4 ms·
No doubt. But who claimed otherwise? The closest I could find is that CalRoberts said thay theyd'd spend more time gardening and cooking if they had the time, w
by morsch 7y ago
No doubt. But who claimed otherwise? The closest I could find is that CalRoberts said thay theyd'd spend more time gardening and cooking if they had the time, which is hard to refute unless you know them personally, is not an overgeneralisation -- and even if it was, growing a few tomatoes is a far fetch from subsistence farming.
You're making a classic straw man argument.
- WalterBright 7y ago> You're making a classic straw man argument. Am I? Because that's what one winds up with if one dispenses with buying all that stuff people were induced to want by industry. Besides, it's a mite presumptuous to claim that people are wasting their lives acquiring things they are induced to want, rather than actually wanting.
- CalRobert 7y agoMy original intent was to suggest that wealthy people consume more (after all, they have the wealth to do so) and ultimately a lot of our current economic system is designed to serve those needs. There's the classic example of "rich nerds in SF trying to solve problems for other rich nerds" but ultimately it's a matter of who controls most of the income that can be spent on non-necessities.
- WalterBright 7y ago> ultimately a lot of our current economic system is designed to serve those needs. I simply don't buy that. The market for VWs is far, far larger than the market for Ferraris/Bentleys. McDonald's made orders of magnitude more money than any luxury restaurant chain. The same for shoes, pots, pans, watches, computers, jewelry, soap, etc. The luxury yacht business is microscopic.