Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
To put things on track, assume that the windows are wasted

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume your conclusion. Standard.

[ QUOTE ]
by the owner of the window (YAWN), then someone is payed to replace the window. Then if it isnt beyond you perhaps you could actualy post a reply to the conceptual theme of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have an opinion of whether this is "waste" or not (I can't read his mind). I certainly don't see any legitimate reason to A) stop him B) complain or C) interfere.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
You assume your conclusion. Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that a broken window = a wasted window. Standard.

However you are being totaly dishonest and feeble by editing my quote to totaly misrepresnt me. That is pathetic. What I actualy said was:

[ QUOTE ]
To put things on track, assume that the windows are wasted by the owner of the window

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a direct answer to your question; who breaks the windows?

I cant believe you would stoop that low, shamefull.

You still have not addressed in any way the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Recources that are squandered in an objectively wastefull way become not wasted if you insert a subjective prefrence into the process, regardless of how arbitary that prefrence is = absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Smashing a perfectly good window and then replacing it with another window = wastefull.

Smashing window and replacing it with acme Satchi and Satchi super cool branded window = not wastefull.

In both cases the objecitve material situation is identical. Yet one is not wastefull because we have introduced a totaly arbitary prefrence that has nothing to do with objective material functionality.

In both cases there has been objective waste (objective waste in this case= destruction of perfectly functioning object) yet in the latter this objecitve waste disapears in the abra cadabra of consumer prefrence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep hand waving like a mad man but have not come back with one legitimate counter point accept to ask a meaningless question about who breaks the windows.

Also why would I have to read someones mind to discover if something had been objecitvely wasted.

This seems to be admiting that if there is a subjective preference (which we assertain by mind reading) then to you there is no objective waste, even though in material objective terms there clearly is ( a perfectly functioning object has been deystroyed). This is an absurdity.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You assume your conclusion. Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am assuming that a broken window = a wasted window. Standard.

However you are being totaly dishonest and feeble by editing my quote to totaly misrepresnt me. That is pathetic. What I actualy said was:

[ QUOTE ]
To put things on track, assume that the windows are wasted by the owner of the window

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a direct answer to your question; who breaks the windows?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if the owner is breaking his own windows, why do we care?



[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe you would stoop that low, shamefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's shameful? The question is whether things are "wasted" or not and you've already assumed that they are.

[ QUOTE ]
You still have not addressed in any way the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Recources that are squandered in an objectively wastefull way become not wasted if you insert a subjective prefrence into the process, regardless of how arbitary that prefrence is = absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In this particular case, you can use whatever terminology you want. I don't care if you call them "wasted" or "well-utilized" or "squandered" or "invested". It doesn't make any difference because the owner is disposing of the window as he sees fit.

Call it wasted, fine.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smashing a perfectly good window and then replacing it with another window = wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]



Smashing window and replacing it with acme Satchi and Satchi super cool branded window = not wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the objecitve material situation is identical. Yet one is not wastefull because we have introduced a totaly arbitary prefrence that has nothing to do with objective material functionality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it identical? Is the first window a "supercool branded window"? Can the first window be reused? I don't usually keep spare windows around my house, and I don't have extra holes in my walls that need windows, and I don't know of much of a secondary market for used windows, and even if there were one, it's probably easier for me to just throw the old one away than to mess with selling it.

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases there has been objective waste (objective waste in this case= destruction of perfectly functioning object) yet in the latter this objecitve waste disapears in the abra cadabra of consumer prefrence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The consumer prefers the new window, he can't use the new one and the old one at the same time. Again, call it waste if you want, but ultimately it doesn't make any difference.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep hand waving like a mad man but have not come back with one legitimate counter point accept to ask a meaningless question about who breaks the windows.

Also why would I have to read someones mind to discover if something had been objecitvely wasted.

This seems to be admiting that if there is a subjective preference (which we assertain by mind reading) then to you there is no objective waste, even though in material objective terms there clearly is ( a perfectly functioning object has been deystroyed). This is an absurdity.

[/ QUOTE ]

So every time someone buys something there is "objective waste"? My house has insulation, which works. I want to replace it with new insulation, which is more efficient. there's only enough room in the wall for one insulation or the other, so I remove the old one. I can't sell it (who buys used insulation), I don't have another house I can use it in, so I throw it away. Is it wasted? It's served a purpose, now I have found something that does the job better (in my subjective determination).

