$75 For Ice Cubes? The Absurd Things Rich People Are Blowing Their Cash On
127 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41903931]Do they? They look like ice cubes. I don't think ice cubes look cool at all[/QUOTE]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41903940]they're 75 dollars and not marketed to me so therefore they're useless and anybody who buys them is [I]literally depriving the poorer parts in the world of water[/I][/QUOTE]
Calm down, Mr. Straw man
[editline]20th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41903944]Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.[/QUOTE]
But why not make your own ice cubes then, they look exactly the same
I'm buying a new car next year after my current car is three years old. Considering the state of the economy, does that make me an arsehole?
It's a good thing rich people are using their money at all, that fuels the economy.
The real problem of extreme wealth is that there are people who are so wealthy that it's very hard to invest all of their wealth so it kinda stagnates and will last through generation to generation. There's only so many consumer items and business ventures you can put your money in and even a lineage of total retards cant waste all of a big enough fortune. (The stockpile of cash also keeps on growing)
[QUOTE=Limed00d;41902918]If I were rich I would order a giant ice bowl and fill it with alcohol.
Rocks on the ice.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;8-ejyHzz3XE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8-ejyHzz3XE[/video]
Step it up.
(hmm, it doesn't want me embedding videos, okay.)
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41903963]Calm down, Mr. Straw man
[editline]20th August 2013[/editline]
But why not make your own ice cubes then, they look exactly the same[/QUOTE]
but they don't and they dont last nearly as long as these ice cubes
take an engineering course before determining the value of something you obviously dont understand
[QUOTE=(~_^);41903472]because the signal to noise ratio of your posts is atrocious[/QUOTE]He just doesn't give people a piece of his mind, he gives them War and Peace.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41904353]but they don't and they dont last nearly as long as these ice cubes
take an engineering course before determining the value of something you obviously dont understand[/QUOTE]
Give me a break. An ice cube that lasts 30 minutes is still not worth 75$
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41904525]Give me a break. An ice cube that lasts 30 minutes is still not worth 75$[/QUOTE]
not to you, maybe
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41903466]What about all the people who spend their time making it? All the resources and millions upon millions going to make these titles? The costs of distribution and advertising?[/QUOTE]
There is inefficiency in the process, yes. But distribution has the potential to become cheaper and less resource-draining once we go full-on digital and no longer need to buy physical copies, with the plastics and minerals used in making physical copies having the potential to be used in other, more important objects. As for advertising, it is necessary to an extent, though overdoing it wastes money that needn't be spent on that part of the project, and instead could be used to pay for additional members of the development team, or be saved up for a different project, or even be diverted to finance a venture that benefits the weak.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41903466]How would you best use resources?[/QUOTE]
Well, a significant portion (let's say 45%) would be put towards projects that improve the lives of the impoverished, such as sending basic aid like food and medicine, or shipping livestock and crop-seeds to bolster their agricultural faculties, or constructing houses and general infrastructure (water and electricity). Another 30% would go towards ensuring that people have a good education, and jobs that appeal to their specialities and personal faculties, like teaching people how to farm and use technology, or making construction/maintenance jobs for individuals with technical proficiencies.
The final 15%, I suppose, would go towards funding scientific research, employing those with scientific expertise to work on research projects aligned with what aspects of science they excel in, like medicinal biologists researching better medical procedures and treatments, nuclear physicists and architectural engineers working out how to build a safe and efficient thorium-based fission reactor to supply clean energy. The percentages would probably need tweaking to find that equal sweet spot wherein the various aspects of society would each supply the world with their beneficial produce (global welfare, education, jobs, scientific advancement, etc)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41903466]What direction is this? How do we get there? Is it desirable? Do we have to kill people to get there?[/QUOTE]
The direction we need to travel in would need to lead to a future where the Earth is truly green, where we can easily soak up excess carbon emissions with vast forests, a world where the notion of super-rich people hoarding all the resources is a distant nightmare that pops up mostly in horror fiction. It'd need to be a world where those with power instinctively aid those without, where a man without a job will gain a job that they are good at, and a man without talent can simply download the skillsets they require. This world would, in theory, be free from poverty, where people can afford to feed their family whilst also having something left over to save up for entertainment products every now and then.
