It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Built to Break, a world constructed on unregulated capitalism.

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I find it fascinating how your average person has fallen for this
type of consumerism hook line and sinker, not only that but it
also sets up an extremely dangerous type of economy, one that
always teeters on the edge and is not set up properly for emergency
situations, everything in the modern world is set on on the thought
that it will not fail and will be accessible 24/7, things are so dependent
on frail technologies that it will for 100% certain cause a massive
die off at some point, its only a matter of time and just the right
circumstances, is the economy were set up realistically then
safety would be paramount and not a far left behind after thought
to profits. while many seem to think this cavalier way of doing
business and treating fellow humans is ok, they will change their
tune after a big solar flair kills half the country off.




posted on May, 30 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I had a Keurig coffee maker that crapped out inside of 6 months. My sister has had 6, because she keeps taking the broken ones back for replacement. These are not isolated incidents, many of their coffee makers break quickly. The one I had was $129, hers $249. How much am I supposed to spend for a 'good one' that lasts? They build stuff to break so you have to buy more. Simple greed.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Tranceopticalinclined
 


You are overlooking the fact that the consumer demands cheaper products.

Place an item on the shelf that is built of the best components (and will be priced accordingly) right next to one which is cheaply made and is priced accordingly and see which sells....

Sure, a few will pay the extra bucks for the quality, but the volume sales will go to the cheap item.

Once upon a time Wal-mart only sold items made in America unless the item had no American producers. The trend became clear...fewer items made in America and more demand for the cheap stuff from China. What is the result? A Walmart that almost exclusively features items made in China.

After 23 years in manufacturing I can categorically state that the demand drives the supply. The market for true quality just doesn't really exist when compared to cheaper items..

If presented with an option to pay $20 for a cheap toaster, $30 for one that is perceived to be higher quality and $50 for one that is made of better components but lacks some of the "whiz-bang" features that are on the mid-priced one most people will purchase either the $20 or $30 item and will ignore the $50 toaster.

People are fascinated with the "extras" to a degree that they will sacrifice quality for the "whiz-bang" effect.

There is no conspiracy with regards to planned obsolescence...there is a conspiracy on the part of consumers to drive prices down. Cheaper wins every time (in an overall sense). It's all about perceived quality and price.

There are, basically, 3 definitions of quality. Quality of use...such as the old volkswagen beetles. Quality in terms of features or "whiz-bang" stuff such as a Cadillac. Quality in terms of workmanship such as a Mercedes. Granted...these are all subjective measures and perceptions. My perception of the workmanship quality of a Cadillac is very low. My perception of quality of workmanship with a Mercedes is very high.

edit on 30-5-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
It would be called technology.

If you would prefer to drive the horse and buggy that you can fix by finding sticks on the side of the road I'm sure the Amish would welcome you with open arms.

The rest of us however like to progress.

you misunderstand the post. under a purely capitalistic society, which is better:

1. make average cars that can drive 500,000 miles before breaking with high mpg ratings, or

2. make average cars break down sooner rather than later, which means people are forced to come back and buy another or get repairs.

what happens when you have the theoretical right to repair your own property, but you cannot exercise this right because the tools needed to take apart said device are patented and it is illegal to make them yourself?

unbridled capitalism is very destructive. it does not lend itself to innovation or progress because more effective, durable goods mean less sales.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
"...unbridled capitalism is very destructive. it does not lend itself to innovation or progress because more effective, durable goods mean less sales."

Firstly, I'd like to see an actual example of unbridled capitalism. Don't try and tell me America is an example either. It's one of the most over regulated, Marxist systems on the planet right now. Don't tell me the EU is either - it's a technocratic bureaucracy doomed from the beginning by the political class's desire for absolute control.

A pure capitalist system totally lends itself to innovation and progress. Firstly, it reduces the compliance costs and complexity of operating a business to a minimum. This means that it is the most beneficial condition for new business to start. Innovators, by nature start new businesses, take existing products and improve them, and invent entirely new things.

In a purely capitalist system, there is a very strong consumer driven environment of natural selection. If the electronics consumer wants cheap and junky, then they very quickly get cheap and junky. If the farmer wants durable, and value for money over a products useful life then that's what they get.

Regulation, subsidisation, and other forms of centralised intervention skew the natural order of a capitalist environment, creating inefficiencies, imbalances, and a generally toxic environment for business and consumers alike.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Really awesome so many have so much to say about this, and maybe just maybe might be enough of what we need to drive a change in the status quo. So what's that old motto " If you want something done right, you got to do it yourself? ".

I'm actually working on something that would give power back to the people, a means to change the whole ball field. I hope to have a kickstarter site up in a matter of weeks, and R&D thrown into more physical than pen and paper. If I can I'd like to form an open source company in parallel that supports various aspects of this technology while keeping it alive through the free and public means of open source.

Together with our differences aside and our strengths combined will we innovate through chaos and create our future full of dreams.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Joe Rogan was saying this in the podcast last night... When they make laptops 50$ cheaper, they have cheaper parts which are faster to assemble, so in turn people are laid off and go hungry, end up with depression, family suffers.

