IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Fifteen years (by your date). Sorry, typo. I'm not mathematically illiterate, honest . To date, electric cars have not really been viable on either a standard individual or mass market scale. In what sense are they not viable? This thread is becoming a little surreal. If it seems to be becoming surreal, it is because people are nitpicking on every example I bring up, without looking at the whole picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Huh? The phrase you quoted from me describes a monopolised market. Hardly a capitalist ideal. I was agreeing with Jim that since the company has the monopoly, they can charge as much as the market allows. As in it is possible for them to do so. It doesn't mean that I condone the practise. But as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I am very much looking forward to the day. What angers me is that despite the fact that the technology was in the streets in 1996, it has taken 25 years for us to be able to contemplate driving an electric car. A few minutes ago you appeared to be saying it was being suppressed. It's just becoming more affordable, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 But as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist. For some reason, you are hoping against hope that I am a capitalist and are coming up with non sequiturs. I'm not going to fit into any of your boxes, so please stop trying to ram me into one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm doing nothing of the sort. You're happily sitting in the box without any assistance. I'll repeat what I said; as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist. This is irrefutable, regardless of whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 A few minutes ago you appeared to be saying it was being suppressed. That is why I mentioned that the fact it took 15 years to arrive angers me; because it was being suppresed during this time. It's just becoming more affordable, that's all. 15 years ago, the EV1 cost 34.000 dollars. Hardly unaffordable, keeping in mind that GM had no competition at the time and probably could've charged more for it. Besides, why should something as artificial as affordability stop us from progressing sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 If I extrapolate what you're saying, when mechanisation eventually replaces human labour, repairing will then be cheaper than replacing. Do you not think that would be detrimental to business? I was wondering how long it would take before someone called me a conspiracy theorist. It seems to be the standard emotional response when people are confronted on their traditional, long-ingrained beliefs. Let us spare a look at the definition of "conspiracy theory". From Wikipedia: A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. Where in my original post have I blamed the monetary system's inherent flaws on the plotting and colluding of some covert organisation? I can't realistically classify the seven billion people that are alive and everyone else that was alive during the history of this system as being part of this covert group and attribute their interest in survival as their motivation for plotting. What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste. You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories. I've heard those sorts of theories before. Here's a few more for you. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Economic_and_business_conspiracy_theories Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist. Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don? Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions. I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman. As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'll repeat what I said; as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist. I'm a bit confused. How do you interpret my acknowledgement of a process of capitalism as my advocacy for it? I don't even believe that competition is beneficial to society in the broad scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm a bit confused. How do you interpret my acknowledgement of a process of capitalism as my advocacy for it? I don't even believe that competition is beneficial to society in the broad scheme of things. Do you drive a trabant by any chance ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste. You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories. I've heard those sorts of theories before. Here's a few more for you. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Economic_and_business_conspiracy_theories Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist. Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don? Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions. I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman. As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself. You really ought to research your opinions before you espouse this nonsense Jim. The term 'planned obsolescence' is in common usage within all respected economic academic journals and refers to the ability of those with a monopoly in a market to reduce the quality of their goods to a standard below that which one would find in a competetive market. It can also mean incorporating a design feature into a product that prevents it from being upgraded and thus it must be entirely replaced when a fault occurs. Here's some evidence of that for you, there's plenty more: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1830568?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698754578757 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2118504?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698754578757 'Perceived obsolescence' is a similar concept, but rather than reduce the quality they will market a new design aspect of a product thus ensuring that the 'old' style falls out of fashion and everybody must go out and buy the new styled product regardless of whether or not their old product has failed- for example, flat screen TV's replaced the old box shape of a TV and now you are considered old-fashioned or uncool if you own a box shape TV. It plays on our sense of the material object representing a status symbol, so in essence it's very manipulative- there's nothing particularly 'better' about a flat screen, it's just fashion. Also, before you decide that automation can't replace humans please take a trip to your local Tesco store where their automated check out robo-till will be happy to scan your goods, add up your bill, accept your money and print you out a receipt whilst the few humans left running their tills are freed up to nostalgically remember all of the chatty colleagues that your check out machine replaced. Of course we're capable of mass automation, just take a look around you. Also obsolescence is NOT natural. Please take a look at the actual history of humanity and one thing you'll notice is that human cultures pre-1900 are remarkably conservative with regard to their production of material culture, usually over periods of millenia. For example, the stone hand axe was made by humans in a broadly similar form for about 2.6 million years. The ancient Egyptians created their statues and wall paintings using a remarkably conservative and limiting set of 'artistic rules' over 2 thousand years. If obsolescence is so 'natural' to humans why didn't these early cultures subscribe to a rapid pace of material culture change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.