Wasted or not?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
His blind, slavish acceptance of anything published by an academic feels eerily familiar here

[/ QUOTE ] THis is not "anything" published by "an academic". It is a consensus amongst professional scientists. They were trained for many years to study these things and have actually studied them for longer.

And you linked to me one tiny specific incident. I guess if that article proves that union workers , then Russia proves capitalism works poorly, and Enron proves that all capitalists are evil. I could dig up twenty incidents in twenty minutes of non-unionized employees doing a poor job. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
Some people value other things over job security. I am one of them. Job security is not so important to me. But if I had to join a union to even take the job I want, I guess the union decides for me that job security is more important than other considerations, and we end up with "buddy punching" as a normal course of business.

[/ QUOTE ] Seeing as union workers have more pay, benefits, job security and more paid vacation time than non-union workers, I don't see why you have to worry about trade-offs.

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unions have, of course, acquired a bad name, because it is capitalists who control the media, not workers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah, it's due to media conspiracy. That's it.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not a conspiracy. If the media was controlled by members of the religous right, do you think the media would constantly run stories that praise atheists, homosexuals, and liberals and denounce the bible and prayer in school? Simple common sense: most human beings are not going to sit around and praise people (and their accomplishments) whose economic interests and political views are opposed to their own.

My point becomes obvious when you switch my statement around as well: If unions controlled the media, would they constantly denounce unions and talk about the great feats of union busting employers like Wal-Mart?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, if the owner is breaking his own windows, why do we care?

[/ QUOTE ] Let's take this to a bigger scale: What if 50% of the people who owned productive property were just destroying it instead of using it?

You wouldn't care that the entire economy was in shambles? That all these resources were being wasted? That so many people were unemployed?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, if the owner is breaking his own windows, why do we care?

[/ QUOTE ] Let's take this to a bigger scale: What if 50% of the people who owned productive property were just destroying it instead of using it?

You wouldn't care that the entire economy was in shambles? That all these resources were being wasted? That so many people were unemployed?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best post against a large governement that I've ever seen.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
My house has insulation, which works. I want to replace it with new insulation, which is more efficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole point. There is a clear objective waste with the window. Why? Becasue one object is being replaced with an functionaly identical object that only has a subjective differance e.g. branding. This involves the destruction of a perfectly fucntioning object. This is clearly objectively wastefull.

Your example does not correspond to the window example as there is a clear objective improvement not just a subjective one e.g. better insulation.

I am only trying to point out that droping bombs isnt the only objective waste of recources, markets can waste recources to. Off the top of my head fashion and biult in obselence would seem to be good examples.

I am not trying to make any pro market or pro state arguements just trying to call a spade a spade. In this thread posters where both implying and assuming that inserting a totaly abritary subjective prefrence into the mechanism of consumtion thereby mitigated that consumption of any waste. I wanted to look at that more closely as I think it is an intresting thing to talk about. That is all. Unlike some Im not trying to change the world I just want to talk hopefully vaguley intresting shyte on an internet forum.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the whole point. There is a clear objective waste with the window. Why? Becasue one object is being replaced with an functionaly identical object that only has a subjective differance e.g. branding. This involves the destruction of a perfectly fucntioning object. This is clearly objectively wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never said "functionally identical". In fact, you called the new one "super". Then you got mad at me for saying I can't read consumers' minds.

[ QUOTE ]
Your example does not correspond to the window example as there is a clear objective improvement not just a subjective one e.g. better insulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife just bought new slipcovers for the sofa (there was nothing wrong with the old ones) and painted the livingroom. The old paint was fine, she just wanted a different color. Is this wasteful? The sofas are functionally identical. The walls are functionally identical.

[ QUOTE ]
I am only trying to point out that droping bombs isnt the only objective waste of recources, markets can waste recources to. Off the top of my head fashion and biult in obselence would seem to be good examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

In each of these cases, "markets" aren't wasting anything.

BTW, do you wear rucksacks? They are functionally identical to the clothes I'm wearing.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the best post against a large governement that I've ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it's a distant second [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
You never said "functionally identical".


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh rllly????

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the objecitve material situation is identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sofa covers is objectively wastfull yes, how could it not be. Oh, insert an abritary subjective preference for the new sofa covers and the waste disapears abra cadabra.

Im assuming you didnt sell them on ebay, recycle them or put them to use in some other way. If they went in the bin the objective waste is clear.

Just stating that it isnt wastefull because you wanted them isnt enough, please attempt to demonstrate why.

However I assume the new sofa cover are newer. Paint isnt wastefull I dont think, not sure. Any more triviality you want to bring into this arguement.