and start cutting down trees that you don't own. Seemed pretty obvious to me. Do I need to explain private property?

Does not matter what value, they place on the burgers as they dont own mac d's.

It absolutely matters. If I value a burger for less than McDonald's is welling to sell it for, I will either negotiate a price or I will not buy the burger. If, as your further discussion illustrates, they are not willing to negotiate, they have lost a sale.

Not everything in the retail world is a fixed price. Americans tend to think so, because we are used to paying sticker price, but this is not the case in most of the rest of the world. In other parts of the world, people haggle over the price of every last thing they buy. It's possible to do in America... possibly not at McDonald's due to the low negotiating power of their employees, but it is possible to do -- you just take the yard sale mentality with you and walk into Best Buy or Home Depot or whatever, and if you're willing to ask for deals, you can get them. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

The point of all that is, for any item you care to name, you can pick a price and say "I'm willing to pay this much for it, but no more". If you stick to that, you can save yourself a lot of trouble. The fact is, most Americans are actually willing to pay more for the products they buy than they are charged. When they pay the price on the sticker, they are in effect stating that the sticker price was less than or equal to the price they would pay if asked "what are you willing to pay?"

When I bought my Olympic weights, I said I'd pay $100 for a 300-pound set and no more. It took a while to find that deal, but that's all I paid. Prices are not set in stone, not for anything. And the reason they fluctuate is because value is subjective.

 

[Eddie]

YOur right, you have twisted the meaning so far from the op that is boardline another topic.

Then to get back to the OP, please explain what is wrong with a person spending their own money in a manner that they choose to spend it? Who gets to decide what is neccessary for life? Shouldn't people be free to dispose of their wealth as they see fit to do so? People were buying luxury items well before the dates cited in the OP.

 

[hornadylnl]

Randall

You've got me convinced. Now how do we rid ourselves of consumerism? What's your solution?

 

[Randall Flagg]

That's because people tend to get sore if you walk on their property and start cutting down trees that you don't own. Seemed pretty obvious to me. Do I need to explain private property?

You know what i mean, is there ANY doubt that someone would let you cut a dead tree from their yard if you asked? not likely eh? Matter of fact, i got one you can have right now.

It absolutely matters. If I value a burger for less than McDonald's is welling to sell it for, I will either negotiate a price or I will not buy the burger. If, as your further discussion illustrates, they are not willing to negotiate, they have lost a sale.

Not everything in the retail world is a fixed price. Americans tend to think so, because we are used to paying sticker price, but this is not the case in most of the rest of the world. In other parts of the world, people haggle over the price of every last thing they buy. It's possible to do in America... possibly not at McDonald's due to the low negotiating power of their employees, but it is possible to do -- you just take the yard sale mentality with you and walk into Best Buy or Home Depot or whatever, and if you're willing to ask for deals, you can get them. Not every time, but a lot of the time.

The point of all that is, for any item you care to name, you can pick a price and say "I'm willing to pay this much for it, but no more". If you stick to that, you can save yourself a lot of trouble. The fact is, most Americans are actually willing to pay more for the products they buy than they are charged. When they pay the price on the sticker, they are in effect stating that the sticker price was less than or equal to the price they would pay if asked "what are you willing to pay?"

When I bought my Olympic weights, I said I'd pay $100 for a 300-pound set and no more. It took a while to find that deal, but that's all I paid. Prices are not set in stone, not for anything. And the reason they fluctuate is because value is subjective.

So you think if everyone wanted to pay 50 bucks for a Rolls Royce, then we could all buy a Rolls Royce for 50 bucks huh?

You fail to take into account every thing needed to be done in order to bring that product to you. You wont go into any store and haggle them down, again, feel free to video your experiment at mac d's this week to show me I'm wrong.

And no matter what your opinion is, no one is going to sell you ANYTHING for less then it cost them unless they fall on drastic times indeed.

The only people that haggle are someone selling something used(flea market/garage sale/paper/etc), or someone that left plenty of room from his cost to the consumers cost that he has natural wiggle room, (i.e. cars and homes,etc).

