We all know it was in the intrest of Democrats to perpetuate poverty...

[chequita guevara]

Human wants are insatiable.

That's not true. Many human societies have been organized around having enough and not having more. Modern consumerist capitalist is driven not be what people really want, but by manufactured wants. If it weren't for people like Ming, most of us would be a lot happier with less.

[Ecofarm]

You can have less. I'll take your share because you suck and should have less. It's better for all of us.

[Arrian]

Che - much as I don't like advertising, I don't think Ming and his fellow ad guys are the reason we always want more stuff. It's not like past societies haven't done the same sort of thing, over and over. We're just the most advanced to have come along so far, so we've taken it to 11 (USA! USA! USA!).

And I don't buy this noble savage living in harmony with nature bull****, I really don't. In some small, isolated societies, maybe. For the vast majority of societies, particularly big ones? No effing way.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Most of the things that people buy with more money aren't worth much more than what they already have.

They're worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for them.

I don't think I ever said anything about need in this thread (if I did, it was poorly phrased); I said most of the things that require lots of money perform no function but show that you have lots of money. Which in turn makes them stupid things to want. "Ooh, you have an eighty-room mansion. Too bad you never spend any time in sixty of those rooms, because no single human being has any use for that much space."

So your argument is that a person doesn't need an eighty-room mansion. So ****ing what? They want it and that's reason enough to want more money.

[MrFun]

Don't get yourself too much of a headache, Drake. Save those headache times for when you are dealing with me.

[Elok]

Human wants are insatiable. You've also not given a cogent reason why a basketball player (or anyone else) should accept being paid less when he could recieve more compensation for his talents on the open market. Would you accept the Census paying you the same salary as your pizza job as you clearly don't need the money? Or is this pathetic and retarded moralizing just for other people?

Well, see, I'd like to own a house someday, maybe have kids who might eventually want to go to college...I'm nowhere near rich by American standards, so my pay is irrelevant to the argument. Bugger off.

Drake, my whole point is that a desire for **** you can't use, or money that can only buy you **** you can't use, is stupid. Worthless. Vaguely pathological. EDIT: Also, whereTF are you getting "need" from? People can get what they "need" for much lower than a millionaire's salary, or everyone on Poly would be dead. It's just that the things bought for high expense are of little practical use and what entertainment value they provide is only based on pride in conspicuous consumption. Begging the question: "More money is always good because it lets me buy things which show I have more money, which is good because more money is good."

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, my whole point is that a desire for **** you can't use, or money that can only buy you **** you can't use, is stupid.

Who has a desire for **** they won't use, you moron? Do you think rappers spend all that money on a Bentley and then never drive it anywhere? You think the guy with the 80-room mansion just leaves most of those rooms empty and plans on never using them? You seem to be assuming that if someone doesn't need something, then it is of no use to them at all. That's utterly retarded. If they weren't getting some use out of the thing (whether practical or psychological), they wouldn't buy it in the first place.

[Guynemer]

I think the point he's making, and I don't disagree, is if you get some psychological use out of a thing (say, rooms 35-80) without any real practical use, it is at best stupid, and at worst pathologic.

[Dinner]

Drake, my whole point is that a desire for **** you can't use, or money that can only buy you **** you can't use, is stupid.

Who has a desire for **** they won't use?

People with kids. Seriously, the little bastards want everything then they use them once and they end up forgotten in a box.

[Elok]

That's a fair synopsis, I think, assuming that by "psychological use" you mean something that merely satisfies vanity, such as a separate room to enshrine each of a rapper's Grammy awards. I never considered that a "use" at all, since human beings can be proud of even the most trifling BS if they put their minds to it, no money really required. And with the exception of lottery winners, most people who get that kind of cash have already accomplished other things that make more sense to be proud of than the dinero they garnered en route.

Er, Xpost.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think the point he's making, and I don't disagree, is if you get some psychological use out of a thing (say, rooms 35-80) without any real practical use, it is at best stupid, and at worst pathologic.

Why? Any number of things have a psychological use and not a practical one (music, movies, literary fiction, video games, fashionable clothes, etc.). In the modern day, most of the things people buy are things that make them happy, not things that they need for any practical reason. Elok's muddled argument is completely stupid.

[MrFun]

What about that saying, "You can't buy happiness?"

[Guynemer]

I think the point he's making, and I don't disagree, is if you get some psychological use out of a thing (say, rooms 35-80) without any real practical use, it is at best stupid, and at worst pathologic.

Why? Any number of things have a psychological use and not a practical one (music, movies, literary fiction, video games, fashionable clothes, etc.). In the modern day, most of the things people buy are things that make them happy, not things that they need for any practical reason. Elok's muddled argument is completely stupid.

I think there is a qualitative difference between DVDs, games, music that you watch/play/listen to, etc., and plain ostentatious stuff that you never, ever use at all.


In other words: if you read a book, play a game, watch a movie, etc., you are getting practical use out of it (for the sake of this discussion). If you have stuff just to have it, without ever using the object as intended, you are getting psychological use.

[Drake Tungsten]

How many times do you watch your average DVD? I bet a rapper gets more actual use out of his Grammy storage room...

[Guynemer]

Depends on the DVD. Lost and Venture Brothers get watched at least twice yearly.