Ok, I like your explanations much more than that obscure little blurb you first posted...a few comments.....
>I take it to mean that just because you are making more doesn't mean you >can actually afford more as many would have you believe. I make far more >than my parents did at my age, however, I am not sure that in comparable >dollars I am any better off. They paid $24,000 for our 3 bedroom 2 bath >house in 1975. Today my 2 bedroom one bath house is valued at over >$400,000. My dad probably made $12,000 - $15,000 a year. So his house was >roughly equal to 1.5 - 2 years of income. My house is worth roughly 7.5 >years of my income. Alhtough I am making more money than I have ever made >before and much more than my father made at my age there might be an >arguement that I am actaull not as well off. That's simply inflation. Nothing really philosophical about that. Twenty dollars isn't worth today, what it was worth 50 years ago...nor should it be. > > Progress is not necesarily evil. However, is carrying a $500 rat sized dog > around in purse progress? How many (mostly useless) household items does > the average person have? How many are really necessary? What great > invention brought to you by K-TEL or some infomercial is sitting unused in > your cabinets? I take it that he is talking about commercialization of > society. The average person is not the one who benefits from > commercialization it is the upper crust who own the companies and > factories. They benefit from our reckless spending and they do what they > can to perpetuate it. It's in their best interest why wouldn't they. > However, the hoi polloi don't seem to see that they are being misguided as > to what is actually in their real best interest. I"m nodding as I read this because i'm thinking about cell phones, which is the epitome of the modern useless device that we somehow think we cannot live without. That being said, the cell phone isn't evil....it's the consumer who's let themself be tricked into thinking it's essential. Don't blame the people savvy enough to get rich off these people either. > > We are being told that it is too expensive for industry to follow the > guidelines set forth in the Kyoto Accords back in the mid - late 1990's. > So in order to keep cheap items on the shelf we are willing to pollute our > environment. Maybe we should spend less on frivilous items and being > willing to spend a little more on required items that are constructed in > factories that are more environmentally friendly. But that would mean > fewer sales, less profits and that is not in the best interest of the > upper crust. Fewer sales and less profits isn't in the interest of ANYONE who's depending on a market economy to make their living. Find that balance between eco-friendly and economically viable....and there's where the best case scenario lies IMO. > > Likewise, we want SUV's but are unwilling to pay an extra $3,000 - $5,000 > for more fuel efficient SUV's. So we burn more fuel, pollute more etc... > all so we can afford to trade in our cars, SUV's every 3 years. Which in > equals higher profits for those at the upper end of the economic scale. > The problem isn't in the higher profits for those selling SUV's, its in we, the consumers, unwillingness to demand more fuel efficient vehicles. We drive that which is being sold. We are the market. If we aren't there, the sellers aren't there. Most people like to think the opposite way (if they wouldn't sell the stuff, we wouldn't buy it!), but that's just not how it works IMO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198251 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
