Consumerism

[Randall Flagg]

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?

I have read some, it is able to be read for free, right here

Human Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with alot of what mises has to say, like this for example

Man acts because he is never fully satisfied, and will never stop because he can never be fully satisfied.

Almost fully explains what i have been saying the whole thread, man is a beast, who is controlled by his subconscious desires.(freud)

Did you watch the movie in my op? did ANYONE before commenting on this Thread?

Can anyone in this thread give a non wiki anwser on what the engineering of consent is?


But i also disagree with mises as well, from his later book, The anti- capitalistic mentality

'In a society based on caste and status, the individual can ascribe adverse fate to conditions beyond his own control. [For instance] He is a slave because the superhuman powers that determine all becoming had assigned him this rank. [...]

It is quite another thing under capitalism. Here everybody's station in life depends on his own doing [...] The sway of the principle, to each according to his accomplishments, does not allow of any excuse for personal shortcomings' (pp.11–12)

According to the author, faced with this burden many who have fared poorly in the market economy seek a scapegoat to shift the blame from themselves and restore their self-image.

We know the bold part to not be true, because even if every able body person in the us, or world for that matter, had the drive to start their own business, you cant have a world full of producers and hardly any consumers.

There are not enough resources with which to do so with, he also ignores the "who" gets to work the drive thru at mac d's?, while i agree the owner gets rich, the workers do not. Sadly we can never be a land of owners and no workers....lol

Capitalism's very foundation means(competition, therefore someone must lose)that not everyone will be a success no matter how much personal effort put in.

But if your asking do i care for ludwig more then john, then yes, but the economics they write about only work in an ideal world where corruption and "good old boyism" does not exist.

 

[JetGirl]

Did you watch the movie in my op?

I skimmed the text links but did not watch the video.
When the time bar said something like an hour and part 1 of 4, I lost interest in the click.
Sorry.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Yeah, most people dont have enough time to research the truth, it's what keeps the game going, freedom to distract the public from what really matters.

 

[Randall Flagg]

If you do have a spare 15 mins some day, the first part explains how bernays got women to smoke in public within the first 15-20 mins of the movie, guy had massive skills.

 

[JetGirl]

If you do have a spare 15 mins some day, the first part explains how bernays got women to smoke in public within the first 15-20 mins of the movie, guy had massive skills.

I think I can knock out 15 minutes or so of that link. I forgot about Mr.Jet's laptop. I'll call up the vid and watch part of it while I'm doing something I have to do in the room where it's located.

 

[Fletch]

It is quite another thing under capitalism. Here everybody's station in life depends on his own doing [...] The sway of the principle, to each according to his accomplishments, does not allow of any excuse for personal shortcomings' (pp.11–12)

We know the bold part to not be true, because even if every able body person in the us, or world for that matter, had the drive to start their own business, you cant have a world full of producers and hardly any consumers.

Mises was not wrong, you just misunderstood him and you have an erroneous definition of "producer".

Mises is not saying that everyone must run their own business in order to improve their station in life. He is saying that capitalism offers everyone the opportunity to lift himself up by his own efforts, while controlled economies do not offer this opportunity. In capitalism, there is always something one can do to improve their lot in life; nobody has to work at a restaurant for their entire lives.

The employees of a business are producers of labor. They produce labor and sell it to the business they work for. By virtue of the labor they sell, they are producers by proxy of the goods and services sold by their employers. Everyone who is not living off charity must produce before they can consume, and all consumption must be balanced by equal or greater production. These principles are clearly stated throughout Mises' work.

There are not enough resources with which to do so with, he also ignores the "who" gets to work the drive thru at mac d's?

He ignores nothing. He spends a great deal of time in Human Action and his other works, discussing the laborer and where he fits into the economy. Indeed, chapter 21 of Human Action is entirely devoted to labor.

while i agree the owner gets rich, the workers do not.

And this is only the fault of the workers. Capitalism affords each the opportunity to own businesses without running them. It is through capital markets that the worker can take his wages and invest in stocks or corporate bonds, becoming part owner of a business without having to run the business themselves. This is part of the wonder of capitalism -- one need not go out and purchase a whole factory, hire workers, buy materials, design and make a product, then attempt to market it, in order to be a business owner. Right now, for less than the cost of the average cable bill, you can be part owner of any number of giant multinational corporations... BP for example, is on sale at the moment.

As Robert Kiyosaki put it, just because you work for someone else's business doesn't mean you shouldn't be about your own. This is in part what Mises was driving at.

