TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- TV promotes class warfare
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

TV promotes class warfare

It seems like each time I turn on the TV there is another show about rich people and the lives they lead. Seeing these degenerates spend and spend, knowing that they have reached the point of perpetual wealth (meaning they can't go bankrupt, too much money compounding)and how clueless they are about how the world and life works. I believe the US is headed for 2 classes, 1 on the top and 1 on the bottom...no one in the middle.

Now I know why the Russian Czars' head was cut off. Wealth stays in certain circles and the rest of us have to fight for a smaller chunk of the pie.

I'm tired of paying taxes.

Read a book?

Re: TV promotes class warfare

quote:

Originally posted by zookeeper It seems like each time I turn on the TV there is another show about rich people and the lives they lead. Seeing these degenerates spend and spend, knowing that they have reached the point of perpetual wealth (meaning they can't go bankrupt, too much money compounding)and how clueless they are about how the world and life works. I believe the US is headed for 2 classes, 1 on the top and 1 on the bottom...no one in the middle. Now I know why the Russian Czars' head was cut off. Wealth stays in certain circles and the rest of us have to fight for a smaller chunk of the pie. I'm tired of paying taxes.

ide rather see mtv cribs or donald trump on tv than somebody livin in the hood with no life. that just the way it is. seeing them have such extravegant lives makes us dream of what it would be like to reach such a point in life. actually gives me a bit of a drive to become like them. to work harder. also, u dont just see rich folk on tv, u see regular, middle-class people on american idol, super nanny, extreme makeover, pimp my ride, amazing race, surviver, etc.

michael jackson was a billionaire and he's almost bankrupt. donald trump was on the verge of bankruptcy in the early 90's owing hundreds of millions of dollars, mc hammer & mike tyson lost all their millions. martha stewart lost hundreds of millions of dollars because of her lying about a measely 50k insider trading scandel. imagine 50k, a less than 1% of her net worth bringing her down. its very possible to be rich and bankrupt. look at the US government.

since our government is not currupt and our economy is the best in the world, there will not be two classes as you said. the only way that could happen would be another Great Depression, or something to that effect. middle class was long established here in the 50's and its taken on such a huge part of our economy that its not going anywhere anytime soon.

america is not 1910's russia. the czar's head was not cut off. he was gunned down with his family in a room where the family was being kept.

but it may be true that the 500 or so billionaires in the world hold an enormous amount of wealth, way more than maybe an entire country may have. in america, i know for sure, there is not a class war. especially like one u suggested at the time of the bolshevik revolution.

u have representation and government services, therefore its every citizens obligation to pay taxes. personally, yea, they suck!!

Re: TV promotes class warfare

quote:

Originally posted by zookeeper Now I know why the Russian Czars' head was cut off. Wealth stays in certain circles and the rest of us have to fight for a smaller chunk of the pie.

Look dude, I've got a big screen tv, what more could I ask for from the world?

Most middle or low class people seem to be more intent on maximizing their present luxury rather than investing their money in ways that can make them more money in the future. It is this behavior, rather than anything inherent to the system itself, which tends to keep the majority of the wealth in the hands of the people selling them those luxuries.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Most middle or low class people seem to be more intent on maximizing their present luxury rather than investing their money in ways that can make them more money in the future. It is this behavior, rather than anything inherent to the system itself, which tends to keep the majority of the wealth in the hands of the people selling them those luxuries.

In other words, they are, generally speaking, responsible for their own decisions to not use their money wisely. i.e. it's not the fault of the "rich" that many of these middle or lower class people aren't seeing improvements in their financial positions. i.e. "The Man" is not holding them back, rather they are holding themselves back by making dumb decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In other words, they are, generally speaking, responsible for their own decisions to not use their money wisely. i.e. it's not the fault of the "rich" that many of these middle or lower class people aren't seeing improvements in their financial positions. i.e. "The Man" is not holding them back, rather they are holding themselves back by making dumb decisions.