To get there, we first need to "bleed" the pigs; those with an abundance of resources would need to choose a number of causes to send monthly tithes towards, essentially a form of mandatory donations that allows the user to choose what areas of society they wish to fund the advance of. Refusal to send tithes to the causes would result in a seizure of some of their assets equal to the average tithe sent to a cause multiplied by the number of causes, whilst paying tithes above the average grants them a temporary "discount" on their monthly tithing quota for that month only. It'd be similar to taxing the rich, only it is enforced much more strictly yet with more choice and reward if they comply.
Next, we'd need to finance many projects that benefit mankind on the whole, such as advanced agriculture to increase the output of food, sophisticated irrigation systems and rudimentary "terraforming" to make drier areas suitable for habitation, researching clean and efficient energy sources, advanced mental healthcare that allows us to cure insanity and successfully rehabilitate violent criminals, and so-on.
Another important thing would be to quell/cull conservatism and nurture liberalism, teaching the values and virtues of things like helping the weak if you have power, respecting and honouring nature, considering ways to minimize any negative impact your actions may have on the world, knowing that no-one deserves prejudice for being different, and making the most of what you have. In addition we'd need to "demonize" aspects of conservatism that run contrary to the pro-equality, pro-solidarity, pro-environment message of what is probably some sort of "libertarian eco-socialism", or LibEcoSoc to save on space.
For example, the hoarding of resources should be frowned upon when others are forced to go without for no good reason, laying down moral foundations for the tithing system, whilst laws and beliefs that are exposed as arbitrary and contrary to logic are cautioned against, like belief that some sort of sky-god will solve your problems if you pray to it, or the notion that deviance from the sexual norm is harmful to society as a whole (gay sex does not cut down trees).
And finally, in terms of coercing those who refuse to accept LibEcoSoc, society would need methods that successfully coerce and convince individuals who are harder to bring over to the path that's best for us and the world. Not strictly weapons, though nonlethal weaponry would be the most extreme of viable options; more subtle methods that make the subject question whether they're doing the right thing, eroding any stubborn attitudes they may have until they have strong scepticism as to the validity of their prejudices or the relevance of their spirituality.
At that point they would be easier to convince that "race means diddly; we're all sapient beings" or "those differences are no grounds for such pre-judgement" or "there is no God, no Devil; the balance of nature and the welfare of humanity is our highest purpose", allowing them to shape themselves into better people and live in accordance with nature, liberty, equality and a sense of community.
Being able to reshape personalities and attitudes like clay sounds like a terrifying technology, with potential for being twisted into a means to bring about all manner of tyrannical and flawed societies (not to say there may be flaws in libertarian eco-socialism), but the first to use the technology would need to be "pure of heart" so that they are simply able to remove things like excessive temptations and potential for corruption, and don't decide to abuse the technology to create their own twisted vision of what type of society mankind should strive towards. No-one wants a grimdark polluted corporate dystopia except the truly insane.
As for "do we need to kill people to get there", I don't think so. The only reason one would "need" to kill to achieve the vision of LibEcoSoc would be if they were facing an individual so deranged that said person would resort to killing in order to preserve the old ways or further their own cause, and even then it'd be cleaner to use nonlethal weapons to incapacitate the individual without spilling any blood, since sentience is sacred and killing is a waste of their intellect, especially if they can later be convinced that LibEcoSoc is better for them in the long run.
I think I covered all of your points, so don't waste our time by skipping over things; being concise is certainly a taxing operation for a novice. Also I've tried to portion things into into easier-to-read chunks to lower the noise, even if there's still a bit of fluff here and there.
[QUOTE=Juniez;41904534]not to you, maybe[/QUOTE]
To who then? Does a pack of these cubes cost at least 50$ to produce? I really doubt it. And if it doesn't then it's not worth the price
I wouldn't be shocked if they cost a lot to produce, making something like ice perfectly spherical isn't an easy process by any means, and you're failing to realize that worth is subjective.
If I had the money, I'd pay 75 bucks for a set of sick as hell ice cubes
Oh good, I was actually beginning to miss people on FP thinking that anyone who has more money than them is scum because they don't give all their money to the ~~proletariat ~~. Why should they be allowed to have THINGS when I have all this student loan debt to pay for my art school? Help the commoners you Bourgeois fucks!!
