So what [I]exactly[/I] is everyone's problem with FM?

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why is ti a waste of resources? Variety makes waste less likely, because people are more likely to find what they want, and hence there is more consumption.

Because those resources could be put to better use. Yes variety is great, and we should have variety, but that’s not the case in capitalism, you have the exact same product resold under a different brand name with slightly different looks for the most part. Still, my argument is that since it is unnecessary it is a waste.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As yet, we have no idea, because as I said, we have no advertising. However, I don't see why it would be anything other than a mtter of simple education.

I would beg to differ, people are easy to lead. Simple education does little to help in this matter. You cannot teach someone to think for themselves. We could palace laws restricting marketing, and this I would perhaps agree with, but I would imagine that it would be against the concept of a free market since it would be government interference in the economy.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because the West is richer, but is also human; that is, they want much the same things as non-Westerners, but they have more money to spend, so companies selling things can ask for more and still get paid.

That makes sense, but doesn’t that meant that companies are asking westerners for more money for the same products simply because they can afford to pay more money? This just does to demonstrate my point that they overcharge for goods.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because the Third World nations are poorer, and hence, have less money to spend, so if the people selling the goods want to make money, they have to price them lower.

Same as above; this only does to show my point that in rich nations goods are overpriced. Clearly the companies are still making profit in third world countries by charging considerable less, so why don’t they charge the same prices in first world countries, still making a profit, but at the same time considerably increasing the standard of living in first world nations because now people will be able to afford more.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Also, you're looking at the issue of the goods being cheap from our perspective, the perspective of someone whose currency has much mroe value than the local one. It onyl seems cheap because you ahve more buying power than them. To them, I'm sure the prices would seem normal, or high, depending on the goods in question and their financial situation.

Perfectly valid point, but as I stated above, companies in these locations are selling the goods for a price which is considerable cheaper form the prices they sell them at in rich nations. Therefore you are still being charge more.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
What's so bad about them enjoying the highest standard of living?

Nothing, I’m just saying that those who contribute most to society should be the ones who enjoy the highest standard of living, not some spoiled brat that daddy left all his money to when he died.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
But we DO have ways of checking up on their actions. As part of the laws, we require them to let our inspectors into all of their factories (or contractors factories, if they employ the old trick of paying others to do the exploitation for them), to make sure they're obeying the regulations.

Yes, we could. But what if the foreign nation does not allow us in? Perhaps the government is receiving a generous sum of money form the corporation to keep things hush-hush. We cannot control the actions of our corporations completely.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
They cost less TO US because we're richer than the local consumers, who are the primary market.

Ok. So wouldn’t it make sense for someone living in the US to cross the border to Mexico to do their shopping given that the goods cost less? Also, as I’ve stated before in my response to you, since the same goods cost less in a different market, it means that simply because we can pay more the corporations would be willing to charge us more therefore reducing our overall standard of living.

[GeneralTacticus]

Because those resources could be put to better use. Yes variety is great, and we should have variety, but that’s not the case in capitalism, you have the exact same product resold under a different brand name with slightly different looks for the most part. Still, my argument is that since it is unnecessary it is a waste.

You still haven't answered my question: why is it unnecessary? The sneakers still get bought. You have essentially the same quantity of resources expended on sneaker production. What does it matter if not all sneakers are the same?

That makes sense, but doesn’t that meant that companies are asking westerners for more money for the same products simply because they can afford to pay more money? This just does to demonstrate my point that they overcharge for goods.

How is this overcharging?

I would beg to differ, people are easy to lead. Simple education does little to help in this matter. You cannot teach someone to think for themselves. We could palace laws restricting marketing, and this I would perhaps agree with, but I would imagine that it would be against the concept of a free market since it would be government interference in the economy.

I would say that it's quite easy to get people to think for themselves; simply point out what happens when you uncritically swallow whatever you're fed, and the kinds of people who don't think for themselves. No-one wants to be considered a moron.

Same as above; this only does to show my point that in rich nations goods are overpriced. Clearly the companies are still making profit in third world countries by charging considerable less, so why don’t they charge the same prices in first world countries, still making a profit, but at the same time considerably increasing the standard of living in first world nations because now people will be able to afford more.

Because if they sold things in the First World at the same prices as they do in the Third World, they'd have to cut back our wages to fund it, and nobody would really benefit (well, presumably some would benefit because their wages didn't go down in proportion to the price reduction, but equally many would lose out because their wages dropped too far).

Perfectly valid point, but as I stated above, companies in these locations are selling the goods for a price which is considerable cheaper form the prices they sell them at in rich nations. Therefore you are still being charge more.

