Economic Classes explained - General

[QUOTE=RB33;52440786]Well, that's just incorrect. We produce so much unnecessary wasteful shit, intentionally produce low quality goods for them to break, so people buy new ones. Competing with new products with marginal improvements for people to waste their money on. The economy isn't run effectively and if it was, we would have a big pile of good sitting for us to give to the poor and needy. But we don't, because profits are more important than people. These are just excuses so people resolve to believing that capitalism is the only viable system and to keep the exploitation going. It's sad to see workers believing in it, they are the ones losing from it. Only if you're rich, do you stand to lose from socialism. Call me naive for it, but please look in the mirror before.[/QUOTE] People buy 'cheap' stuff because the greater opportunity cost of high quality isn't worth the increased cost in labor and/or resources. This is what I mean by it being incredibly complex. There's no such thing as an objective value. Everything gains value by how much people want it and how difficult it is to produce. Like all true socialism, it ends up being an authoritarian dictatorship where those in charge pick what everyone ought to want. [editline]6th July 2017[/editline] You're arguing as if we live post scarcity, but we don't. We're not even close. There's not even close to being enough resources, labor, or production to give everyone everything they want. So we must have a way to pick and choose what's worth it and what isn't.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440786]Well, that's just incorrect. We produce so much unnecessary wasteful shit, intentionally produce low quality goods for them to break, so people buy new ones. Competing with new products with marginal improvements for people to waste their money on. The economy isn't run effectively and if it was, we would have a big pile of goods sitting for us to give to the poor and needy. But we don't, because profits are more important than people. These are just excuses so people resolve to believing that capitalism is the only viable system and to keep the exploitation going. It's sad to see workers believing in it, they are the ones losing from it. Only if you're rich, do you stand to lose from socialism. Call me naive for it, but please look in the mirror before.[/QUOTE] Question, why can't we have unnecesary wasteful shit, knowing full well that they don't serve any purpose whatsoever? Why can't people produce cheaper goods, knowing that there is a market for people who want the real deal but don't have the means to acquire them? One man's trash is another man's treasure.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52440804]People buy 'cheap' stuff because the greater opportunity cost of high quality isn't worth the increased cost in labor and/or resources. This is what I mean by it being incredibly complex. There's no such thing as an objective value. Everything gains value by how much people want it and how difficult it is to produce. Like all socialists, it seems you want an authoritarian dictatorship where you get to tell everyone what they ought to want.[/QUOTE] Some of the older stuff (mostly electrical machines) produced 30-50 years ago still keeps going today, if you buy a new model, it only last 5-10 years. They did something to lower the quality, so no. The price isn't really worth it compared to before, but we don't have a choice either. Because everything is produced at an lower quality now, because we can just buy a new one right? It's both wasteful and ineffective. Seems like you want an oligarchy run by the 1% dictating our laws and living standards. [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=T553412;52440810]Question, why can't we have unnecesary wasteful shit, knowing full well that they don't serve any purpose whatsoever? Why can't people produce cheaper goods, knowing that there is a market for people who want the real deal but don't have the means to acquire them? One man's trash is another man's treasure.[/QUOTE] Why bother producing low-quality trash, when we can shift all production into reasonable-priced good-quality variants instead? With no competition, we don't need to make worse stuff anymore. Just focusing on what's good and how many people want it. [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52440804]You're arguing as if we live post scarcity, but we don't. We're not even close. There's not even close to being enough resources, labor, or production to give everyone everything they want. So we must have a way to pick and choose what's worth it and what isn't.[/QUOTE] We do, because post-scarcity is about feeding everyone and giving them a house to live in. Not give everyone a hovering car with space engines. When you move the goalposts of what post-scarcity is, you will never reach it.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440819]Some of the older stuff (mostly electrical machines) produced 30-50 years ago still keeps going today, do you buy a new model, it only last 5-10 years. They did something to lower the quality, so no. The price isn't really worth it compared to before, but we don't have a choice either. Because everything is produced at an lower quality now, because we can just buy a new one right? Seems like you want an oligarchy run by the 1% dictating our laws and living standards.[/QUOTE] Again, you're simply naive about what's going on. Products today are incredibly more complex than products 30-50 years ago. There are way more parts, with way tighter allowances, with way more complexity, etc. Also, what electronics are you buying that only last 5 years? I've never had anything break that fast (unless it was faulty). [QUOTE]The price isn't really worth it compared to before[/QUOTE] This is especially nonsense. The electronics of today provide WAY more usefulness and value than anything of 30-50 years ago. The amount of time put into them today would have been unheard of in the 1980s, if they even existed. [editline]6th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52440819]We do, because post-scarcity is about feeding everyone and giving them a house to live in. Not give everyone a hovering car with space engines. When you move the goalposts of what post-scarcity is, you will never reach it.[/QUOTE] I mean, you're just factually wrong here. Post scarcity means that all demand is able to be filled, including demand for unnecessary desires. That's what it is; that there is no more resource or labor scarcity to worry about. The vast majority of our economy is about providing the unecessary.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52440847]Again, you're simply naive about what's going on. Products today are incredibly more complex than products 30-50 years ago. There are way more parts, with way tighter allowances, with way more complexity, etc. Also, what electronics are you buying that only last 5 years? I've never had anything break that fast (unless it was faulty).[/QUOTE] Well, we shouldn't be importing low-quality Chinese-made products then. It's made to be cheap, not good. [QUOTE]This is especially nonsense. The electronics of today provide WAY more usefulness and value than anything of 30-50 years ago. The amount of time put into them today would have been unheard of in the 1980s, if they even existed.[/QUOTE] I wasn't talking about computers or mobile phones which didn't exist back then. Ordinary things like electric tools, fridges, microwaves. Some of these things are going strong after 30 years of use. We're mostly only getting low-quality products sold to us now.

