Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
-
dyqik
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7527
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
- Location: Masshole
-
Contact:
Post
by dyqik » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:32 am
noggins wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:28 am
lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:35 am
noggins wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:29 am
If we need to reduce resource usage, isnt flim-flam spending good?
Isnt It enviromentally better to spend £50 on something thats 50% empty b.llsh.t, than buy 2 x £25 bargains?
Not if I want to tax people £50 to pay for fast action on emissions and want people to save £50 to pay for their old age in an age of climate chaos.
We need to devote our society's resources to some very important needs, instead of devoting resources to empty b.llsh.t.
But the flimflam seller now has the £50, cant you just get it off them instead?
The flimflam seller probably also paid a couple of quids worth of relevant benefits to employees, saving you money, so now you don't need the whole £50.
Flimflam probably isn't VAT exempt, either.
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:58 am
If we're talking essential/basic products like food, tea bags and detergents, people aren't going to buy less just because it's more expensive, as they're still going to drink as much tea and wash as many mugs. They're just going to spend more.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
lpm
- Junior Mod
- Posts: 5944
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Post
by lpm » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:09 pm
dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:32 am
noggins wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:28 am
lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:35 am
Not if I want to tax people £50 to pay for fast action on emissions and want people to save £50 to pay for their old age in an age of climate chaos.
We need to devote our society's resources to some very important needs, instead of devoting resources to empty b.llsh.t.
But the flimflam seller now has the £50, cant you just get it off them instead?
The flimflam seller probably also paid a couple of quids worth of relevant benefits to employees, saving you money, so now you don't need the whole £50.
Flimflam probably isn't VAT exempt, either.
I know I'm casual about putting things in money terms too, but it's actually about resources. The various transfers of tax don't make much difference, when you net them off. What matters is that we devote more of our society's resources to the NHS and insulating homes and the rest, and less of our resources on flimflam.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
-
plodder
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Post
by plodder » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:11 pm
What if buying and selling flimflam generates so much wealth that we can afford far better healthcare?
That's essentially the story of 20th century economics.
-
plodder
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Post
by plodder » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:23 pm
Here's a good example of how flimflam can generate enormous amounts of wealth across a whole range of sectors, from overseas manufacturing to ink imports, boosting local businesses, creating spin offs and increasing the tax pot.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/ ... -sex-lives
-
Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Post
by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:30 pm
plodder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:11 pm
What if buying and selling flimflam generates so much wealth that we can afford far better healthcare?
That's essentially the story of 20th century economics.
The story of 20th century economics, at least as told by the likes of Piketty, is that the wealth generated has accrued to an ever-diminishing proportion of increasingly powerful oligarchs, while the rest of us flounder around getting into barely-sustainable levels of debt buying flimflam - and that was before the demographic pyramid collapsed contemporaneously with environmental disasters.
To put it another way, who is the "we" you're talking about, and are you are it's the right one?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
plodder
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Post
by plodder » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:36 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:30 pm
plodder wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:11 pm
What if buying and selling flimflam generates so much wealth that we can afford far better healthcare?
That's essentially the story of 20th century economics.
The story of 20th century economics, at least as told by the likes of Piketty, is that the wealth generated has accrued to an ever-diminishing proportion of increasingly powerful oligarchs, while the rest of us flounder around getting into barely-sustainable levels of debt buying flimflam - and that was before the demographic pyramid collapsed contemporaneously with environmental disasters.
To put it another way, who is the "we" you're talking about, and are you are it's the right one?
We as in us. What's your life expectancy compared to your great-grandparents? What's your level of education compared to theirs.? (you can likelty think of loads of other good comparators over the last 100 years or so. (great-grandparents will, at a guess, span the 20th C nicely).
That's due to societal wealth that was created during the century. The fact that more of it is being harvested is being discussed over in the success thread.
-
discovolante
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4084
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm
Post
by discovolante » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:41 pm
I think Piketty presented it as more of an issue of 21st century economics than 20th. But I am at a petrol station so that's all I have for now...
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.
-
Pucksoppet
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:13 pm
- Location: Girdling the Earth
Post
by Pucksoppet » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:14 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:50 am
I'm not sure where the sense of "treat yourself" comes from. Our peasant ancestors would presumably treat themselves to a good old piss up every few weeks, at a wedding or religious festival or special market day. But are we now in an age of people going for treats several times a day?
Yes - because they can. Think 'village drunkard', but with vastly more addictive behaviours to choose from.
lpm wrote:
Why? Are our lives so miserable and pointless that we continually need these short term wish fulfillments? Do we feel worthless and want to pretend to be "worth it" via consumption?
Yes - People find it easy to compare themselves to their chosen ideals (e.g. influencers) they see on YouTube and other social media.
lpm wrote:
In particular, do people get locked in a cycle of feeling financially insecure or a loser in our income inequality world, so boost their esteem with a single treat again and again, spending so much on the premiums charged that it then makes them feel financially struggling...
Yes - to the extent that some go into quite severe credit card debt to do so.
lpm wrote:
I'm reminded of somebody on another forum, who justified his purchases of cocktails and iPads on the grounds that he'd never be able to buy a home, so this was his compensation.
And how do you argue against that?
-
plodder
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2981
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm
Post
by plodder » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:49 pm
OK, a different perspective. It's not misery that drives these behaviours, its a combination of convenience (credit is a piece of piss to get, clicking a button on a screen is easy etc), what our peers do (it's ubiquitous), and the safety net that a stable, trustworthy society brings. The fun is a side effect.
-
nekomatic
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1377
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:04 pm
Post
by nekomatic » Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:46 pm
lpm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:41 pm
If people moan to me about paying £50 extra a month for climate measures, should my response be to tell them to stop squandering money on premium consumption with limited extra satisfaction?
Well, no, obviously; your response should be to rebrand climate measures as a premium product. This isn’t just a temperature rise; this is a
less than 2 degree temperature rise.
Move-a… side, and let the mango through… let the mango through