4 ms·

Getting a new smartphone is what people want. They wouldn't have an exciting thing to gift or to receive on Christmas. They would get tired of the way it looks

Getting a new smartphone is what people want. They wouldn't have an exciting thing to gift or to receive on Christmas. They would get tired of the way it looks all the time. They wouldn't be able to show it off to their friends. They wouldn't be delighted with the new UI. Life would be a bit more boring in one more way. Why would you say no to them? Not the most important thing in the world? Sure. Something that millions of people want and are willing to spend 1% of their annual pay check? Yes. Saying that it makes no sense constitutes a very destructive thinking. When you start thinking of what "makes" or "not makes" sense, you stop being empathetic. There's always a better, "more right", more proper thing to do and millions of people are just wasting their time on something they don't need. But aren't they human beings? Isn't having irrational wants rooted in the humanity itself? Planned economy was dealing in the same maxims. "People need food". "People need shelter". Also tools and military equipment. Fashion clothes? Nah, screw that, useless. Beauty items? Shenanigans of capitalists. Some variety of food? We don't have resources for that. We know how that ended up.

pygy_ 9y ago
I think it's a false dichotomy. We use money and investment as a distributed resource allocation system. It's kind of worked so far, but it is fundamentally flawed and on a catastrophic trajectory. We've created a self-amplifying dissipative system without any kind of braking system, and we're already wasting the earth away faster than it regenerates. The growth religion must be dispelled. I hope we can find a system that captures the positive aspects of capitalism while stopping the current destruction/consumption wave.
RyanZAG 9y ago
> Why would you say no to them? Maybe you misunderstood my point, but I certainly wouldn't say no! Planned economy is far worse: it's mostly the same thing, but without the smiles.

pygy_ 9y ago

I think it's a false dichotomy. We use money and investment as a distributed resource allocation system. It's kind of worked so far, but it is fundamentally flawed and on a catastrophic trajectory. We've created a self-amplifying dissipative system without any kind of braking system, and we're already wasting the earth away faster than it regenerates. The growth religion must be dispelled. I hope we can find a system that captures the positive aspects of capitalism while stopping the current destruction/consumption wave.

RyanZAG 9y ago

> Why would you say no to them? Maybe you misunderstood my point, but I certainly wouldn't say no! Planned economy is far worse: it's mostly the same thing, but without the smiles.