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41904702]I wouldn't be shocked if they cost a lot to produce, making something like ice perfectly spherical isn't an easy process by any means, and you're failing to realize that worth is subjective.
If I had the money, I'd pay 75 bucks for a set of sick as hell ice cubes[/QUOTE]
It's not spherical though. This is the image on the shop page
[t]http://www.deandeluca.com/ProductImg/500/950198/glace-luxury-ice.jpg[/t]
They wouldn't be called cubes if they were spherical, if you took an engineering course you'd know that
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41904743]It's not spherical though. This is the image on the shop page
[t]http://www.deandeluca.com/ProductImg/500/950198/glace-luxury-ice.jpg[/t]
They wouldn't be called cubes if they were spherical, if you took an engineering course you'd know that[/QUOTE]
[quote]The Gläce Mariko Sphere is a perfectly spherical 2.5" piece with a melting rate of 20-30 minutes.[/quote]
there's also these symbols called "letters" that spell out what i just quoted above
yeah
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41904656]To who then? Does a pack of these cubes cost at least 50$ to produce? I really doubt it. And if it doesn't then it's not worth the price[/QUOTE]
wow it's a good thing you can never decide what anything is worth because you'd be awful at it
Somebody working at the American minimum wage has to work for more than an hour to afford one of those.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41904799]Somebody working at the American minimum wage has to work for more than an hour to afford one of those.[/QUOTE]
it's almost as if that kind of person isn't the target demographic for this stuff!
$75 is a bit much for ice cubes, but isn't it a good thing their money is being spent on shit? It's not like they're just sitting on a throne of hundred dollar bills not spending it, they're buying luxury products with money that'll go to a company that's providing jobs.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41904799]Somebody working at the American minimum wage has to work for more than an hour to afford one of those.[/QUOTE]
This would be a problem if you needed these to cool your drinks and there were no alternatives.
Thankfully, us plebs can use a regular ice cube.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;41904828]$75 is a bit much for ice cubes, but isn't it a good thing their money is being spent on shit? It's not like they're just sitting on a throne of hundred dollar bills not spending it, they're buying luxury products with money that'll go to a company that's providing jobs.[/QUOTE]
I agree in every way except for one, luxury businesses usually provide mostly low paying jobs with a very high profit margin. It is exploitation. The unfortunate fact is the not any business owner is going to pay more, and not charge more in the end. It's shitty, and thus the world is shitty.
[QUOTE=Juniez;41904771]wow it's a good thing you can never decide what anything is worth because you'd be awful at it[/QUOTE]
Maybe I would, but at least I'm not a cunt to people on the Internet. I still don't see how the cube/sphere/whatever can cost that much, though
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41904767]there's also these symbols called "letters" that spell out what i just quoted above
yeah[/QUOTE]
Alright, so you can buy both spherical ones and square ones. Doesn't matter if they cost the same, though, does it?
instead of ice cubes, i'd have a butler make me ice glasses to cool my drinks on the spot.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41904871]Maybe I would, but at least I'm not a cunt to people on the Internet. I still don't see how the cube/sphere/whatever can cost that much, though
Alright, so you can buy both spherical ones and square ones. Doesn't matter if they cost the same, though, does it?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry and although you have a point there's never a set 'worth' to anything and trying to impose your sense of values on others is like telling other people what to do and that's no good
who cares
their money
[QUOTE=slbobo;41902809]If I was that rich, fuck the ice cubes, I'd have somebody handcarve me a glass out of the ice every time I wanted a new drink.
pip pip motherfuckers[/QUOTE]
you must be a stone cold muthafucker
[QUOTE=Juniez;41904964]I'm sorry and although you have a point there's never a set 'worth' to anything and trying to impose your sense of values on others is like telling other people what to do and that's no good[/QUOTE]
That's not what I meant to do. Of course I agree that it's their money and they can do anything they want with it, just like I can do anything I want with my money. But as I said already before, I don't have to like it. 75$ is a week's salary for some people. For some it's even less than 75. So on one hand it's terribly unfair that some can literally melt all that money. On the other hand I'm not sure I wouldn't be like them if I were rich, so I really shouldn't judge them
[QUOTE=ironman17;41904627]There is inefficiency in the process, yes. But distribution has the potential to become cheaper and less resource-draining once we go full-on digital and no longer need to buy physical copies, with the plastics and minerals used in making physical copies having the potential to be used in other, more important objects.[/quote]
When people work on a game, they have to be paid. If they are not paid, they will not get food, shelter, and luxury goods.
