A pattern is starting to emerge with you, Charles.
You do a lot of talking about "the market" in the abstract, but when we give examples of how your actions are harmful or the way you treat actual people poorly, you do not really reply.
I honestly thought that Ebenezer Scrooge was a exaggerated, fictional character, but it looks like we have him right here at EvC.
quote:
CK: What I'd like had zero bearing on the economic reality of the situation.
CF: Oh? Maybe you want to ask the guy whose time you wasted, who could have made an actual sale to someone while you picked his brain for free.
and
quote:
CK: Hold on a minute - if I get advice in a shop, I'm beholden to purchase something in that shop?
CF: The clerk has made an investment of time in you; time he could have spent making sales to someone else.
So, yeah, you're beholden in the same way that you're beholden to tip the waiter.
and
S: But, obviously there is a demand for "expert" service, if people do what you have obviously done; taken advantage of the training and expertise provided by one retailer, but not paying for it, and then rewarding another retailer with your money, even though the second retailer did not provide you with the service. In essence, you stole from the first company.
quote:
CK: what a load of rubbish - on that basic any conversation with an expert would be contractual in nature.
S: Come on, you're avoiding my greater point. With a business that provides expert service,
the cost of that service is included in the cost of the product. You use that service but don't also buy the product, you are getting something for nothing. It is not stealing in a legal sense but it is in an ethical sense if you use the service but never intend to reward the superior service by buying from the company with better service.
So, do you disagree that taking the expert advice from one company, that costs money to provide to you, but then consistently failing to support that company with your money but instead supporting another company that does not spend the money to provide expert service, will eventually put the first company out of business?
How does a company stay in business when nobody buys their products? The only way they will do so is if they stop spending the money on training their employees. There will be no reason for an "expert" to work at a business like that, so, once again, a retail land full of low-wage know-nothings.
and
Z: I'm truly astonished that you see no economic ramifications in the time spent by employees at a business, nor in the training and compensation of those employees.
quote:
CK: I do see them, I just don't care.
S: What if your parents owned the shop. Or your best friend. Or your sister? Or you?
It's all well and good to talk about "the market" as if it is some abstract entity, but "the market" is made up of people.
and
CF: Well, that's the largest-growing economic sector, yes. You know all those "new jobs" Bush keeps touting? They're Walmart-scale jobs.
quote:
CK: The same thing is happening in europe.
CF: And you don't think that has anything to do with the incredible expansion of these discount chains?
and
quote:
CK: on that basic any conversation with an expert would be contractual in nature.
CF: For decent people, Charles, it is. You're supposed reward good service with your dollar.
and
quote:
CK: I don't expect them to "respect" my efforts, I expect them to pay for them - no freebies off me. I'm fully aware that other people are trying to do the same thing - I expect no favours and give none in return.
Oh, but you DO expect favors and freebies. That is EXACTLY what you expect!
You will go to the store with the expert help and get loads of "favors" and "freebies" in the form of expert advice and knowledge, that the company paid for the employee to learn, and then support some other business. What is that other than expecting something for free?
and
quote:
CK: At the end of the day, talk is cheap - it's where you plunk your quid down that counts.
CF: But see, because I'm both the market and the labor, where people plunk their dough down changes the choices I have about where I plunk mine.
+++++++++++++
OK, so here is what I wrote regarding the illusion of choice in a McCulture:
quote:
CK: someone will move into the niche, you exploit them and then wait for the next one to arrive.
What we see now is people, including you, being focused almost completely upon cost. What we have seen as a result is small, independently- and locally-owned businesses being forced out of business by large, identical chain stores which have none of the unique products, service, or character of the businsess they put out of the market.
It is the illusion of choice, because every WalMart is exactly the same, and they market themselves to the middle of the road, average customer.
WalMart is the only retailer left in some communities, but do they have the selection of music that the local record store used to have, or the selection of yarn and fabric the local sewing store used to have, or the seletion of furniture the local furniture store used to have? Nope.
It doesn't take long for a new generation to
not even be aware of what used to be available to them. They are ignorant of anything besides the cheap, mass-produced, bland, average, crap that WalMart and McDonalds sells.
That is the illusion of choice, Charles.
We've seen this with artisan foods hundreds of times. Industrial food production moves in and starts producing a cheese, let's say, that is much cheaper than it's hand-made counterpart that has been made for centuries but is not anywhere near as good. Pretty soon the hand-made real thing disappears, because a critical mass of people who have never even had the real thing has been reached.
Are we well-served by the marketplace now, with artificial ingredient-laden cheese that tastes bland and advertises itself as "containing real milk!" being the norm and real, delectable, wholesome artisinally produced cheese has gone completely extinct?
We see this happening ALL THE TIME. This is an ongoing problem all around the world. ...and you are speeding this process.
I liken it to an effort to restore balance to a ecosystem that is out of whack, similar to what happened when the European rabbit was introduced to Australia. The effect was that many local native species were driven to extinction or near-extinction because that one species was so succesful because it is very aggressive, in part. The rest of us see the problem here, but you are, in effect, saying:
"What's the problem? I like rabbits, and I don't need those couple of hundred other species to be around. All I want is rabbits, and I don't care what anybody else wants. What's more, I'll actively hamper the efforts of people trying to bring back other species by stealing their secrets and then going to help make more rabbits."
It's very, very short term, utterly selfish thinking.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-30-2004 07:59 AM
™ Version 4.2
