Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system

[IAchilleasI]

Far too simplistic - you're ruling out technological improvement and appear to be assuming all spending is on consumer durables or similar.

 

Unsurprisingly most peoples outgoings are on housing, heat and light, food, transport and the like. I might by a new car, TV or PC something like once every 7 years.

 

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

 

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

 

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.

[IAchilleasI]

The obvious solution to that is to produce less humans.

 

I think Keynes was observing a natural consequence of a system. He wasn't suggesting it is deliberately designed into the system by a cabal of wealthy oligarchs which is what the OP is suggesting.

 

Wow, seriously, try paying more attention to what I'm saying rather than exercising your prejudices. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a natural consequence of the system, hence the title of this thread "IDENTIFYING THE INHERENT PROBLEMS OF A MONETARY SYSTEM".

[Jim Graham]

A product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time in order to force the consumer to buy a new one, supporting the circulation of purchasing power and sustaining the economy, in spite of the excess waste created as a result. Doesn't require a monopoly.

 

 

That statement is utterly absurd. I think you'll find the people who made Tower Bridge, the Forth Road Bridge, the Hoover Dam and a gazillion other things didn't build in obsolecence to force the consumer to buy another one off them at a later date. As sure as eggs is eggs the bloke who "made" my house is dead. Your argument only applies to consumer products at best and not even to many of them.

 

I have an 8 year old car that is still going strong. Not that many years ago an 8 year old car would have been on it's last knockings. Your argument is that car makers are decreasing the life expectancy of their products when in reality they are extending them by making them better quality.

 

In reality your argument only applies to consumer electronics which is hardly a global conspiracy.

[Hemibr]

Thats exploitation use by Sky TV in multiple charging for the same medium fragmented or selling petrol by the litre -We are conditioned to that medium of exploitation - there will be no revolution against that particular brand of capitalism

[IAchilleasI]

. Unilever may have dominated the market but they didn't have a monopoly on it. There were always competitors. Unilever probably bought some of them out but that's a failing of regulation not a global conspiracy.

 

If you notice I have highlighted regulation because it is a political function, nothing to do with a monetary system. I'll keep pointing out this distinction until people realise that Monetary system=/= Capitalism.

 

If people are stupid enough to be sucked into the "fashion" cycle they deserve all they get. I see that as a sign of weakness and insecurity and exploiting it is a legitimate business practice. Perhaps they should learn to think for themselves. I consider myself to be reverse fashionable. If everyone is getting or doing something that's a good reason for me not to get it or do it.

 

But not everyone is as strong and secure as you. The majority of people succumb to peer pressure and advertising because it dominates and overwhelms their lives.

 

The rate of change has accelerated and nothing is going to stop it. It may get a few setbacks but progress is inevitable unless a few Luddites decide to smash up Tesco's machines......................................not really going to stop progress though is it?

 

I assume the Luddite comment is aimed at me? Is that what you think I'm saying? That we should get back to farming the land?

[Jim Graham]

Wow, seriously, try paying more attention to what I'm saying rather than exercising your prejudices. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a natural consequence of the system, hence the title of this thread "IDENTIFYING THE INHERENT PROBLEMS OF A MONETARY SYSTEM".

 

 

Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain.

 

You are not truly debating the point of your OP. You are looking for support, not critique.

[Longcol]

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

 

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

 

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.

 

So pick on two examples from an area where technology is changing rapidly - but forms only a small percentage of what most people spend their money on - like I said, housing, food, heat & light.

 

Like I said the analysis of the "cycle" is way too simplistic.

[Jim Graham]

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

 

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

 

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.

 

 

In that case people will buy AMD. If AMD go down the same route regulators should step in (unless they are part of the conspiracy too). New suppliers could step in but the high cost of entry would be a big barrier to the market.

 

Anyone stupid enough to buy any Apple product is ripe for exploitation. Apple's strategy only has a finite lifespan. Eventually even the thickest will suss they are being taken for a ride and someone else will come up with something more fashionable and desirable that they can rush out and waste their money on.

 

I think you are looking at a snapshot in time when these business practices are fashionable and successful. In a few years time things may be different as people change their buying habits.

[Longcol]

Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain.

 

You are not truly debating the point of your OP. You are looking for support, not critique.

 

I think you've nailed it Jim.

 

The OP appears to have recently mugged up on a theory that they think explains everything to everybody and is promoting in with the fervour of the newly converted.

 

Been there, done that myself when I was a lot younger - in those days the theory was Marxism.

[Tony]

As we rarely know who owns the large Corporations (or has the 51% of the shares,) or whose company has taken over what, it's hard to know who has the momopoly of a particular market. It's going back a long way but at one time Unilever used to own mearly all the major brands of washing powder. despite them coming in different branded boxes.

It's not hard at all, you just have to put in some effort. Nobody will spoon feed you this information, but if it's washing powder that you are worried about, you can simply read the label.

 

What exactly is your issue here? You seem to be tilting at the bogie man.