We DO NOT live in a post scarcity world.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52440847]I mean, you're just factually wrong here. Post scarcity means that all demand is able to be filled, including demand for unnecessary desires. That's what it is; that there is no more resource or labor scarcity to worry about. [B]The vast majority of our economy is about providing the unecessary.[/B][/QUOTE] We don't need to be living in utopian post-scarcity to provide basic goods for everyone. And you just highlighted the flaw of capitalism. Your country doesn't even provide healthcare to all its people. Have lots of homelessness and unaccountable corrupt businesses. Still we waste money and resources for Iphones and super cars. One of these things are more important than the other and it isn't super cars. How many meals for homeless people does a fancy Ferrari pay for? How many people could be living in that mansion? It's an unacceptable waste of resources when people still suffer.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440870]Well, we shouldn't be importing low-quality Chinese-made products then. It's made to be cheap, not good. I wasn't talking about computers or mobile phones which didn't exist back then. Ordinary things like electric tools, fridges, microwaves. Some of these things are going strong after 30 years of use. We're mostly only getting low-quality products sold to us now.[/QUOTE] A dishwasher cost about $250 in 1980. That's around $728 of 2016 dollars. You spend $728 on a dishwasher and you'll be buying a top of the line version that cleans better, uses less water, and has a ton more features than the one that cost the same amount in 1980. This holds for basically everything. Your world where products used to be better for the same price is a delusion. Products today are much cheaper, they work much better, and they are available to way more people. You are welcome to spend what they used to spend on those products for top of the line versions, but not everyone wants to do that. [editline]6th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52440895]We don't need to be living in utopian post-scarcity to provide basic goods for everyone. And you just highlighted the flaw of capitalism. Your country doesn't even provide healthcare to all it's people. Have lots of homelessness and unaccountable corrupt businesses. Still we waste money and resources for Iphones and super cars. One of these things are more important than the other and it isn't super cars.[/QUOTE] Again, your solution seems to be an authoritarian dictatorship where you tell everyone what they're allowed to own, just like every attempt at large scale socialism or communism ends up becoming.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52440900]A dishwasher cost about $250 in 1980. That's around $728 of 2016 dollars. You spend $728 on a dishwasher and you'll be buying a top of the line version that cleans better, uses less water, and has a ton more features than the one that cost the same amount in 1980. Your world where products used to be better for the same price is a delusion.[/QUOTE] Maybe, we should stop producing the new, cheap low-quality ones then. Then lowering the prices of the good ones. Despite the technological progress, a cheap 2016 washing machine can't beat the standard one people bought 30 years ago. What is that, except a waste of resources? [QUOTE]Again, your solution seems to be an authoritarian dictatorship where you tell everyone what they're allowed to own, just like every attempt at large scale socialism or communism ends up becoming.[/QUOTE] And you accept poverty, homelessness and third world levels of healthcare? While having a two party system which seldom represents the will of the people. Capitalism or the US are no saints. Comparing every socialism to Soviet repression is just a flawed argument.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440926]Maybe, we should stop producing the new, cheap low-quality ones then. Then lowering the prices of the good ones. Despite the technological progress, a cheap 2016 washing machine can't beat the standard one people bought 30 years ago. What is that, except a waste of resources?[/QUOTE] Are you kidding? You have any idea how much more energy and water efficient new washing machines are? Yeah 30 year old washing machines are great if you hate the planet.