That's exactly it. Making 10$ an hour, and putting a lot of that away into mutual funds is the only thing stopping tens of millions of people from enjoying the high life.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In other words, they are, generally speaking, responsible for their own decisions to not use their money wisely. i.e. it's not the fault of the "rich" that many of these middle or lower class people aren't seeing improvements in their financial positions. i.e. "The Man" is not holding them back, rather they are holding themselves back by making dumb decisions.

while its true that everyone is responsible for their financial activities, you can't ignore the fact that the average american is constantly being bombarded with advertisement for products
they don't need. one way the rich make alot of money (other than investing money to make more money) is consumers spending a shit load of money on products for which the demand is artificially created by manipulative and even at times misinforming adds.

although i dont think TV is the cause for a class war or whatever

if someone complains, i say stop being a victim and do something about it. invest your money or something. in this country, u can do anything. there are so many self-made millionaires now, its not even funny.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z while its true that everyone is responsible for their financial activities, you can't ignore the fact that the average american is constantly being bombarded with advertisement for products they don't need. one way the rich make alot of money (other than investing money to make more money) is consumers spending a shit load of money on products for which the demand is artificially created by manipulative and even at times misinforming adds.

Please. While I agree that there are plenty of products(and advertisements for said products) which the average Joe really doesn't need, it's not as if someone is holding a gun to Joe's head and making him buy that useless baconwave or vat of Oxy Clean.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey That's exactly it. Making 10$ an hour, and putting a lot of that away into mutual funds is the only thing stopping tens of millions of people from enjoying the high life.

I'm assuming that reply was laced with sarcasm. Whatever, I was making a conclusion based on Arbiter's comments.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm assuming that reply was laced with sarcasm. Whatever, I was making a conclusion based on Arbiter's comments.

Why would you conclude I was being saracastic? Wasn't my comment a logical conclusion based on Arbiter's as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter rather than investing their money in ways that can make them more money in the future.

Aren't mutual funds considered a viable investment vehicle to do just that?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Please. While I agree that there are plenty of products(and advertisements for said products) which the average Joe really doesn't need, it's not as if someone is holding a gun to Joe's head and making him buy that useless baconwave or vat of Oxy Clean.

But that's the principle conditioning of capitalism isn't it? If you don't spend then you contribute towards a recession which screws everyone.

What is the most viable excuse to say you can't do something? You say "I'm broke"... don't you find it odd that you are considered "Broken" if you are no longer injecting money into the system?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Why would you conclude I was being saracastic? Wasn't my comment a logical conclusion based on Arbiter's as well?

I guess I read your post wrong. My bad!

quote:

Originally posted by Subey But that's the principle conditioning of capitalism isn't it? If you don't spend then you contribute towards a recession which screws everyone.

I can see that, though if you don't spend, you save(a better way to put it might be to say that instead of spending your money on frivolous things, you put it to better use by purchasing mutual funds, money market accounts, etc). I don't think saving necessarily contributes to recession since once you put your money in the bank, they will lend it out and put it to use instead.

quote:

What is the most viable excuse to say you can't do something? You say "I'm broke"... don't you find it odd that you are considered "Broken" if you are no longer injecting money into the system?

Lol. Sounds like a Carlinism. Why do people park on driveways and drive on parkways?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey But that's the principle conditioning of capitalism isn't it? If you don't spend then you contribute towards a recession which screws everyone.

No not particularly. It only screws everyone should aggreggate spending cease. It really doesn't matter on the individual level. As a matter of fact, if aggreggate spending increased to the point where nobody were saving than everyone would be equally screwed as well. Therefore if capitalism conditioned people to spend than it would be self-defeating. I would say the principle conditioning is acheiving equilibrium.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No not particularly. It only screws everyone should aggreggate spending cease. It really doesn't matter on the individual level. As a matter of fact, if aggreggate spending increased to the point where nobody were saving than everyone would be equally screwed as well. Therefore if capitalism conditioned people to spend than it would be self-defeating. I would say the principle conditioning is acheiving equilibrium.

Isnt that one of the factors facing the American economy....the fact that people dont save enough......?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No not particularly. It only screws everyone should aggreggate spending cease. It really doesn't matter on the individual level. As a matter of fact, if aggreggate spending increased to the point where nobody were saving than everyone would be equally screwed as well. Therefore if capitalism conditioned people to spend than it would be self-defeating. I would say the principle conditioning is acheiving equilibrium.

You don't believe that capitalism conditions people to spend?

Where every single marker of success is measured by its expense relative to other markers within that category?

