Consumerism

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    the grammar comment was not a knock on you. I brought it up as to why I didn't think you were smoking357. He was an even bigger elitist than you if that's posiible. I'm not a grammar Nazi and know full well that my grammar is extremely lacking at times. I'm just a dumb uneducated factory worker with no debt. I am incapable of making my own choices in the market place and need educated by elitists like you.

    The gerbil comment was completely relevant. You call those whobuy things they don't need idiots yet you do the same thing. Now how exactly does that make you smarter than us? It like one adulterer calling another one a no good cheater. Credibility. Try it sometime.

    Ok, to get to the short anwser on why your wrong? best buy/circut city does not produce laptops nor desktops. Because they might sell them for less then they paid, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, mean that the desktop sold for less then it cost to produce, as the company that sold to best buy, has a profit margin as well.

    Lets say i produce dildo's, it cost me 10 bucks to make them, and i sell them to adult stores for 15 bucks, and then in turn sell them for 20-30 bucks. If by some chance the adult store sells the dildo for ONE DOLLAR, has the dildo sold for less then it cost to produce it?

    The anwser is no, because the store owner, reguardless of what he sales it for, has already paid cost of production.

    Hope you could follow along with that example better.





    Thats awesome, thanks for the post, but since you were late to the game, it would be wise to point out that we did in fact go over that little tidbit.
    Rich people have been consumers since the first days of barter, ONLY in the last 100 years has the common man been able to be a consumer.(imagine a street newspaper vendor in 1907 buying 2 cars,even if he "needed" them...lol) .

    Btw the engineering of consent is not more then a hundred years old. Google it, research everything in my first post, watch the movie, and then provide worldly knowledge, thanks.:yesway:




    Looks at boards name, nope this ain't the approve my 2 million dollar loan message board, my grammer works fine for me, if your going to loan me some money, i will clean it up for you, if not, dont worry about it. FYI unless your british, you dont speak proper english anyway:yesway:



    Oh the ironing, someone talks about my grammer and then puts out this gangrape of sentence structure.

    bravo my good man, lets address flaws in our writing skills instead of the issue at hand. Btw even if my wife gave you permission to talk about my daughter, i did not, lets remember that here shall we?
     

    Eddie

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 28, 2009
    3,730
    38
    North of Terre Haute
    the grammar comment was not a knock on you. I brought it up as to why I didn't think you were smoking357. He was an even bigger elitist than you if that's posiible. I'm not a grammar Nazi and know full well that my grammar is extremely lacking at times. I'm just a dumb uneducated factory worker with no debt. I am incapable of making my own choices in the market place and need educated by elitists like you.

    The gerbil comment was completely relevant. You call those whobuy things they don't need idiots yet you do the same thing. Now how exactly does that make you smarter than us? It like one adulterer calling another one a no good cheater. Credibility. Try it sometime.

    Don't worry hornady, I'll be happy to tell you what to buy. I've got a rare metric crescent wrench I'll let you have for $500.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Don't worry hornady, I'll be happy to tell you what to buy. I've got a rare metric crescent wrench I'll let you have for $500.

    Is it left handed? I already have a right handed one. If it has pretty sparkles and good Internet reviews it's even better.
     

    JetGirl

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 7, 2008
    18,774
    83
    N/E Corner
    Don't worry hornady, I'll be happy to tell you what to buy. I've got a rare metric crescent wrench I'll let you have for $500.

    I've got a half a burrito from dinner left.
    I know you like Mexican food.
    A dollar and a half...(fiddy cent more for extra salsa).
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I've got a half a burrito from dinner left.
    I know you like Mexican food.
    A dollar and a half...(fiddy cent more for extra salsa).

    You do not have permission to talk about my culinary preferences here. Is that salsa hot or mild? Will you take $1.75 with salsa?
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    It works on both metric and standard nuts and bolts and it's ambidextrous. Plus I'll put a sticker on it.

    I'm not interested. I only need a left handed metric one to complete my collection. That's the Holy Grail right there.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    My bad.


    If you're not cryin', you're not tryin'!


    DONE!

    (Wait...have we fallen into the consumerism trap?) :n00b:

    Why yes we did. I engaged in today on eBay too. I used the make offer option on 3 in wall surround speakers. I offered $24 less than his buy it now price. Overall, I saved about $150 on speakers recoomended by a local vendor. But I really don't need those speakers.
     

    Archaic_Entity

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 9, 2008
    626
    16
    Ok, to get to the short anwser on why your wrong? best buy/circut city does not produce laptops nor desktops. Because they might sell them for less then they paid, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, mean that the desktop sold for less then it cost to produce, as the company that sold to best buy, has a profit margin as well.

    Lets say i produce dildo's, it cost me 10 bucks to make them, and i sell them to adult stores for 15 bucks, and then in turn sell them for 20-30 bucks. If by some chance the adult store sells the dildo for ONE DOLLAR, has the dildo sold for less then it cost to produce it?

    So, by your logic, since McDonald's doesn't actually kill the meat they sell, and since they don't actually grow the potatoes they make into fries, and since they don't actually make the 'natural' flavoring they put into all their foods, then McDonald's is an irrelevant example brought up by... you. I see how this game works.



    The anwser is no, because the store owner, reguardless of what he sales it for, has already paid cost of production.