Capitalism's very foundation means(competition, therefore someone must lose)that not everyone will be a success no matter how much personal effort put in.

Capitalism is a system built on positive-sum trading. Wealth is increased all around, even (and especially) for those on the lowest rungs of the ladder. When I worked at Taco Bell way back when, making minimum wage, I was wealthier than any king or queen in previous centuries. The wealth I had access to as a matter of course in my daily life, they could not purchase for all the gold in their coffers.

But if your asking do i care for ludwig more then john, then yes, but the economics they write about only work in an ideal world where corruption and "good old boyism" does not exist.

Mises did not write about a perfect world. He did not have a utopian vision. What he attempted to do was explain how the free market works, and help people understand how the market reacts to the introduction of force via government and other means. He understood the problem of corruption, and endeavored to explain, through praxeological methodology, how that corruption makes everyone worse off, even the corrupt.

 

[Eddie]

Yeah, most people dont have enough time to research the truth, it's what keeps the game going, freedom to distract the public from what really matters.

Weak argument. The fact is you posted a link to a 58 minute long video that is one part of a four part series. Most people won't sit through that just to argue with you. Make your own points.

 

[Fletch]

Weak argument. The fact is you posted a link to a 58 minute long video that is one part of a four part series. Most people won't sit through that just to argue with you.

Especially after he's spent a fair amount of the thread kvetching about people wasting their time sitting in front of the TV.

 

[Fletch]

Did you watch the movie in my op? did ANYONE before commenting on this Thread?

*sigh* Now I have, and it truly was a waste of my time. Other than some obscure historical trivia, absolutely no new information was presented that I didn't learn from Dave Ramsey's FPU class on resisting these same tactics -- which came with the bonus of learning how to resist the tactics and make your own self-generated decisions. Indeed, the FPU class talks about strategies far more sophisticated than the ones in the linked video, which are primitive and crude by comparison.

 

[lashicoN]

The personal attacks on Rachel Marie and Randall Flagg are not cool at all. Asking her "does he do this?" "Did your daughter get him to do this?" is despicable. It's why I don't have my real name in my "about me" section and my why location is just Northern Indiana. If we're going to debate, we should stick to the topic, not get personal cheap shots in. When someone brings up things about your family, it gets really uncomfortable and takes the debate down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

 

[RachelMarie]

The personal attacks on Rachel Marie and Randall Flagg are not cool at all. Asking her "does he do this?" "Did your daughter get him to do this?" is despicable. It's why I don't have my real name in my "about me" section and my why location is just Northern Indiana. If we're going to debate, we should stick to the topic, not get personal cheap shots in. When someone brings up things about your family, it gets really uncomfortable and takes the debate down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

Thank you for this and I agree. Which is why I told RF to back out of the conversation. The last thing anyone wants to do is talk about how MY husband treats ME, or how My DAUGHTER is affected. It's crossing a line that need not be crossed. On that note, it also shows us who we do (or do not) want in our lives. Some people are scum, it's a fact.

What ever....a board that has some good people on it, has got to have scum as well! And some of the replies here....show it.

That being said, I did Positive rep Hornadyl for his comment about Callies Gerbil....just cause I too made that argument with Randall.

Personal attacks...NOT cool folks. But obviously, our feelings aren't hurt or anything. I have no clue who you are and hope I never do. lol.

 

[hornadylnl]

The personal attacks on Rachel Marie and Randall Flagg are not cool at all. Asking her "does he do this?" "Did your daughter get him to do this?" is despicable. It's why I don't have my real name in my "about me" section and my why location is just Northern Indiana. If we're going to debate, we should stick to the topic, not get personal cheap shots in. When someone brings up things about your family, it gets really uncomfortable and takes the debate down a road we shouldn't be traveling.

So it's cool to come on here insulting people and then cry foul when other people return the favor? It's a cheap shot to point out ones actions that shoot holes in their credibility? My comments about the gerbil had nothing to do with their daughter and everything to do with hypocrisy. The op thinks we're idiots for engaging in the same actions he does.

He posted a topic and "welcomed" discussion. Anyone who attempted to discuss was immediately dismissed as too stupid to understand his almighty intellect. I guess you guys totally missed the multitude of insults the op leveled at Fletch.

 

[RachelMarie]

I never backed up RF's way of posting. Nor did I ever agree with the way he words himself on here. But somehow **I** get brought into the conversation and so does my daughter (ironically). You have issues with my husband...cool, you 2 fight it out or debate it out. Leave me (his WIFE) out of it.
I'm the first to say that his Internet etiquette is far from peachy. He comes off like a prick and he knows it. Leave ME out of it.