Who has the biggest house... car... diamond... tv... nicest neighbourhood... etc. etc.

The entire system is designed so that you buy the most expensive thing you can in each product category, with an emphasis on those categories which have a higher degree of social exposure.

Or does a Hummer (the car named after a sexual act no less...) actually get you to work faster than a cavalier?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No not particularly. It only screws everyone should aggreggate spending cease. It really doesn't matter on the individual level. As a matter of fact, if aggreggate spending increased to the point where nobody were saving than everyone would be equally screwed as well. Therefore if capitalism conditioned people to spend than it would be self-defeating. I would say the principle conditioning is acheiving equilibrium.

Likewise...

Increased aggreggate demand (i.e. more spending) = the drive of capitalism in the economic theory that I subscribe to (modified Keynesian Macro Economics)... Keynesian argues that the key role of government in a capitalistic society is to "promote demand" ... i.e. increase spending.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey You don't believe that capitalism conditions people to spend? Where every single marker of success is measured by its expense relative to other markers within that category? Who has the biggest house... car... diamond... tv... nicest neighbourhood... etc. etc. The entire system is designed so that you buy the most expensive thing you can in each product category, with an emphasis on those categories which have a higher degree of social exposure. Or does a Hummer (the car named after a sexual act no less...) actually get you to work faster than a cavalier?

No. Human nature conditions people to spend. Capitalism is the transfer of wealth that enables people to spend. Society establishes the measures of success and work ethic that people strive to attain. There is no "system" designed to force consumers to buy the most expensive thing other than simple human desire. Or are you saying that in more socialist countries people don't have nice houses, luxury fast sports cars, diamonds, big tvs, nice neighborhoods, etc.? I smell a whiff of elitism in which the aspirations of some people do not coincide with yours and, as such, they are mistakenly flawed and therefore those poor people are brainwashed by a "system" that encourages the wrong consumption choices or overconsumption.

quote:

Likewise... Increased aggreggate demand (i.e. more spending) = the drive of capitalism in the economic theory that I subscribe to (modified Keynesian Macro Economics)... Keynesian argues that the key role of government in a capitalistic society is to "promote demand" ... i.e. increase spending.

I don't think that that is what Keynesian economic theory tells us to do at all. If the role of government were to simply "promote demand" than there wouldn't be much debate within the theory. You would just see expansionary monetary and fiscal policy and Friedman, Krugman, et al. simply wouldn't have very much to talk about now would they? Of course such a strategy would simply result in rapid inflation, something fully predicted by the theory. I believe that Keynesian theory promotes expansionary and contractionary monetary/fiscal policy to simply smooth the fluctuations of the business cycle. In other words Keynesian theory at times advocates less demand.

Back to what I was originally saying, it would be a pretty stupid thing for capatalism to simply promote greater levels of aggregate demand since that would adversely affect the aggregrate personal savings rate. National savings would be insufficient to support the level of investment necessary to sustain a high level of long-run economic growth without excessive dependence on foreign capital. In other words less money saved means less money to borrow meaning high interest rates and thus making it more expensive to borrow money which stymies future productivity growth. Furthermore, if households have financed a consumption boom by running up an unsustainable level of consumer debt, than those factors simply prolong the duration and seriuosness of a recessionary ebb in the business cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No. Human nature conditions people to spend. Capitalism is the transfer of wealth that enables people to spend. Society establishes the measures of success and work ethic that people strive to attain. There is no "system" designed to force consumers to buy the most expensive thing other than simple human desire. Or are you saying that in more socialist countries people don't have nice houses, luxury fast sports cars, diamonds, big tvs, nice neighborhoods, etc.? I smell a whiff of elitism in which the aspirations of some people do not coincide with yours and, as such, they are mistakenly flawed and therefore those poor people are brainwashed by a "system" that encourages the wrong consumption choices or overconsumption.

Have you spent any time dealing with living people?

Here is a typical example that I have experienced in many variations working as a salesperson...

"Hi I would like Windows XP"
"What do you have right now?"
"Windows Millenium"
"What is one thing that Xp will do for you that millenium doesn't?"
"Ummm... "

It has nothing to do with "human desire", its a completely artificial reality that has been imposed where this person is convinced that acquiring XP has a specific and definite benefit for him, he's at the store, he's ready to buy, but when it comes down to it he can't even articulate a single "feature" of his purchase.