[QUOTE=OvB;52440930]Are you kidding? You have any idea how much more energy and water efficient new washing machines are? Yeah 30 year old washing machines are great if you hate the planet.[/QUOTE] Not producing the 30 years old ones, of course. But stop producing the low-quality ones of today and only producing the better ones.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440947]Not producing the 30 years old ones, of course. But stop producing the low-quality ones of today and only producing the better ones.[/QUOTE] Dude you're not listening. The washing machines today are better than then. Fact. Planned obsolescence is an issue but not a super prevalent one.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52440974]Dude you're not listening. The washing machines today are better than then. Fact. Planned obsolescence is an issue but not a super prevalent one.[/QUOTE] It isn't better if it's broken. You can put how much tech you want in it, if it's broken it's useless. I love how you keep critizing how it's better now, when we produce stuff with worse durability than 30-50 years ago. You say it isn't common, but it shouldn't be happening at all. If we could have 3-5 washing machines which were all ensured to be good quality and we only produced those. What would be the problem? Choice is worthless when we can only pick between cheap, low-quality products. Whatever we choose it will be below acceptable standards and not what we need or want anyway.

[QUOTE=RB33;52441013]It isn't better if it's broken. You can put how much tech you want in it, if it's broken it's useless. I love how you keep critizing how it's better now, when we produce stuff with worse durability than 30-50 years ago. You say it isn't common, but it shouldn't be happening at all. If we could have 3-5 washing machines which were all ensured to be good quality and we only produced those. What would be the problem? Choice is worthless when we can only pick between cheap, low-quality products. Whatever we choose it will be below acceptable standards and not what we need or want anyway.[/QUOTE] You are under the [B]false[/B] impression that all appliances from that age last like that. Guess what? They don't. You'd be lucky to find a washing machine that's 40 years old, made from older parts, using older technology, operating with tons of in-efficiencies in working order today despite your claims that they all seem to work and last that long. They. Do. Not. You seem ignorant dude, frankly, that's all I'm getting out of this and I'm not a big fan of capitalism either. You just seem to lack experience with these things. I've bought a washer/dryer. I've bought a stove, a dishwasher, etc, you can say "They're all cheap crap and they'll all break the same" but 1) that isn't true 2) it was never true that all the choices on the market were good, let alone valuable.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52441051]You are under the [B]false[/B] impression that all appliances from that age last like that. Guess what? They don't. You'd be lucky to find a washing machine that's 40 years old, made from older parts, using older technology, operating with tons of in-efficiencies in working order today despite your claims that they all seem to work and last that long. They. Do. Not. You seem ignorant dude, frankly, that's all I'm getting out of this and I'm not a big fan of capitalism either. You just seem to lack experience with these things. I've bought a washer/dryer. I've bought a stove, a dishwasher, etc, you can say "They're all cheap crap and they'll all break the same" but 1) that isn't true 2) it was never true that all the choices on the market were good, let alone valuable.[/QUOTE] If wasn't referring to washing machines really in my original point, they are explainably wear and tear products. We did have one washing machine that did break after a couple of years, the one before that wasn't very good either. Several family members have fridges at least 20 years old, all still working. We had our microwave for 25 years before replacing it. Our new one is slowly becoming worse and worse after 6 years. Of course, there were bad stuff then too. But there many more of them now. That's not really deniable. It's still a waste of resources producing stuff that has low durability. Edit: Anyway, we have derailed this enough. Let's keep it to socialism, but I don't think we'll make more progress there either.

Anecdotal evidence of your appliance's life does not prove the industry is producing low durability product. Recycling exists, so in cases of unsalvageable failure the waste is not as nearly high as you believe in general. [quote]Edit: Anyway, we have derailed this enough. Let's keep it to socialism, but I don't think we'll make more progress there either.[/QUOTE] This still revolves around your implicit claim that things can be objectively valued.