Thanks.

I'm done with this thread, unless my name is again brought into it. You people are ALL idiots. RF included. Waiting for the ban hammer. See me care?

 

[JetGirl]

Did you watch the movie in my op? did ANYONE before commenting on this Thread?

*sigh* Now I have

I can't get it to move past about the 30 second mark. I was going to give it another shot later on, but after the Dave Ramsey comment, I don't know if I'll take time to do so. Me & Dave's theories...we're like *this* X.

 

[JetGirl]

I'm done with this thread, unless my name is again brought into it.

RACHELRACHELRACHELRACHEL!!

(Come on, you knew SOMEbody was gonna do that. )

You people are ALL idiots.

 

[jsgolfman]

There are acceptable methods to discussion and there are unacceptable methods. I don't agree with branching the discussion out to members of the family who have no stake in said discussion. Probably was a mistake to even mention the fact that he had family on the board as it was irrelevant to the issue.

That being said, I stand by my original assessment, he's an egotistical ass. Whether his arguments are valid or not, they gain no traction here because of that simple fact. You can't treat people as if they are excrement and then expect them to smile and admire your superior intellect.

 

[lashicoN]

So it's cool to come on here insulting people and then cry foul when other people return the favor? It's a cheap shot to point out ones actions that shoot holes in their credibility? My comments about the gerbil had nothing to do with their daughter and everything to do with hypocrisy. The op thinks we're idiots for engaging in the same actions he does.

He posted a topic and "welcomed" discussion. Anyone who attempted to discuss was immediately dismissed as too stupid to understand his almighty intellect. I guess you guys totally missed the multitude of insults the op leveled at Fletch.

I did see the insults leveled at Fletch, mostly attacking his capacity to understand, which isn't cool by me. Fletch is a great INGO member, he always has something constructive to say and I've never seen him lose his cool. I have a ton of respect for him on this forum. But, Randall didn't point out who Fletch's family is, call them out, and ask them questions about Fletch is real life. (I'm not accusing you of doing all of these things) I don't agree with how Randall automatically assumed everyone who disagreed with him was too stupid to understand what he was saying, but I think it was too much to bring his family and real life into a debate about buying things.

Sorry for the thread jack, you guys can get back to the discussion. I have to go to JC Penny, they have a buy 4 get 1 free bathing suit sale. The 3 or 4 I bought last year aren't stylish enough anymore and my friends don't think I'm cool. Just kidding.

 

[hornadylnl]

Had the op not mentioned his wife brought him here, we'd still be clueless as to who they were. If you recall, his wife started a thread about the gerbil so it isn't like I brought up a private topic.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I never backed up RF's way of posting. Nor did I ever agree with the way he words himself on here. But somehow **I** get brought into the conversation and so does my daughter (ironically). You have issues with my husband...cool, you 2 fight it out or debate it out. Leave me (his WIFE) out of it.
I'm the first to say that his Internet etiquette is far from peachy. He comes off like a prick and he knows it. Leave ME out of it.

Thanks.

I'm done with this thread, unless my name is again brought into it. You people are ALL idiots. RF included. Waiting for the ban hammer. See me care?

Not for nothin, but didn't you rat yourself out?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...scussion/95684-consumerism-9.html#post1105467

 

[Randall Flagg]

Had the op not mentioned his wife brought him here, we'd still be clueless as to who they were. If you recall, his wife started a thread about the gerbil so it isn't like I brought up a private topic.

Yes, someone asked me if i'm not into guns, why am i here.

i dont recall asking you to try to get personal info from my wife, could you quote that part?

i also dont remember saying you could talk about my daughter in any debate we might have, no matter what my wife posted about her.

could you quote that?

*sigh* Now I have, and it truly was a waste of my time. Other than some obscure historical trivia, absolutely no new information was presented that I didn't learn from Dave Ramsey's FPU class on resisting these same tactics -- which came with the bonus of learning how to resist the tactics and make your own self-generated decisions. Indeed, the FPU class talks about strategies far more sophisticated than the ones in the linked video, which are primitive and crude by comparison.

Dave Ramsey, the over hyped financial planner? Are you seriously tring to compare psychology and the mind, to money saving tips on your food bill?

Really?

Falling Off the Dave Ramsey Diet - Saving Advice
Here is someone that dont agree with dave, but lets look at the baby steps dave says to take.