Your point being? I (well, I don't wor , being a student, so my parents) get paid more, as well.

Nothing, I’m just saying that those who contribute most to society should be the ones who enjoy the highest standard of living, not some spoiled brat that daddy left all his money to when he died.

I gave some thought to this last night, and the conclusion I came to was that if you kept track of who inherited how much, and put a tax on that amount that would ensure that over x years all inheritance would be returned to the state, then the inheritance would still allow help teh reciever, but they would still have to stay rich, rather than just banking it and living off the interest, or whatever.

Yes, we could. But what if the foreign nation does not allow us in? Perhaps the government is receiving a generous sum of money form the corporation to keep things hush-hush. We cannot control the actions of our corporations completely.

Yes we can; if they won't let us inspect their factories, we presume they're in violation - 'What have you got to hide?' - and act accordingly.

Ok. So wouldn’t it make sense for someone living in the US to cross the border to Mexico to do their shopping given that the goods cost less?

Not necessarily, because:

a) It takes time to get there and back,

b) You have to go through the whole process of being llowed in,

and

c) the goods you want may not be available there, or may be in short supply.

Also, as I’ve stated before in my response to you, since the same goods cost less in a different market, it means that simply because we can pay more the corporations would be willing to charge us more therefore reducing our overall standard of living.

No, it isn't necessarily reducing our standard of living, because charging us higher prices means that the companies can also afford to pay us higher wages.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You still haven't answered my question: why is it unnecessary? The sneakers still get bought. You have essentially the same quantity of resources expended on sneaker production. What does it matter if not all sneakers are the same?

Not all the sneakers get bought, my argument is that it is a waste given that you have the relatively little variety between the different brands of sneakers there is no need to have more than one brand. Furthermore it is an even greater waste because assuming that each of the corporations produces the same number of sneakers, not all of them will get sold, in fact chances are most will not. Then you have the problem brought about by new variations on the design released every year, the old design is thrown out if not sold, and people are encouraged to buy the new when it is not necessary. Under a planed economy we should strive towards efficiency in our products, that is anything we produce is meant to last for a relatively long time. Whereas with constantly new models of products come out in a capitalist system, the products are not made to last given that the corporations desire for people to buy the new models. It isn’t nearly as profitable for corporations to produce a sneaker which is very durable and does not need replacement every year. They profit more by making the products of lower quality than they could be, so that consumers must buy the new products when they come out.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
How is this overcharging?

It is overcharging given that the corporations charge consumers who are better off more than they do those who cannot pay. It would not make sense for Nike to attempt to sell $100 sneakers in most of Mexico, therefore they have to charge less for those sneakers. But since in America people have more money to spend, Nike can afford to change them more for the same product. They are making a profit in both cases, but the profit they make in first world nations is considerably greater.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I would say that it's quite easy to get people to think for themselves; simply point out what happens when you uncritically swallow whatever you're fed, and the kinds of people who don't think for themselves. No-one wants to be considered a moron.

Humans are collectivist in nature, they follow the group. We do not desire to be individuals, simply a subset of the group. If it were that easy to make people think for themselves we would not have superstition, organized religion, ideology, etc. Earth’s western societies were plagues by consumerism driven by the social concept of “cool”; that which society deemed the best became the best in the eyes of people. There is little difference in quality between a brand name product and a generic product, yet consumers are willing to pay considerably higher prices for a logo on a shirt, shoes, cap, etc. Essentially the majority of consumers will follow the social fad, this has been shown to be true over and over again. So no I don’t think allowing corporations unlimited freedoms in advertisement is a good idea.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Because if they sold things in the First World at the same prices as they do in the Third World, they'd have to cut back our wages to fund it, and nobody would really benefit (well, presumably some would benefit because their wages didn't go down in proportion to the price reduction, but equally many would lose out because their wages dropped too far).

Fair enough, so wages are proportional to the cost of goods.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Your point being? I (well, I don't wor , being a student, so my parents) get paid more, as well.

Yes you get paid more, but your money is worth less.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I gave some thought to this last night, and the conclusion I came to was that if you kept track of who inherited how much, and put a tax on that amount that would ensure that over x years all inheritance would be returned to the state, then the inheritance would still allow help teh reciever, but they would still have to stay rich, rather than just banking it and living off the interest, or whatever.

This idea I like and can agree with. I would not mind a switch to capitalism if we were to devise a system where we avoid the problem of the hereditary elite. This would in fact I think ensure that capitalism remains meritocratic.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes we can; if they won't let us inspect their factories, we presume they're in violation - 'What have you got to hide?' - and act accordingly.