[QUOTE=RB33;52441098]If wasn't referring to washing machines really in my original point, they are explainably wear and tear products. We did have one washing machine that did break after a couple of years, the one before that wasn't very good either. Several family members have fridges at least 20 years old, all still working. We had our microwave for 25 years before replacing it. Our new one is slowly becoming worse and worse after 6 years. Of course, there were bad stuff then too. But there many more of them now. That's not really deniable. It's still a waste of resources producing stuff that has low durability. Edit: Anyway, we have derailed this enough. Let's keep it to socialism, but I don't think we'll make more progress there either.[/QUOTE] The thing is this IS on topic. How do those things work in socialism? Do you even realize how much you're asking for products to be designed, organized, all the logistics sorted, everything else that involves the "socialist" approach to these things? I just don't think you understand dude.

[QUOTE=RB33;52440926]Maybe, we should stop producing the new, cheap low-quality ones then. Then lowering the prices of the good ones. Despite the technological progress, a cheap 2016 washing machine can't beat the standard one people bought 30 years ago. What is that, except a waste of resources? And you accept poverty, homelessness and third world levels of healthcare? While having a two party system which seldom represents the will of the people. Capitalism or the US are no saints. Comparing every socialism to Soviet repression is just a flawed argument.[/QUOTE] A "cheap" washing machine is $500 cheaper, in 2016 dollars, than the standard one people bought 30 years ago, and works better, uses less water, and has more features. You live in a fantasy world that simply doesn't exist in reality.

[QUOTE=OvB;52440674]If you want to be a Government administrator you should understand basic economic theory and administration skills. Running around and saying [I]"Well this is how it should be!"[/I] without having a single idea how the real world works, how economics works, how hierarchical command structure works (none of these things are dependent on profit/capitalism) will lead you nowhere. You'll hardly be able to run an employee owned GMO free vegan bakery. How are you going to tear down a global system if you have no idea how administrative leadership even works? It's a lot more complex than just understanding supply and demand and profits, you know.[/QUOTE] This sounds dangerous for him, he might get more information about what he wants to fight and might end up embracing it [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;52440870]Well, we shouldn't be importing low-quality Chinese-made products then. It's made to be cheap, not good. I wasn't talking about computers or mobile phones which didn't exist back then. Ordinary things like electric tools, fridges, microwaves. Some of these things are going strong after 30 years of use. We're mostly only getting low-quality products sold to us now.[/QUOTE] You know how the chinese are buying up european and american companies, and also how many of our companies have joint ventures with chinese companies? I work at a company which sells machines to the facilities and plants in China. So in the end you may have something made in China, but made with german machines. It is really not that simple, we live in a globalized world.

[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52441164]Anecdotal evidence of your appliance's life does not prove the industry is producing low durability product. Recycling exists, so in cases of unsalvageable failure the waste is not as nearly high as you believe in general. This still revolves around your implicit claim that things can be objectively valued.[/QUOTE] Did I claim that? Well, things can be valued by their usefulness (although that will be subjective with every different person). But things like water and food can at least be objectively considered useful. [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52441176]The thing is this IS on topic. How do those things work in socialism? Do you even realize how much you're asking for products to be designed, organized, all the logistics sorted, everything else that involves the "socialist" approach to these things? I just don't think you understand dude.[/QUOTE] Those are questions that have been answered by socialist theoreticians. The answer is through democratic processes and cooperation instead of competition between companies. With more resources and brain power pooled, we can achieve more. [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52441362]A "cheap" washing machine is $500 cheaper, in 2016 dollars, than the standard one people bought 30 years ago, and works better, uses less water, and has more features. You live in a fantasy world that simply doesn't exist in reality.[/QUOTE] Yet you refuse to adress the point were such newly produced stuff breaks faster than ever before? "Well, it's better, except when it's not." Durability should be one of the main points when developing new machines, yet it's seldom priortized at all. [editline]7th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52441998]You know how the chinese are buying up european and american companies, and also how many of our companies have joint ventures with chinese companies? I work at a company which sells machines to the facilities and plants in China. So in the end you may have something made in China, but made with german machines. It is really not that simple, we live in a globalized world.[/QUOTE] Globalism is spreading out capitalist exploitation even further and make financial crises have a global impact instead of local. It's taking our hard-working and poorly-paid jobs and dumping them on the third world while the rich collect the earnings and we still pay high prices.