Why can't we keep things as they are and keeping paying 300$ for a laptop, instead of 250$, if it will save families.


Ask the consumer....

They are the ones who will buy a cheaper laptop. Since there are multiple companies competing for market share, and they know that lower prices will drive sales.....who is the responsible party? Or is there A responsible party? The manufacturer is constantly looking for ways to cut costs since that will drive market share....the consumer is always (in general) looking for the cheaper product.

As to your last question...where do you draw the line? When laptops were selling for $5000? Who decides when to stop reducing manufacturing costs when competition for market share is king and demand is based on lower prices?

I worked for many years in a plant that "modernized" (had to in order to compete) and there were not many jobs lost due to automation. The nature of the jobs changed....if you put in robots to perform tasks someone has to maintain and operate the robot technology. That job did not exist prior to the robot being put in place. In our instance we substituted automation for back breaking labor and in most cases the employee didnt lose his job, it just became easier. Someone has to perform set-ups, re-tooling and monitor the operation of the automation.

Were we able to produce more volume with fewer people? Sure...but at the same time the fewer people didnt suffer the effects of the manual labor and were able to stay in their positions much longer than they would have if the old manual labor conditions had continued.

Automation is a double edged sword. At the same time I could say that people these days are not accustomed to hard work and simply will not do it...hence the market for illegal immigration. If there were no jobs here there would be no demand for illegals and there would not be an incentive for illegals to come to the US. That is an over-simplified statement that does not take in the demand for cheaper labor and all that entails. Fact is, in many cases, jobs are available to American citizens but they will not take the job, or if they do they will not stay long due to low pay and "hard work".



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

unbridled capitalism is very destructive. it does not lend itself to innovation or progress because more effective, durable goods mean less sales.


I guess that explains the stagnation in innovation and technological advances of the last 40 years.....???? Wait!! What??



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Reading the question about automation driving families to the poorhouse, something Joel Salatin says about humanity came to mind.

He states that people are not lazy. In fact we as people are more busy these days than ever before. Unfortunately, we're all busy doing the wrong things.

If you're unfamiliar with Joel Salatin, the I strongly suggest you watch his presentation called "Folks, this ain't normal":

www.youtube.com...
We live in a corporatocracy and the government bureaucracy is not your friend. In that talk, Joel puts forward some actual examples of how this system is designed to do just what the poster was complaining about.

Actually, Joel has a book called "Everything I want to do is illegal" which is also a very eye opening read.
edit on 30-5-2013 by UnderGetty because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Joe Rogan was saying this in the podcast last night... When they make laptops 50$ cheaper, they have cheaper parts which are faster to assemble, so in turn people are laid off and go hungry, end up with depression, family suffers.

Why can't we keep things as they are and keeping paying 300$ for a laptop, instead of 250$, if it will save families.


Ask the consumer....


Being able to produce proper quality materials with less resources is a great idea. Freeing people from the boring work of, say, assembling computers is also a great idea. The problem lies in the 'go hungry, end up with depression, family suffers' part. That's the part that we should take care of.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



I guess that explains the stagnation in innovation and technological advances of the last 40 years.....???? Wait!! What??

the values of the country have changed much in 40 years.

much of the innovation and technology isn't widely used. race car drivers can crash at extreme speeds and walk away without a scratch, try that in a common vehicle.

sure there exists amazing technology, it's just not used as much as you would think. there is self repairing concrete, it's been around for awhile yet it isn't readily available. the materials needed aren't rare or difficult to make, yet there isn't any money in sidewalks that last, roads that don't need to be fixed, etc.

oil companies own so many innovative battery patents and NEVER use them, why? there's no money in renewable resources.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


much of the innovation and technology isn't widely used. race car drivers can crash at extreme speeds and walk away without a scratch, try that in a common vehicle.



There is a huge difference between a race car and a stock vehicle, price being one of them. The technology is available for you to implement in your own vehicle. No one is stopping you. Would you pay for it? If so, then why haven't you?

The dynamic is whether or not something is "cost effective". Is there a market for it? The fact that people do not spend 10s of thousands of dollars on safety systems that exist for race cars indicates there is Zero market for that. Have you ever heard of anyone even attempting to do this? Again, it's back on the consumer. If there is a demand, the demand will be filled


Disingenuous argument.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

There is no product on the market that you cannot buy a good version of that will last.

Show me one and I will politely bow to your wisdom.


I have had an iMac for five years and it still runs the same as it first did. I have a TV from 1987 that still works fine. Technology does progress, so things such as computers and TVs do get outdated, but that doesn't mean older models still won't function well for a long time.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by catswithbigpaws

Originally posted by Hopechest

There is no product on the market that you cannot buy a good version of that will last.

Show me one and I will politely bow to your wisdom.


I have had an iMac for five years and it still runs the same as it first did. I have a TV from 1987 that still works fine. Technology does progress, so things such as computers and TVs do get outdated, but that doesn't mean older models still won't function well for a long time.