Ok, but to bring up another possible case, just for the sake of argument. Could we really monitor all the activities of our corporations, in other words what if they establish factories in other nations without our knowledge?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Not necessarily, because:

a) It takes time to get there and back,

b) You have to go through the whole process of being llowed in,

and

c) the goods you want may not be available there, or may be in short supply.

Yes I’m aware of the inconveniences, I was being difficult. But the point I was attempting to get across is that the wages earned in America are worth more in Mexico.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No, it isn't necessarily reducing our standard of living, because charging us higher prices means that the companies can also afford to pay us higher wages.

But that also means that those higher wages aren’t worth as much. If companies were to charge us lower for the goods, then they reduce the wages, so nothing would have technically changed. The real value of our higher wages manifests itself outside the borders of our faction.

[GeneralTacticus]

Not all the sneakers get bought, my argument is that it is a waste given that you have the relatively little variety between the different brands of sneakers there is no need to have more than one brand. Furthermore it is an even greater waste because assuming that each of the corporations produces the same number of sneakers, not all of them will get sold, in fact chances are most will not. Then you have the problem brought about by new variations on the design released every year, the old design is thrown out if not sold, and people are encouraged to buy the new when it is not necessary. Under a planed economy we should strive towards efficiency in our products, that is anything we produce is meant to last for a relatively long time. Whereas with constantly new models of products come out in a capitalist system, the products are not made to last given that the corporations desire for people to buy the new models. It isn’t nearly as profitable for corporations to produce a sneaker which is very durable and does not need replacement every year. They profit more by making the products of lower quality than they could be, so that consumers must buy the new products when they come out.

Why do you keep assuming that the sneakers would all get bought if there was only one kind? Some don't get bought because people don't want to buy them, period. Making them all the same won't solve the problem, it'll make it worse.

It is overcharging given that the corporations charge consumers who are better off more than they do those who cannot pay. It would not make sense for Nike to attempt to sell $100 sneakers in most of Mexico, therefore they have to charge less for those sneakers. But since in America people have more money to spend, Nike can afford to change them more for the same product. They are making a profit in both cases, but the profit they make in first world nations is considerably greater.

I still fail to see how that's overcharging. They may charge us more when we're at home than they do when we're in the Third World, but that's only our perspective, as I said. The same currency has different value depending on where you take it.

Humans are collectivist in nature, they follow the group. We do not desire to be individuals, simply a subset of the group. If it were that easy to make people think for themselves we would not have superstition, organized religion, ideology, etc. Earth’s western societies were plagues by consumerism driven by the social concept of “cool”; that which society deemed the best became the best in the eyes of people. There is little difference in quality between a brand name product and a generic product, yet consumers are willing to pay considerably higher prices for a logo on a shirt, shoes, cap, etc. Essentially the majority of consumers will follow the social fad, this has been shown to be true over and over again. So no I don’t think allowing corporations unlimited freedoms in advertisement is a good idea.

And if the 'social fad' (btw, I greatly despise the popular notions of 'cool' and so forth, so I know what you're talking about here) is thinking for yourself, then...?

Fair enough, so wages are proportional to the cost of goods.

Yes you get paid more, but your money is worth less.

Your point being?

This idea I like and can agree with. I would not mind a switch to capitalism if we were to devise a system where we avoid the problem of the hereditary elite. This would in fact I think ensure that capitalism remains meritocratic.

I'm glad we can find something we both agree on.

Ok, but to bring up another possible case, just for the sake of argument. Could we really monitor all the activities of our corporations, in other words what if they establish factories in other nations without our knowledge?

Well, they'd have to do it secretly enough that there'd be no evidence that they were doin git in their accounts, etc, which would be pretty damn hard, so I think the only real solution to that is to look hard enough and punish violators severly enough that they don't do it. Total confiscation of all assets belonging to those involved would probably make them think twice.

Yes I’m aware of the inconveniences, I was being difficult. But the point I was attempting to get across is that the wages earned in America are worth more in Mexico.

Yes I can see that, I'm just wondering why you think it's a problem.

But that also means that those higher wages aren’t worth as much. If companies were to charge us lower for the goods, then they reduce the wages, so nothing would have technically changed. The real value of our higher wages manifests itself outside the borders of our faction.

But the point is, it doesn't matter whether we get paid high wages and charged high prices of low wages and low prices. IT doesn't really affect the value of currency either; if a single $US buys twice as much, it's worth twice as much. Very little changes.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Why do you keep assuming that the sneakers would all get bought if there was only one kind? Some don't get bought because people don't want to buy them, period. Making them all the same won't solve the problem, it'll make it worse.