Then to get back to the OP, please explain what is wrong with a person spending their own money in a manner that they choose to spend it? Who gets to decide what is neccessary for life? Shouldn't people be free to dispose of their wealth as they see fit to do so? People were buying luxury items well before the dates cited in the OP.

The point of the op was not to say buying any products with your money is bad eddie, it was to say the reason behind alot of our shopping(as well as other areas of our life) is not always what we think it is. There are other force's working to form our world view from shopping to racism, to sexism, to just about everything.

I used consumerism because it is easier to show people how others affect our behaviours in shopping and such. Sadly some people chimed in with what they thought they knew and the message was somehow lost.

You can be sure this was my message with another look at my op.

Read the quote from miser, watch the movie i linked to titled century of self, re read my posts and then lets see what you have to say.

thanks for the replys sir.

Randall

You've got me convinced. Now how do we rid ourselves of consumerism? What's your solution?

We dont, cause if we do, the system collapse's.

 

[JetGirl]

no one is going to sell you ANYTHING for less then it cost them unless they fall on drastic times indeed.

The only people that haggle are someone selling something used(flea market/garage sale/paper/etc), or someone that left plenty of room from his cost to the consumers cost that he has natural wiggle room, (i.e. cars and homes,etc).

This part ^ is not true. I've got friends that negotiate in stores in the mall. Glenbrook to be exact. Right out the door with under the sticker price on their receipts and new "name brand" products in a bag. Some stores are Foot Locker, JC Penny, and Hot Topics.
There are other examples...but it pretty much happens all the time.

 

[Fletch]

You know what i mean, is there ANY doubt that someone would let you cut a dead tree from their yard if you asked?

Around here, of course there is. A LOT of people in my area have fireplaces that they use in the winter. Firewood is worth something to them. They're not going to just give it away.

Matter of fact, i got one you can have right now.

900 miles is a long way to go for one tree. You'll need to make a better offer.

So you think if everyone wanted to pay 50 bucks for a Rolls Royce, then we could all buy a Rolls Royce for 50 bucks huh?

If everyone in the world, all of Rolls Royce's potential customers, absolutely refused to spend more than $50 for a Rolls Royce, they would go out of business and their factors of production would be bought by someone else to make a different product. That's what I'm saying, not that everyone would get one for $50.

You fail to take into account every thing needed to be done in order to bring that product to you.

I absolutely do not. PRICE has nothing to do with COST. Price is the value exchanged at the moment of exchange. It has nothing to do with what's on the sticker. The sticker is merely what the producer is asking. If the buyer refuses to pay the sticker, the seller will either lower the asking price or lose the sale. If enough buyers refuse the asking price, the seller becomes stuck with a product he has to unload in order to recover even a part of his cost. When that happens, when the actual market price of a good falls below the cost to produce it, the seller either finds a way to produce it cheaper or he stops producing it altogether.

So to summarize: Asking price is what the seller wants. Bidding price is what the buyer offers. Market price is what they eventually agree to, if they agree to an exchange. Only the asking price has anything whatsoever to do with the cost of producing the item.

And no matter what your opinion is, no one is going to sell you ANYTHING for less then it cost them unless they fall on drastic times indeed.

Have you never heard of loss leaders? XBox 360? PlayStation 3? Gillette Razors? Mobile phones? Seriously? You've heard of none of these things?

The only people that haggle are someone selling something used(flea market/garage sale/paper/etc), or someone that left plenty of room from his cost to the consumers cost that he has natural wiggle room, (i.e. cars and homes,etc).

You need to get out more.

We dont, cause if we do, the system collapse's.

The current system might collapse, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. A return to real money would solve a lot of problems in the long run.

 

[Randall Flagg]

This part ^ is not true. I've got friends that negotiate in stores in the mall. Glenbrook to be exact. Right out the door with under the sticker price on their receipts and new "name brand" products in a bag. Some stores are Foot Locker, JC Penny, and Hot Topics.
There are other examples...but it pretty much happens all the time.