Do you have any sources other than anecdotes on old things lasting longer than their modern counterparts? 'They don't make 'em like they used to' is by and large a myth. Also, committee process for developing products and research like you're suggesting has often been tried even in a capitalist setting. It usually simply doesn't work. At a certain point you simply have too many voices to achieve anything meaningful.

[QUOTE=RB33;52442085]But things like water and food can at least be objectively considered useful. [/QUOTE] Yes, but in a market, their value still fluctuates due to changing demand. This is why sgman told you nothing has objective value. Stop using anecdotal evidence to try and prove new items wear out faster than old ones. Prove your point with a study, or multiple, that point to the decline in quality of consumer oriented manufacturing as a whole. You won't find it, for reasons already presented by other users before. Even if these new appliances had half the lifespan, the efficiency cost alone would make the newer product cheaper and more useful.

[QUOTE=Zombii;52442320]Do you have any sources other than anecdotes on old things lasting longer than their modern counterparts? 'They don't make 'em like they used to' is by and large a myth. Also, committee process for developing products and research like you're suggesting has often been tried even in a capitalist setting. It usually simply doesn't work. At a certain point you simply have too many voices to achieve anything meaningful.[/QUOTE] When you lower quality to achieve greater profits, it's not a myth. The quality (or maybe rather durability) of what's available now is worse than what was available then. I wanted to end this, but I remembered a thing about our printers after yesterday. We've had 3 of the same model, 2 of them broke after a year of use. It's impressive how low quality you're able to produce. Well, split people up into different committees in that case. Or simply divide them into groups with their own focus. You don't let them work against each other to achieve one group's focus and slow down the process. Let them all do their best on their own thing instead.

[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52442438]Yes, but in a market, their value still fluctuates due to changing demand. This is why sgman told you nothing has objective value. Stop using anecdotal evidence to try and prove new items wear out faster than old ones. Prove your point with a study, or multiple, that point to the decline in quality of consumer oriented manufacturing as a whole. You won't find it, for reasons already presented by other users before. Even if these new appliances had half the lifespan, the efficiency cost alone would make the newer product cheaper and more useful.[/QUOTE] even though he's wrong on much of economics, it is true that consumer products are often deliberately made shoddy in order to generate increased sales: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence[/url] the most notorious case of this is in printers, which are deliberately designed to shut down after a set period of time or pages (regardless of how much ink is actually in it) and are designed to be impossible to refill. others include machinery and electronics which are difficult to open up and repair, and using subpar materials for the manufacture of critical parts solely so that they would break easily and force the consumer to purchase a replacement the free market does not always produce the best or cheapest or most useful products. by itself it cannot be trusted to do that, especially in the modern economic system of today that replaced capitalism

[QUOTE=YOMIURA;52442438]Yes, but in a market, their value still fluctuates due to changing demand. This is why sgman told you nothing has objective value. Stop using anecdotal evidence to try and prove new items wear out faster than old ones. Prove your point with a study, or multiple, that point to the decline in quality of consumer oriented manufacturing as a whole. You won't find it, for reasons already presented by other users before. Even if these new appliances had half the lifespan, the efficiency cost alone would make the newer product cheaper and more useful.[/QUOTE] Value and demand doesn't have to be the same thing. And people defend having to buy new stuff, because it's poorly made. This why we won't evolve past capitalism in the near future. People are too invested in the system to see its flaws and will rather defend it than accept certain criticism of it. All against most people's interest.

RB33, what is it that makes you champion socialism instead of social democracy?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52443144]RB33, what is it that makes you champion socialism instead of social democracy?[/QUOTE] It isn't radical enough, I want direct democracy or the power concetrated to the local governments. I want near-absolute equality and the end of capitalism. Social democrats haven't advocated close to that since before the '20s.

[QUOTE=RB33;52443195]It isn't radical enough, I want direct democracy or the power concetrated to the local governments. I want near-absolute equality and the end of capitalism. Social democrats haven't advocated close to that since before the '20s.[/QUOTE] What good would come out of absolute equality and not something like equity? And what are the local governments?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52443250]What good would come out of absolute equality and not something like equity? And what are the local governments?[/QUOTE] Eradication of poverty and inequality. Justice for the hard-working people. Equality and equity can be hard to distinguish when you have similiar levels of them. Local governments are municipality-sized.

full socialism is kinda silly, but I think a lot of Americans are way too scared of the word and shun any aspect of it