1. $1,000 to start an Emergency Fund

(this is a good point, except, well there aint many emergences that cost under 1k these days, maybe he should rework his figures)

2. Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball

(good point every other F.P. has always made)

3. 3 to 6 months of expenses in savings

(again, this is common advice in his field, nothing new here)

4. Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement

( yeah, not good advice for these times, unless of course, your cool with the government saying your retirement now has to fund us bonds and failed banks)

5. College funding for children

(good advice if there were any jobs when your kids graduate, which there wont be, maybe they could move to india after college?)

6. Pay off home early

( yes, please pay off your 250k home, so when the market drops another 20-30%, your home is worth 175k, i'm loving this guys "good times will always be here" advice)

7. Build wealth and give. Invest in mutual funds and real estate

( did he say mutual funds and real estate?)

For a man so wise to not see the housing bubble astounds me, well guess we cant all be make believe economists right?

Mises was not wrong, you just misunderstood him and you have an erroneous definition of "producer".

Mises is not saying that everyone must run their own business in order to improve their station in life. He is saying that capitalism offers everyone the opportunity to lift himself up by his own efforts, while controlled economies do not offer this opportunity. In capitalism, there is always something one can do to improve their lot in life; nobody has to work at a restaurant for their entire lives.

The employees of a business are producers of labor. They produce labor and sell it to the business they work for. By virtue of the labor they sell, they are producers by proxy of the goods and services sold by their employers. Everyone who is not living off charity must produce before they can consume, and all consumption must be balanced by equal or greater production. These principles are clearly stated throughout Mises' work.

Thanks for explaining what i already knew, but the fact remains, you did not understand what i wrote, mises was writing about how a capitalism system would work in a perfect world, which he knew it was not when he was writing about it. He knew the dangers of fiat currency and the ability to expand credit, and he also knew that fiat currency has never stood the test of time.

And this is only the fault of the workers. Capitalism affords each the opportunity to own businesses without running them.

Your kidding me right? You expect someone to believe that investing in stocks is akin to running your own business?

So whose fault is it for madoffs clients?

It is through capital markets that the worker can take his wages and invest in stocks or corporate bonds, becoming part owner of a business without having to run the business themselves.

It is thru massive deflating of our currency that you HAVE to invest in order to retire, hardly a choice if you ask me.

This is part of the wonder of capitalism -- one need not go out and purchase a whole factory, hire workers, buy materials, design and make a product, then attempt to market it, in order to be a business owner.

Part of the wonder? how about part of the stupidity of people? If i make a million dollars i should be able to retire, but thru the wonders of capitalism i cant, because inflation would have me in the poor house in 10-20 years. You have to invest in order to retire.

And when you invest, you better hope the book keepers of whatever company you invest in did not do enron's books, or your wonder of capitalism just crapped on your doorstep.

Capitalism is a system built on positive-sum trading. Wealth is increased all around, even (and especially) for those on the lowest rungs of the ladder.

I'm hoping to god you did not pay for any economics classes bro. In case you did not know, the gap between rich and poor has been growing for 30 years, with most mid level job wages stagnate or going down since the 70's.

When I worked at Taco Bell way back when, making minimum wage, I was wealthier than any king or queen in previous centuries. The wealth I had access to as a matter of course in my daily life, they could not purchase for all the gold in their coffers.

Dude you have got to be kidding me, your just joking right? that 35 bucks in FRN's was greater then all the riches of king tut eh?

Mises did not write about a perfect world. He did not have a utopian vision.

He must of been writing about a perfect world, because he should of understood that in a capitalism system based on fiat currency, that expanding of the credit could only lead to default(which was why he was for a gold standard in the first place, and also why he was for 100% reserves in banking reform).


He himself said:

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

He wrote about free market systems in a perfect world(sound money) where credit booms could not pop up whenever the corp/government wanted them to.

Karen De Coster

In this case, consumerism is not funded through the increase in capital accumulation and production, or rather, bona fide prosperity. Ludwig von Mises stressed that easy credit could not be equated with prosperity:

It is not real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity. It did not develop from an increase in economic wealth. Rather, it arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase. Sooner or later it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand.​

​

Weak argument. The fact is you posted a link to a 58 minute long video that is one part of a four part series. Most people won't sit through that just to argue with you. Make your own points.

I did, this was just source material. i consider knowledge of money/mind to be the highest priority of any human that uses money/mind DAILY.

My point of the thread was to show that we are all(yes even me) brainwashed, and have been since birth, now if we want to admit that to ourself or anybody else is too be seen. I used consumerism to show that in the easiest way possible(peer pressure) is something that even if fletch cant fathom, 99% of us on the board here can.

The point then becomes, why are we fed the information we are and to what end is the goal.