4 ms·

Capitalism gets people to buy tons of unnecessary and unhealthy crap, that's for sure. (Like $150 running shoes, and sugary drinks and junk food that support th

by hilux 2y ago

Capitalism gets people to buy tons of unnecessary and unhealthy crap, that's for sure. (Like $150 running shoes, and sugary drinks and junk food that support the diabetes industry.) But you're claiming something different. What's an example of a "nice thing" we'd enjoy today except for those evil capitalists blocking the path?

whartung 2y ago
Panera Bread has apparently discontinued their Pumpkin Muffin. Now, like everyone, it’s routine today for the Autumn sky to darken as pumpkin season begins and we get everything pumpkin from cereal to coffee to toothpaste and motor oil. However, Paneras pumpkin muffin was not seasonal, but a staple. And now it’s gone. I’m betting the mustache twisting, stove piped hat capitalists in the smoke filled room of leather chairs and warmed snifters didn’t decide to stop making the muffins in order to lose money. And they were REALLY GOOD pumpkin muffins.
chihuahua 2y ago
The capitalist lackeys and running dogs at the EPA won't let me buy a Trabant car with a two-stroke engine.
- tormeh 2y ago
  You can smell those things when they pass you. IMO it should be mandated that the engine be switched out for a modern one.
hcarvalhoalves 2y ago
Let’s start simple: what about, like, any modern electronic device that can be serviced and doesn’t stop working whenever the manufacturer decides from a distance? I would enjoy not having to buy a new phone every other year just so my apps keep fucking working.
- hilux 2y ago
  Star Trek shows me lots of devices we'd like. What's your evidence that the device you want EXISTS TODAY (or could exist, given existing technology), but Apple and Google or whoever are gatekeeping it? E.g. do you think Apple could have released the iPhone 15, 14, 13, etc. in 2007, but held back because Steve Jobs was counting his billions? Also, maybe you intended "every other year" as a figure of speech, but I buy an iPhone only every four or five years, and my last one was free (to me) with a "commitment" to the very affordable carrier plan I already had. I do occasionally need to replace the battery, but if better battery tech exists, I have not heard about it. Are the Chinese and Koreans complicit in this gatekeeping? Last but not least, do you work in the tech industry? I used to work for a well-known chip manufacturer, and if we were gatekeeping our chip releases to increase future profits, I certainly didn't hear about it. That reminds me - a key feature of capitalism is COMPETITION. If someone is holding back on building magic devices, the field is open for someone else, maybe you, to profitably build them.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Assuming a level playing field. If I have good cash flow from my operating system and office software business, I can make a web browser, and give it away for free, which screws up the market for companies that sell web browser software. no one can compete with that price so a company that only makes web browser software gets screwed. Until such time that a different company with a monopoly in another area is able to fund development of a competing browser which they can give away for free, the market for web browser software was and it's dominated by one free option to the next. Point being, free markets and competition is great, but there isn't always going to be competition because the game is fixed.
    - hilux 2y ago
      The question was about (hardware) "devices," which tend to be limited by chip technology, not browsers. Are you suggesting that Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung are all colluding to stay at roughly the same level of chip technology - when they could easily be generations ahead?
lukan 2y ago
"unnecessary and unhealthy crap ... Like $150 running shoes" What exactly is unhealthy or unnecessary about running shoes?
- hilux 2y ago
  The materials in running shoes cost under $10, and many people seem to do just fine without them. E.g. I have run two marathons barefoot with fewer problems than when I ran shod. And I'm not genetically blessed. It's impossible to reconcile my experience, and the experience of so many other barefoot (and minimalist - although I don't recommend it) runners, with the advertising from Hoka and from podiatrists.
  - lukan 2y ago
    It shouldn't be necessary to disclaim, but I do barefeet running even in snow. But since I did not train barefeet running while my feet were developing, I could not run a marathon without shoes, I would damage my bones, my barefeet range has a limit. So I certainly would not think of telling others they must be minimalistic, too. And if I would run in the cities on concrete, I would get myself good running shoes, too.
    - hilux 2y ago
      The first time I ran barefoot, I was older than you probably are now. (Since this is HN.) I understand your skepticism, since I used to be the same way. What I've learned is this: good running form isn't "pogo stick," it's "unicycle." But if what you're doing is working for you, no reason to change. That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes. For public shoe companies, just take a look at their financials, how much money goes to "R&D" versus "sales and marketing."
      - lukan 2y ago
        "That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes." I don't know much about running shoes, but about trekking shoes. And there I can attest, that higher quality exists and indeed costs more and is worth it. I assume the same to be true for running shoes, no matter that they have a big marketing budget, that should rather be R&D. (All marketing should be.)
wazoox 2y ago
For instance, clean energy transition. https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-ch...
harimau777 2y ago
Single payer healthcare
torginus 2y ago
I'd gladly drop $150 on a pair of shoes if I could ensure the product is well-made and will last me forever. Unfortunately, higher price does not correllate with either.

by hilux 2y ago

whartung 2y ago

Panera Bread has apparently discontinued their Pumpkin Muffin. Now, like everyone, it’s routine today for the Autumn sky to darken as pumpkin season begins and we get everything pumpkin from cereal to coffee to toothpaste and motor oil. However, Paneras pumpkin muffin was not seasonal, but a staple. And now it’s gone. I’m betting the mustache twisting, stove piped hat capitalists in the smoke filled room of leather chairs and warmed snifters didn’t decide to stop making the muffins in order to lose money. And they were REALLY GOOD pumpkin muffins.

chihuahua 2y ago

The capitalist lackeys and running dogs at the EPA won't let me buy a Trabant car with a two-stroke engine.

tormeh 2y ago
You can smell those things when they pass you. IMO it should be mandated that the engine be switched out for a modern one.

hcarvalhoalves 2y ago

Let’s start simple: what about, like, any modern electronic device that can be serviced and doesn’t stop working whenever the manufacturer decides from a distance? I would enjoy not having to buy a new phone every other year just so my apps keep fucking working.

hilux 2y ago
Star Trek shows me lots of devices we'd like. What's your evidence that the device you want EXISTS TODAY (or could exist, given existing technology), but Apple and Google or whoever are gatekeeping it? E.g. do you think Apple could have released the iPhone 15, 14, 13, etc. in 2007, but held back because Steve Jobs was counting his billions? Also, maybe you intended "every other year" as a figure of speech, but I buy an iPhone only every four or five years, and my last one was free (to me) with a "commitment" to the very affordable carrier plan I already had. I do occasionally need to replace the battery, but if better battery tech exists, I have not heard about it. Are the Chinese and Koreans complicit in this gatekeeping? Last but not least, do you work in the tech industry? I used to work for a well-known chip manufacturer, and if we were gatekeeping our chip releases to increase future profits, I certainly didn't hear about it. That reminds me - a key feature of capitalism is COMPETITION. If someone is holding back on building magic devices, the field is open for someone else, maybe you, to profitably build them.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Assuming a level playing field. If I have good cash flow from my operating system and office software business, I can make a web browser, and give it away for free, which screws up the market for companies that sell web browser software. no one can compete with that price so a company that only makes web browser software gets screwed. Until such time that a different company with a monopoly in another area is able to fund development of a competing browser which they can give away for free, the market for web browser software was and it's dominated by one free option to the next. Point being, free markets and competition is great, but there isn't always going to be competition because the game is fixed.
  - hilux 2y ago
    The question was about (hardware) "devices," which tend to be limited by chip technology, not browsers. Are you suggesting that Arm and AMD and Apple and Huawei and Intel and Nvidia and Samsung are all colluding to stay at roughly the same level of chip technology - when they could easily be generations ahead?

lukan 2y ago

"unnecessary and unhealthy crap ... Like $150 running shoes" What exactly is unhealthy or unnecessary about running shoes?

hilux 2y ago
The materials in running shoes cost under $10, and many people seem to do just fine without them. E.g. I have run two marathons barefoot with fewer problems than when I ran shod. And I'm not genetically blessed. It's impossible to reconcile my experience, and the experience of so many other barefoot (and minimalist - although I don't recommend it) runners, with the advertising from Hoka and from podiatrists.
- lukan 2y ago
  It shouldn't be necessary to disclaim, but I do barefeet running even in snow. But since I did not train barefeet running while my feet were developing, I could not run a marathon without shoes, I would damage my bones, my barefeet range has a limit. So I certainly would not think of telling others they must be minimalistic, too. And if I would run in the cities on concrete, I would get myself good running shoes, too.
  - hilux 2y ago
    The first time I ran barefoot, I was older than you probably are now. (Since this is HN.) I understand your skepticism, since I used to be the same way. What I've learned is this: good running form isn't "pogo stick," it's "unicycle." But if what you're doing is working for you, no reason to change. That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes. For public shoe companies, just take a look at their financials, how much money goes to "R&D" versus "sales and marketing."
    - lukan 2y ago
      "That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes." I don't know much about running shoes, but about trekking shoes. And there I can attest, that higher quality exists and indeed costs more and is worth it. I assume the same to be true for running shoes, no matter that they have a big marketing budget, that should rather be R&D. (All marketing should be.)

wazoox 2y ago

For instance, clean energy transition. https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-ch...

harimau777 2y ago

Single payer healthcare

torginus 2y ago

I'd gladly drop $150 on a pair of shoes if I could ensure the product is well-made and will last me forever. Unfortunately, higher price does not correllate with either.