Good TVs I have noticed last for a long time, especially very old ones. From the tech I have bought TV has lasted the longest, from 1997-2010, Panasonic TV.

With computer you are just lucky or you just do not use much. I am working in my computer, so every day it is on for around 10-15 hours. I have never had a computer, which does not break down within a year. Usually the problem is either hard drive or ventilation system, sometimes keyboard buttons come off. I usually buy business class computers, not cheap ones. The worst I have owned so far has been Dell & Acer , tried out Mac, but broke down+ I do not like the OS, so I changed it fast. My previous Asus was one of the best. Now also own Asus.

Unfortunately I have fallen in the "consumer cycle". I change computer usually every 3 years. It breaks down in about 1-3 times a year (usually hard drive or ventilation). Warranty is free of charge, so the repairing/replacing is free of charge during first 3 years. After that I usually do not bother, just get a new one, as it would be quite expensive (over 100-200 dollars). It is easier to buy a new one, than spend 1/7 of the price of it on old one, which eventually also breaks down.

There is a saying round here:


I am not rich enough to buy cheap things.


This is quite BS that things would need to be cheap in order for some people to afford them. For some people yes, but most people are just too dumb.

In the end, the cheap things cost far more than the more expensive technology. During the time one has bought ten 10$ tools during 5 years, the other one bought a 70$ one once and it still works. If one knows more about materials they understand cheaper tools are not worth buying, especially if you need to use every once in a while. It just wastes more material in the long run.

With tech is harder. Researching on internet is useful as there is lots of info on the weaknesses of different products, so one can select one which is worth buying


I see too many people making impulsive decisions on getting a product. "That was cheap, seemed cool, got it".
Its not worth it and just shows marketing worked
I usually research a lot before getting nearly any technology in order to select a good one.

With clothes I am just buying based on experience. Some brands last longer than others. I do not usually go for some cheaper brands (H&M for example), which are designed to last for some months, if wearing every couple of days. Designer brands like Armani also tend to break down fast, also Hilfiger products.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


much of the innovation and technology isn't widely used. race car drivers can crash at extreme speeds and walk away without a scratch, try that in a common vehicle.



There is a huge difference between a race car and a stock vehicle, price being one of them. The technology is available for you to implement in your own vehicle. No one is stopping you. Would you pay for it? If so, then why haven't you?

The dynamic is whether or not something is "cost effective". Is there a market for it? The fact that people do not spend 10s of thousands of dollars on safety systems that exist for race cars indicates there is Zero market for that. Have you ever heard of anyone even attempting to do this? Again, it's back on the consumer. If there is a demand, the demand will be filled


Disingenuous argument.


I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



The dynamic is whether or not something is "cost effective".

this is my whole point. is it more effective to produce cars with superior longevity thereby reducing sales, or producing cars that don't last as long.

the technology is made unaffordable so that people will be forced to spend more regularly.

tesla's funding was cut and he was blacklisted from getting loans because he wanted to create cheap, readily available energy. his backers couldn't make money from it. this is the result of capitalism.

a balance is needed between capitalism, social programs, and government size.

it's cheaper for monsanto to buy a whole firm doing research into it's products being responsible for the sharp bee decline than for monsanto to change it's product. THAT'S unbridled capitalism, anything to maximize profits.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SuicideBankers
 



I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.

exactly. a price controlled by those who own the patents and produce the products. it could be made cheaply, but there isn't money in durable products. there isn't money in medicine that completely cures people, only in constantly treating symptoms.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
A friend of mine was ready to chuck out a washing machine that wouldn't turn the drum.

I explained the built to break concept and he laughed.

Ten minutes later I had diagnosed the problem and it was my turn to laugh. All it needed was a pair of 10 euro carbon brushes in the motor and ten minutes to fit them.

Some people who live in a throwaway society REALLY bug me.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuicideBankers

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


much of the innovation and technology isn't widely used. race car drivers can crash at extreme speeds and walk away without a scratch, try that in a common vehicle.



There is a huge difference between a race car and a stock vehicle, price being one of them. The technology is available for you to implement in your own vehicle. No one is stopping you. Would you pay for it? If so, then why haven't you?

The dynamic is whether or not something is "cost effective". Is there a market for it? The fact that people do not spend 10s of thousands of dollars on safety systems that exist for race cars indicates there is Zero market for that. Have you ever heard of anyone even attempting to do this? Again, it's back on the consumer. If there is a demand, the demand will be filled


Disingenuous argument.


I imagine price alone is what keeps these technologies from the average consumer. Safety shouldn't have a price.


So what are you saying...we should spend whatever the price for safety? If they were to add 10k onto the price of a car, how many people would not buy it who otherwise would at the cheaper price? Or perhaps they should just make the cars "race car safe" for free?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

the technology is made unaffordable so that people will be forced to spend more regularly.



This is a joke, right? I take it you have zero experience in manufacturing..



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join