If they don't get those things, they won't work on the game.
Developing a game costs millions of dollars that could be better spent on wells in africa or ploughs. Why shouldn't we divert the money from there to that? It would save lives and the loss from video games isn't much.
(Hint, conflict of interests)
[quote]Well, a significant portion (let's say 45%)[/quote]
45% of what?
[quote]would be put towards projects that improve the lives of the impoverished, such as sending basic aid like food and medicine, or shipping livestock and crop-seeds to bolster their agricultural faculties, or constructing houses and general infrastructure (water and electricity). Another 30% would go towards ensuring that people have a good education, and jobs that appeal to their specialities and personal faculties, like teaching people how to farm and use technology, or making construction/maintenance jobs for individuals with technical proficiencies.[/quote]
You're ignoring the poor in our own country, but investment is useless unless we get rid of the real problems there. (Cough dictators and agricultural subsidies in Europe cough)
Also already that's 75% of the budget gone towards investing into impoverished countries or education. What crack are you smoking?
How the fuck will the other 25% cover healthcare, defense, the civil service, government, law, police, firefighting, telecommunications, infrastructure, transport, coastguards, ancient monument conservation, benefits, libraries, national parks, etc back home?
[quote]The final 15%, I suppose, would go towards funding scientific research,[/quote]
Where the fuck do you keep getting these figures? Your arse?
[quote]This world would, in theory, be free from poverty, where people can afford to feed their family whilst also having something left over to save up for entertainment products every now and then.[/quote]
"In Theory"
"Whilst also having something left over to save up for entertainment products [b]every now and then[/b]"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is starting to sound a bit like you are going to control the production and distribution of consumer goods heavily.
[quote]To get there, we first need to "bleed" the pigs; those with an abundance of resources would need to choose a number of causes to send monthly tithes towards, essentially a form of mandatory donations that allows the user to choose what areas of society they wish to fund the advance of. Refusal to send tithes to the causes would result in a seizure of some of their assets equal to the average tithe sent to a cause multiplied by the number of causes, whilst paying tithes above the average grants them a temporary "discount" on their monthly tithing quota for that month only. It'd be similar to taxing the rich, only it is enforced much more strictly yet with more choice and reward if they comply.[/quote]
You do realize that all the rich people would suddenly realize what is happening and subsequently do the following:
1. Move their money
2. Flee the country
Especially moreso if you use the phrase "bleed the pigs" it sounds a bit radical.
[quote]Next, we'd need to finance many projects that benefit mankind on the whole, such as advanced agriculture to increase the output of food[/quote]
We throw away half of the food eaten.
[quote]sophisticated irrigation systems and rudimentary "terraforming" to make drier areas suitable for habitation[/quote]
Putting strain on existing water sources when there are already many places you can live in and can be improved?
[quote]researching clean and efficient energy sources, advanced mental healthcare that allows us to cure insanity and successfully rehabilitate violent criminals, and so-on.[/quote]
This sounds like 22nd century shit. I want something to solve todays problems.
[quote]Another important thing would be to quell/cull [b]conservatism[/b] and nurture liberalism[/quote]
You mean ending freedom of speech? The vagueness here implies it.
[quote]teaching the values and virtues of things like helping the weak if you have power, respecting and honouring nature, considering ways to minimize any negative impact your actions may have on the world, knowing that no-one deserves prejudice for being different, and making the most of what you have. [b]In addition we'd need to "demonize" aspects of conservatism that run contrary[/b] to the pro-equality, pro-solidarity, pro-environment message of what is probably some sort of "libertarian eco-socialism", or LibEcoSoc to save on space.[/quote]
Holy shit you're fucking insane. That is the definition of propaganda.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41903422]Because those are hobbies. Hobbies are fun, and fun is a necessity. Ice cubes are not hobbies and not fun, they're useless and I can make ice cubes for free[/QUOTE]
What If I said I have a hobby with collecting ice cubes
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;41904525]Give me a break. An ice cube that lasts 30 minutes is still not worth 75$[/QUOTE]
newsflash there's no such thing as objective worth
if people pay 75 dollars for such a product then that makes the product worth 75 dollars
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.