    I apologize, but if a company went into the market designed to sell something for less than they bought it for, and solely for that purpose, they would fail. I'm no economist, but if I bought your $10 dildos and turned around to sell them for $1 a piece and I invested $100 into my company to start (keeping it simple, nothing but the purchase of your dildos on eBay and turning around to sell them from my home, no licensing fees), then I would buy 10 of your dildos and end up with enough money to buy one more from you and then sell that for another $1, netting myself $109 profit loss.
    However, if I sold them for $8 and sold batteries I purchased for $1 at $4, then... I could buy 9 dildos for a total of $90, then ten sets of batteries for a total of $10. Selling them back for a total of $108, and having an extra set of batteries with which to fuel my next purchase. Thereby making a small profit margin while having a loss on the dildos, which do not include batteries anyway. Excuse me if that's not a spot-on analysis of how profiting from a loss item works, but I think I got the gist of it.


    Hope you could follow along with that example better.





    Thats awesome, thanks for the post, but since you were late to the game, it would be wise to point out that we did in fact go over that little tidbit.
    Rich people have been consumers since the first days of barter, ONLY in the last 100 years has the common man been able to be a consumer.(imagine a street newspaper vendor in 1907 buying 2 cars,even if he "needed" them...lol) .

    Btw the engineering of consent is not more then a hundred years old. Google it, research everything in my first post, watch the movie, and then provide worldly knowledge, thanks.:yesway:

    Once more, you seem to point out that people did not buy 'frivolous' objects until the last 100 years. And while, yes, I will admit that since the old ages, rich people have been buying blue and purple dyes because they were 'rich' colors and hard to get a hold of, I will also say that the common man not springing for his "Sunday's Best" set of clothes is preposterous. People have always needed some form of entertainment, and since entertainment is apparently unnecessary according to you, I'd like you to explain how the Colosseum filled up with common people back in Rome. I mean, they did occasionally pay for their entertainment, didn't they? And the commoners obviously went to the Colosseum because it was fashionable, and because others did it, they must have fallen victim to consumerism. And I wonder why they purchased whatever memorabilia they could get at said Colosseum games. Or the same thing for the even older Grecian Olympics. In both, participants could either be slaves, or people who sought to join the games for mighty profits. Meaning someone had to be paying these gladiators and olympians for their participation in an entertainment sport that commoners didn't even enjoy until 2000 years after they were all over.

    Hmm...

    Also... you have yet to provide a solution, only chastise us for our inability to 'think outside the box,' while providing your own moral superiority. Which, so far, I think means absolutely nothing. You have yet to provide a convincing argument even against the most base of suppositions against your theory of 'all are consumerists, and all are destined to buy something because of some vague unexplained argument that we all buy things because someone else crossed their fingers one time while using said thing purchased, and therefore they explained it to their daughter, who was my mother, who was able to tell me about said finger-crossing, and thus I should buy product, and I do because of finger-crossing brainwashing.' Or something like that... I'm still confused as to where you are there and where you will be going with that mindset.
     

    Randall Flagg

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2010
    224
    16
    I think agreeing to disagree at this point is best, but thanks for your views folks, always a pleasure to have more eyes on the matter then just your own.
     

    jsgolfman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 20, 2008
    1,999
    38
    Greenwood
    Bankers have only been loaning money to the government for the last couple hundred years, before that, the government WAS the bank...lol.

    Central banks in every country all printing fiat currency is new to the last 100 years though, fiat currency existed on a national scene, much more so then a world scene(i.e. china's flying paper money,etc).
    I made no mention, nor did you, of banks loaning monies to the state. Your comment was that man learned they could no longer use force so they resorted to money.

    Again, if you understood the history of banks and how they began you would know your premise is flawed and that force predates money as a means of coercion, but was never replaced by it only mixed with it.
     

    JetGirl

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    May 7, 2008
    18,774
    83
    N/E Corner
    I think agreeing to disagree at this point is best, but thanks for your views folks, always a pleasure to have more eyes on the matter then just your own.
    It's probably not gonna be that easy. But sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best course of action.
    One quick question for you, though. (If you don't want to answer here or even in PM, that's cool...I'm just curious.) Have you ever read "Human Action"? If so, what is your opinion?

    Just in case there is any confusio, my earlier post to jetgirl was a joke. We're cool with each other.:D
    :yesway:
     

    Eddie

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 28, 2009
    3,730
    38
    North of Terre Haute
    Also... you have yet to provide a solution, only chastise us for our inabilityOnce more, you seem to point out that people did not buy 'frivolous' objects until the last 100 years. And while, yes, I will admit that since the old ages, rich people have been buying blue and purple dyes because they were 'rich' colors and hard to get a hold of, I will also say that the common man not springing for his "Sunday's Best" set of clothes is preposterous. People have always needed some form of entertainment, and since entertainment is apparently unnecessary according to you, I'd like you to explain how the Colosseum filled up with common people back in Rome. I mean, they did occasionally pay for their entertainment, didn't they? And the commoners obviously went to the Colosseum because it was fashionable, and because others did it, they must have fallen victim to consumerism. And I wonder why they purchased whatever memorabilia they could get at said Colosseum games. Or the same thing for the even older Grecian Olympics. In both, participants could either be slaves, or people who sought to join the games for mighty profits. Meaning someone had to be paying these gladiators and olympians for their participation in an entertainment sport that commoners didn't even enjoy until 2000 years after they were all over.

    Hmm...

    This is why I posted earlier about sumptuary laws. This whole consumerism argument reminds me of them. "I don't think you need that so let's make a rule that says you can't have it." Has often been a means of providing for class divisions and keeping people from moving up in society. Hell, I had to break a rule when I went to law school that said "first year students can't have jobs". The stated purpose of the rule was that "first years need all their time to study". My sneaking suspicion was that the real reason was to try and keep out people who couldn't afford school without working their way through.

    Wiki has a good article on sumptuary laws:

    Sumptuary law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Top Bottom