Scenario 2:
"I'm thinking of giving my son my 17 inch CRT and getting a 15 inch flatscreen for myself"

A consumer who is "trading down" because he's been brainwashed into believing that a flatscreen provides a significant upgrade even though the briefest reality check reveals that he ends up with less than he began with... where does generic "human desire" fit into that?

Scenario 3: Cars
in 1945 car engines could go faster than the roads are capable of handling. 60 years later, the HP of an engine is still the number one feature mentioned in car advertising... 60 years after it became irrelevant. Why would someone "desire" a feature that has no intrinsic value?

Also have you spent anytime in a sales situation and viewed customers from salespeople's perspective? That's the front line of the system... where the product and the consumer interface. Where capitalism is manifest at the individual transaction. And as a salesperson, all of your training is entirely designed to "force consumers to buy the most expensive thing"...

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Have you spent any time dealing with living people?

No I spend all my time dealing with dead people ...

quote:

Here is a typical example that I have experienced in many variations working as a salesperson... "Hi I would like Windows XP" "What do you have right now?" "Windows Millenium" "What is one thing that Xp will do for you that millenium doesn't?" "Ummm... " It has nothing to do with "human desire", its a completely artificial reality that has been imposed where this person is convinced that acquiring XP has a specific and definite benefit for him, he's at the store, he's ready to buy, but when it comes down to it he can't even articulate a single "feature" of his purchase.

So why didn't he say, "I want the most expensive thing you have"? Or why didn't he say, "give me the best thing you have in stock"? Or how about this, why didn't he say "I want to spend $600, what's the best thing I can get with that much money"? Don't you think that if capitalism had "conditioned" him to spend he would simply ask a variation of either of those questions? I don't know where you've done your shopping/sellign but here typically someone would come in with a price range, and then then listen to the various features offered by products within that price range, and they would decide from there. Could it be he just heard that XP through word of mouth and decided to simply get it out of sake of convenience? Not everybody has all the time in the world to become fully learned on every purchasing decision.

quote:

Scenario 2: "I'm thinking of giving my son my 17 inch CRT and getting a 15 inch flatscreen for myself" A consumer who is "trading down" because he's been brainwashed into believing that a flatscreen provides a significant upgrade even though the briefest reality check reveals that he ends up with less than he began with... where does generic "human desire" fit into that?

Wait, how is he trading down? What if he doesn't care about the monitor size and just wants a flat screen to free up desk space? Is it totally implaussible that you simply have different needs than this guy?

quote:

Scenario 3: Cars in 1945 car engines could go faster than the roads are capable of handling. 60 years later, the HP of an engine is still the number one feature mentioned in car advertising... 60 years after it became irrelevant. Why would someone "desire" a feature that has no intrinsic value?

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't really hear horsepower mentioned in car ads.

But I've had a few cars that could barely hit 70, and I can see why someone would be interested in the horsepower of the vehicle to a certain degree. I have heard horsepower mentioned in truck ads a lot which makes sense if you're going to be towing something.

quote:

Also have you spent anytime in a sales situation and viewed customers from salespeople's perspective? That's the front line of the system... where the product and the consumer interface. Where capitalism is manifest at the individual transaction. And as a salesperson, all of your training is entirely designed to "force consumers to buy the most expensive thing"...

Yea that "system" has been in place for thousands of years ... it used to be called "bartering." Are you saying that salesmen are magically imbued with brains and that consumers are somehow bereft of them and all the salesmen brainwash the consumer?? Well by that logic every entreprenurial venture should be overwhelming successes! I wonder how it is then that 70% end in failure ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Perhaps it's just me, but I don't really hear horsepower mentioned in car ads.

I haven't been reading this whole thread, but if I may--there's actually been a trend going on for a few years now to see who can pack the most horsepower under the hood. Nissan in particular is a big proponent of their big, beefed up, high horsepower engines.


Carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I haven't been reading this whole thread, but if I may--there's actually been a trend going on for a few years now to see who can pack the most horsepower under the hood. Nissan in particular is a big proponent of their big, beefed up, high horsepower engines. Carry on.

Well it just makes sense given the fact that the price of gasoline is going down.

and forget Nissan... you need a HEMI!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.