4 ms·

Good. Maybe we’ll waste less now.

by layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
The most wasteful are the richest though.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” < https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-r... > So in short: no. Everyone is wasting.
  - chii 6y ago
    So why did't the poorer man buy the more expensive boots using a loan, and then pay it off over the life time of the boots? That would've prevented him from spending hundred dollars on bad boots over and over again. So i argue that it's poor planning.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      To be clear, your question is "why don't poor people just get loans"?
      - chii 6y ago
        The poor person paid out $100 over 10 years, for the equivalent goods that would've costed $50 in upfront capital (good shoes). So an enterprising banker would be willing to lend this poor person $50, to be repaid with eight $10 installments yearly, for a total of $80 - a 60% return on investment (7.5% pa returns). This would've kept the poor person's cashflow the same - $10 per year, and he'd have paid an extra $30 for the priviledge of the upfront capital, but saved $20 vs buying new shoes every year for $10, ten years straight. If those shoes were so important, this would've been the way to do it, not buy a crappy pair every year that end up costing you more in the long run. Edit: my main point is that financing is a potential way out for those who lack the capital, but is able to to handle the cashflow.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        Then they get hit with an unexpected $1k medical bill. They now default on your shoe loan, and the coat loan, and the car loan, and the rest of the microloans. Poor people generally don't have access to capital except at incredibly high APRs that typically make things worse, not better.
        chii 6y ago
        if they were going to get a medical bill, they would've been in the same, or worse position. They would've been without a shoe, instead of with a shoe and face default on the shoe loan.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    > "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > So in short: no. Everyone is wasting. The wealthiest 20% of the world's population consume 80% of resources, while the poorest 20% lack the basics to survive. It just takes 40 seconds of research to completely disprove your point.
    - pmlnr 6y ago
      Wasting is wasting; small or big wasn't the question.
pietrovismara 6y ago
I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste.

Good. Maybe we’ll waste less now.

rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago

The most wasteful are the richest though.

pmlnr 6y ago
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” < https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-rich-were-so-rich-vimes-reasoned https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-r... > So in short: no. Everyone is wasting.
- chii 6y ago
  So why did't the poorer man buy the more expensive boots using a loan, and then pay it off over the life time of the boots? That would've prevented him from spending hundred dollars on bad boots over and over again. So i argue that it's poor planning.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    To be clear, your question is "why don't poor people just get loans"?
    - chii 6y ago
      The poor person paid out $100 over 10 years, for the equivalent goods that would've costed $50 in upfront capital (good shoes). So an enterprising banker would be willing to lend this poor person $50, to be repaid with eight $10 installments yearly, for a total of $80 - a 60% return on investment (7.5% pa returns). This would've kept the poor person's cashflow the same - $10 per year, and he'd have paid an extra $30 for the priviledge of the upfront capital, but saved $20 vs buying new shoes every year for $10, ten years straight. If those shoes were so important, this would've been the way to do it, not buy a crappy pair every year that end up costing you more in the long run. Edit: my main point is that financing is a potential way out for those who lack the capital, but is able to to handle the cashflow.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Then they get hit with an unexpected $1k medical bill. They now default on your shoe loan, and the coat loan, and the car loan, and the rest of the microloans. Poor people generally don't have access to capital except at incredibly high APRs that typically make things worse, not better.
        chii 6y ago
        if they were going to get a medical bill, they would've been in the same, or worse position. They would've been without a shoe, instead of with a shoe and face default on the shoe loan.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  > "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > So in short: no. Everyone is wasting. The wealthiest 20% of the world's population consume 80% of resources, while the poorest 20% lack the basics to survive. It just takes 40 seconds of research to completely disprove your point.
  - pmlnr 6y ago
    Wasting is wasting; small or big wasn't the question.

pietrovismara 6y ago

I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste.