Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, What are your thoughts?
- Thread starter Joij21
- Start date
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
edit: Yeah, sure.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
Ah I think we'll know more in 2024.
aelf
Ashen One
This is basically circling back to the question of compensation. It's one thing to say that people want compensation for their efforts, but it's another to say that compensation can only be given within a capitalistic framework.
"The smart phone technology set down by the iPhone" is a rather inaccurate or at least imprecise statement. Which part of the technology are you even talking about? The OS? The product design? The software design (information architecture, etc.)?
No problem. It is a question of perspective. In ten years or so you will see that I'm right about this. I'll probably be dead by then.
Recently, I've had quite a few people who can't string together a coherent argument (or even a sentence) tell me to get more "real life experience" before talking to them. So forgive me if this "perspective... in ten years" thing doesn't buy you any credibility. It seems an excuse practitioners give to make up for the lack of a strong rationale.
1.In the history of innovative devices most of the motivation comes from some kind of personal compensation. Of course it doesn't have to. Capitalism has that motivation built in. i cam certainly open to other sources of motivations. Do you have any in mind?
2. The iPhone represents a comprehensive device for lots of personal, social, work and entertainment activities in a single device. None of the specific technologies will stand the test of time. They already haven't as the OS and everything else about the phones have evolves since 2008. It is no different than how computer tech has evolved since the PC was introduced in the 1980s. In reality the iPhone is an extension of the PC. It is a pocket version of all the things "promised" by the introduction of the PC. the change it wrought is that now we have vast computing power in our palms that is 100% portable. It is a game changer and will only get better.
3. I don't know what your perspective is. You have been coy about what you really want to talk about. iPhones and spirituality? Consumerism and spirituality? What brings us happiness? I haven't seen much of a coherent argument from you on any of those. So, I just respond as best I can. @Crezth does make his case and we just don't agree. Perspective can be seeing the trees but not the forest. Often only seeing the details and not being able to generalize about some larger picture. Seeing smart phones by only what they specifically do, how they are used and what behaviors they encourage is a narrow perspective. A broader perspective puts the device into a larger context in order to see how it fits with other things and if there are trends that appear. That wider perspective often comes with age as one has more of individual and social history to work with.
Let me make two analogies regarding perspective. A narrow perspective is often similar to the knowledge of a skilled crafts person or technically skilled engineer. They know how to do things well and have a good eye for creating and replicating existing things. They are needed. Because the understand how to do things well. When such people develop the ability to move past their narrow sill set and generalize their thinking into a broader view, they then can become true masters of those skills. they can teach others; they can create new and distinctive designs; they can expand their thinking to include new and unusual ways of using their skill sets. This comes with a change in perspective. For engineering types it often means a move to management and the ability to manage teams and train others and work on the impact they can have on broader goals. For craftspeople it often means that they change the nature of what they do and become recognized masters in their area of expertise. Such folks can change an industry. Learning to broaden one's perspective through both time and space can be fun and interesting. It happens naturally as we age, but that is not necessary. Some folks get it early. Steve Jobs did. He figured out that a telephone could do more. Go back and watch his introduction of the iPhone to see how far we have come.
Link to video.
My push for changing perspective is all about encouraging folks to look at stuff differently from their usual way.
If you think that my case is poorly described and weak, then make your own case for what you think. So far I don't recall you making such a presentation or any coherent argument at all. If I missed, please point it out to me.
Is there some reason we are specifically talking about iPhones instead of smartphones? I feel like I missed a transition in the conversation. I keep on substituting smartphone into the conversation, and it really changes but the conversation is about
They did and they didn't, but the iPhone specifically is often referred to as the turning point in mass uptake of smartphones (later smart devices). Earlier attempts - while they could be good devices in their own right - often straddled the line between "smart" and "why is this phone running Java ME" - in addition to not having the market penetration that Apple managed pretty thoroughly with a solid brand (TM) identity that its competitors lacked at the time.
Source: anecdotal experience working with smartphones since about 2012 (not meant as a brag: definitely anecdotal). Our clients are educational primarily (higher education). Our company's app used to be tested on an iPod, before iPhones were marketed as successfully (and the iPod therefore still had a viable niche). At that time, Blackberry was still a thing, Android was hopelessly fragmented and nobody knew what Google were doing with hardware vendors, but Apple already firmly had the iPhone and iPad (and iPod).
Source: anecdotal experience working with smartphones since about 2012 (not meant as a brag: definitely anecdotal). Our clients are educational primarily (higher education). Our company's app used to be tested on an iPod, before iPhones were marketed as successfully (and the iPod therefore still had a viable niche). At that time, Blackberry was still a thing, Android was hopelessly fragmented and nobody knew what Google were doing with hardware vendors, but Apple already firmly had the iPhone and iPad (and iPod).
It just seems weirdly specific, given that the other half of the conversation was about electricity overall. If the comparison was to 110 volt transmission, maybe it would make more sense. I don't know, I feel like I missed some intuitive leap
No, I get you. I don't share BD's enthusiasm for Apple, which might also be a factor for the equivalence 
But I consider it a basic truism that any discussion around smartphones will, sooner or later, pivot to Apple as a seminal example.
But I consider it a basic truism that any discussion around smartphones will, sooner or later, pivot to Apple as a seminal example.
@aelf brought up the iPhone specifically early in the conversation. I understood that many feel that the iPhone is an over priced consumer trinket and bad for people. Can I say that I am just trying to put it in perspective?
The iPhone changed what it meant to be a smart phone.
iPhone is an overpriced consumer product. People buy it because they want it and aren't just making a utility calculation. Some of that is network effect, that non-users just cannot really calculate. That's not really here nor there, because the iPhone is only partially a product of capitalism.
The investment made by the government more than paid for the initial investment. And if it weren't for the United States's stupid taxation laws (which are not a fundamental part of 'capitalism', just an abuse of the concept), the net benefit to the citizenry would be obvious and massive. The benefits of this synergy to the citizenry are probably already overwhelming, but are less than they should be.
https://www.economist.com/schumpeter/2014/02/03/startup-myths-and-obsessionsThe Economist said:
The investment made by the government more than paid for the initial investment. And if it weren't for the United States's stupid taxation laws (which are not a fundamental part of 'capitalism', just an abuse of the concept), the net benefit to the citizenry would be obvious and massive. The benefits of this synergy to the citizenry are probably already overwhelming, but are less than they should be.
On that I-Phone price.
Price is relative in many ways.
If I buy for 50 Euro a game and play it for 500 hours... it cost me 0.10 Euro per hour.... and at 3 hours a day 0.30 Euro per day.
If I buy that extra glass of wine after dinner when at a restaurant for 4.00 Euro and enjoy a further 30 minutes after talk... it cost me 8.00 Euro per hour.... and doing that once every two weeks 0.29 Euro per day.
If I buy that I-Phone for 1,000 Euro and use it for only 30 minutes a day during 4 years... it cost me 1.37 Euro per hour.... and irrespective how much I use it 0.69 Euro per day.
If I buy a thriller for 9 Euro and read it in 3 hours... it cost me 3.00 per hour.
Price is relative in many ways.
If I buy for 50 Euro a game and play it for 500 hours... it cost me 0.10 Euro per hour.... and at 3 hours a day 0.30 Euro per day.
If I buy that extra glass of wine after dinner when at a restaurant for 4.00 Euro and enjoy a further 30 minutes after talk... it cost me 8.00 Euro per hour.... and doing that once every two weeks 0.29 Euro per day.
If I buy that I-Phone for 1,000 Euro and use it for only 30 minutes a day during 4 years... it cost me 1.37 Euro per hour.... and irrespective how much I use it 0.69 Euro per day.
If I buy a thriller for 9 Euro and read it in 3 hours... it cost me 3.00 per hour.
My wife was showing me a website this morning that sells women's clothing.Mostly simple cotton garments that looked good and weren't fancy. The "selling point" for the site was that they say that at each step in the supply chain those that did the work received a living wage. I don't know if that is true or much more, but the cheapest items all seem to cost $100 or more. Some were over $200. I have no idea what the profit margins are. But if we assume what they say is true, then paying living wages would have a big impact on the cost of our clothing. If a new shirt in the US cost $125, then what would the resultant necessary living wage in the US be? No more 3 for $40 specials. Sure, it is just one data point, but an interesting one.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
If your economic system makes it impossible to pay your laborers a living wage maybe you need to re-examine why the cost of living is so high and why people literally can’t afford to live by working.
Lexicus
Deity
I know this is crazy but just bear with me....what if I told you that people don't need dozens or hundreds of items of clothing to live
Your data is incomplete, @Birdjaguar
you sell this idea as increasing the cost to Americans by insane margins, but what's impacting that isn't just fair wages but also economies of scale, so the price you quoted isn't necessarily accurate - and who knows how big a slice of that pie the C-suite/owners of the American end of that operation are taking for themselves - and you're also missing out on applying the living wage properly to Americans, which would decrease the importance of the price in the first place.
to go along with this: there's chocolate made in the US and claims to do fair pricing and gives its farmer suppliers a true share in the profit (I don't know how much that is) that sells its chocolate bars for around $8-10 for 85g/3oz. Now you might outrage yourself comparing it to a $2-3 competitor, but how often do you need chocolate? Maybe you can just reduce your consumption. Do you really need chocolate to be artificially underpriced?
you sell this idea as increasing the cost to Americans by insane margins, but what's impacting that isn't just fair wages but also economies of scale, so the price you quoted isn't necessarily accurate - and who knows how big a slice of that pie the C-suite/owners of the American end of that operation are taking for themselves - and you're also missing out on applying the living wage properly to Americans, which would decrease the importance of the price in the first place.
to go along with this: there's chocolate made in the US and claims to do fair pricing and gives its farmer suppliers a true share in the profit (I don't know how much that is) that sells its chocolate bars for around $8-10 for 85g/3oz. Now you might outrage yourself comparing it to a $2-3 competitor, but how often do you need chocolate? Maybe you can just reduce your consumption. Do you really need chocolate to be artificially underpriced?
Last edited:
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
In Sweden there are something called the industrial agreement which mean wage growth is based on the competitive industry to keep wages and prices from running away which in turn have increased real growth wages due to suppressing inflation, even if nominal wage growth is lower than in the past, inflation is even lower than in the past.
The snake bites its tail when that living wage must now be increased because that worker get higher living cost to pay for its own, and now more expensive clothes !
You always end up with relative productivities.
BTW
Calculating everything in hours is sometimes more helpful to explain without the confusion of the money-profit-capitalism distraction.
How many hours do I need to work to produce what I consume and use ?
And machines you use must be converted in workers hours as well... their building hours... etc, etc.
Products do ot only have embodied energy, but also embodied water and embodied workers hours.
The total calculations.
One of our universities is good in that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