Right, again they are people that have plenty of wiggle room on their product prices, foot locker is a great example. The store price is 115 bucks, the customer walks out with them only costing him 90, the owner is laughing because he just made 50 bucks and Still had a customer leave who will now bring in more business with this tactic of word of mouth.

Example:
girl 1: dang girl those shoes are hot, where did you get them at?
girl 2: girl i got them at the footlocker in the mall the other day, had to do some shopping, and i got a great deal on them, price was 115, but i talked him down to 90.
girl 1: i know thats right, imma have to go pick me up a pair of them shoes if they doing deals like that.


There are whole web based communities on getting deals and such, owners know the effects of positive feedback from customers on other would be customers. So haggling may be possible with ANYONE with a large enough profit margin(and also the owner of the store, no 16 yr old kid is selling his bosses products for less then he is told too).

Plus the laws of business would be broken if people ran a business selling things for LESS then what they paid for them.

So there is always going to be a price you can not go below UNLESS your on hard times(foreclousure,going out of business,etc,etc).


Again this is easy to test, grab a 60 dollar pair of shoes off footlockers shelf, tell them you will give them five bucks for them or they will lose the sale.

Please post video results if you do though

 

[hornadylnl]

We dont, cause if we do, the system collapse's.

So please explain to me how you participating in the same actions that you call us idiots for makes you smarter.

Mods, can we get an IP address check in here? I think these posts are coming from Smoking357's basement.

 

[Eddie]

The point of the op was not to say buying any products with your money is bad eddie, it was to say the reason behind alot of our shopping(as well as other areas of our life) is not always what we think it is. There are other force's working to form our world view from shopping to racism, to sexism, to just about everything.

I used consumerism because it is easier to show people how others affect our behaviours in shopping and such. Sadly some people chimed in with what they thought they knew and the message was somehow lost.

You can be sure this was my message with another look at my op.

Read the quote from miser, watch the movie i linked to titled century of self, re read my posts and then lets see what you have to say.

OK, uh, So What? Why is this important? Why does it matter? It just boils down to say that "lots of things influence a person's world view". That is hardly earth shaking news.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Around here, of course there is. A LOT of people in my area have fireplaces that they use in the winter. Firewood is worth something to them. They're not going to just give it away.

Thats strange, maybe this is an okc craigslist from another galaxy then cause it seems people around your parts DO give away firewood for free.

oklahoma city free stuff classifieds - craigslist

If everyone in the world, all of Rolls Royce's potential customers, absolutely refused to spend more than $50 for a Rolls Royce, they would go out of business and their factors of production would be bought by someone else to make a different product. That's what I'm saying, not that everyone would get one for $50.

EXACTLY, so you can only buy something for more then what someone PUT INTO making it, correct? Otherwise there would be no product to get because people dont make products to lose money and provide everyone but them self a better life.

I absolutely do not. PRICE has nothing to do with COST.

It has everything to do with cost, if it cost me 300 to produce an item, you are not going to pay me less then that(again unless i go into drastic times,foreclosure,etc).

Price is the value exchanged at the moment of exchange. It has nothing to do with what's on the sticker.

I never said it did, it would be a stupid,stupid man to put his asking price as the same price it cost him to produce said item, therefore it's only logical to assume ALL sticker prices have wiggle room(otherwise known as profit) in them.

The amount of wiggle room is the difference between the cost of producing the item(or whatever it cost the shop owner) and the sticker price.

Now even in the same company, different owners of stores might have different levels of wiggle room, the store owner who has 500k of gambling debt has less wiggle room in his prices then the store owner buying and selling the same product but who dont have huge debts to service off his profit margins.

When that happens, when the actual market price of a good falls below the cost to produce it, the seller either finds a way to produce it cheaper or he stops producing it altogether.

Exactly, you either pay the price that it cost to produce an item, or you never get the item.

Have you never heard of loss leaders? XBox 360? PlayStation 3? Gillette Razors? Mobile phones? Seriously? You've heard of none of these things?

Yeah it's called marketing strategy, stores and most experts agree, along with most data on the subject, that if you offer a product for less then what it sells for, you make up what you lost thru other products purchased during their visit to your store.