We should have variety, I’m all for variety, I just don’t think capitalism necessarily provides variety. You have the same shoes being sold under a different brand name. I don’t see why we need different brands at all. In a planned economy given that we are not restricted by copyright, we can simply take any new good ideas and incorporate them into products. Therefore the consumers have the variety to choose between all possible variations on the product.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I still fail to see how that's overcharging. They may charge us more when we're at home than they do when we're in the Third World, but that's only our perspective, as I said. The same currency has different value depending on where you take it.

I just don’t see why we cannot be charged the same prices as let us say in third world nations, while keeping the wages we have therefore improving our standard of living since the purchasing power of our wages would increase.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And if the 'social fad' (btw, I greatly despise the popular notions of 'cool' and so forth, so I know what you're talking about here) is thinking for yourself, then...?

That reminds me of a Monty Python skit:

Speaker: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Dissident: I’m not.

I think that sufficiently shows my point that you cannot make thinking for yourself a social fad, that’s contradictory.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Your point being?

Can we be charged less and still paid the same?

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I'm glad we can find something we both agree on.

Well we’re making progress.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, they'd have to do it secretly enough that there'd be no evidence that they were doin git in their accounts, etc, which would be pretty damn hard, so I think the only real solution to that is to look hard enough and punish violators severly enough that they don't do it. Total confiscation of all assets belonging to those involved would probably make them think twice.

Well just as the corporations could establish factories overseas without our knowledge, couldn’t they also establish accounts in Morganite banks which do not fall under our jurisdiction? Or even move to Morganite territory and establish themselves there outside our jurisdiction? In the latter case, we cannot stop them from selling goods given that it would violate free trade with the Morganites.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Yes I can see that, I'm just wondering why you think it's a problem.

I personally don’t think that the standard of living of everyone is as high as it could be. We have the resources to greatly improve the lives of our citizens, give them luxuries which would rival that of the greatest palaces of Earth. Why cannot for example every citizen have a computer? Why can’t they all have the latest electronics? Etc. I’m not trying to make everyone equal; in fact I think those who work more should in return receive more. Nevertheless overall we could set some basic standard of living for all our citizens.

[GeneralTacticus]

We should have variety, I’m all for variety, I just don’t think capitalism necessarily provides variety. You have the same shoes being sold under a different brand name. I don’t see why we need different brands at all. In a planned economy given that we are not restricted by copyright, we can simply take any new good ideas and incorporate them into products. Therefore the consumers have the variety to choose between all possible variations on the product.

I still don't see the problem. So what if you essentially two different variations on the same shoe? What's the problem with that?

I just don’t see why we cannot be charged the same prices as let us say in third world nations, while keeping the wages we have therefore improving our standard of living since the purchasing power of our wages would increase.

I explained that already. If they drop their prices to Third World levels, they have to drop wages as well, to pay for it, and so all you get is a further magnification of the difference ebtween rich and poor, because large bank accounts are now worth even more than they were before.

Moreover, even if that was done, then by your logic the people in the Third World would now be the ones being overcharged, which sets up a kind of endless spiral.

That reminds me of a Monty Python skit:

Speaker: You are all individuals.
Crowd: We are all individuals.
Dissident: I’m not.

I think that sufficiently shows my point that you cannot make thinking for yourself a social fad, that’s contradictory.

And your solution to this is...? Censoring ads to make them appeal to people less?

Can we be charged less and still paid the same?

Quite bluntly: no, we can't. (Well, we could, to an extent, but not the extent that you're asking for)

Well just as the corporations could establish factories overseas without our knowledge, couldn’t they also establish accounts in Morganite banks which do not fall under our jurisdiction? Or even move to Morganite territory and establish themselves there outside our jurisdiction? In the latter case, we cannot stop them from selling goods given that it would violate free trade with the Morganites.

Well, we can actually; corporations that deal with us still have to respect our laws, so, for example, they can't sell arsenic as drinking water. If they violate our laws, they pay the price, no matter where they are.

I personally don’t think that the standard of living of everyone is as high as it could be. We have the resources to greatly improve the lives of our citizens, give them luxuries which would rival that of the greatest palaces of Earth. Why cannot for example every citizen have a computer? Why can’t they all have the latest electronics? Etc. I’m not trying to make everyone equal; in fact I think those who work more should in return receive more. Nevertheless overall we could set some basic standard of living for all our citizens.

Well, that's a nice idea, and in a propserous enough economy it should be the reality, but I don't see what that has to do with your argument that wages earned in the US are worth more in Mexico (which they are).