Or were you trying to imply that sony sells all their playstations for a loss?

Retail merchandise that is advertised and sold at a price representing a loss of profit for the retailer, but is used to draw (lead)customers into the store in the hope that they will make additional purchases. See also leader pricing.

leader pricing

Reduction in the price of a high-demand item to get people to come into a retail store or to encourage a direct mail purchase that may inspire additional purchases; also called loss leader pricing. It is believed that once a decision to purchase an item is made, the customer's resistance to purchasing additional items at full price will be lower. Leader pricing can be at or below the seller's own cost. The loss leader is usually a moderately priced item that most people can afford and that has a well-known normal selling price. Supermarkets usually use a staple item such as soap or coffee as a loss leader. Leader pricing may involve a single product or a complete product line.

You need to get out more.

I'm out everyday, interacting with the public and consumers

The current system might collapse, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. A return to real money would solve a lot of problems in the long run.

I totally agree with you here, well except for the fact that the system will collapse, no might about it, but i do agree that is is a good thing if it is prepared for, for most it will be like hell.

 

[Randall Flagg]

So please explain to me how you participating in the same actions that you call us idiots for makes you smarter.

Mods, can we get an IP address check in here? I think these posts are coming from Smoking357's basement.

I'm not saying I'm smarter or calling you an idiot, at least i don't remember calling you an idiot. I'm more in tune with things now, for example, most people who believe in the two party(repub/dem) political system are allowing other people(pundits,churches,family's,co workers,etc) instead of facts to define their world view.

Yes mods, can we end his paranoia for good please?

OK, uh, So What? Why is this important? Why does it matter? It just boils down to say that "lots of things influence a person's world view". That is hardly earth shaking news.

It's not earth shaking news, what is earth shaking news is why they influncing our world views, to what end, why try to influnce anything we do? Control, thats why eddie, i'm guessing you like the way others have influnced our views and thus our country's direction these last 50 years or so eh?

 

[hornadylnl]

You've insinuated several times that Fletch is an idiot and that we are too stupid to understand marketing.

So again, please tell us what it makes you when you criticize us for the purchases we make and yet you participate in the same things we do? Unless you are living in a cave and eating from the tip of a hand fashioned spear, you to are a consumer. But because you "understand" it, you can participate in consumerism and not be a hypocrite. That's just like elitist liberals that are wealth billionaires and criticize wealthy business owners for not sharing their wealth. Liberals don't have to share their wealth with the poor because they "understand" the plight of the poor.

The only solutions you problems you see in consumerism is to limit rights of individuals. You feel they are too stupid to act in their own interests so you must take away their ability to work against their own best interests. Communism much?

 

[Eddie]

It's not earth shaking news, what is earth shaking news is why they influncing our world views, to what end, why try to influnce anything we do? Control, thats why eddie, i'm guessing you like the way others have influnced our views and thus our country's direction these last 50 years or so eh?

Show me how that relates to the OP? All you have said is that people who sell stuff try to influence people to buy the stuff that they sell. What is wrong with that?

The statement in red above is so vague that it is meaningless. Spit it out. What are you trying to say?

 

[lashicoN]

I don't care about this argument one way or another, but how long will the whole Smoking357 bit last for? Every new member who disagrees with the majority is going to be called Smoking357? Once again, you're going to drive new members away. It's annoying and it is an easy way out of an argument.

Back on topic though, your screen name is, I think, a perfect example. For people who don't know or don't care to look up, Randall Flagg is a character in several Stephen King books (The Stand, Eyes of the Dragon, Dark Tower Series). These books are all great, Dark Tower Series being my favorite fictional books ever, but that is exactly what they are, fictional books. You learned nothing from those books that you couldn't have learned in educational books, thus, you didn't NEED to read them. But you like Stephen King books, so you picked them up and read them, they turned out to be great books, just like the Iphone.

If you have everything that you need, and still have money, why not move on to the things that you want? What else is there is this world other than needs and wants?

You don't need air conditioning, a house, a car, grocery stores, firearms, family, but these things are nice to have. If I'm a "consumerist" for wanting these things, I don't have a problem with that.