- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/21/19 at 12:38 pm to volod
quote:
Capitalism: Question Regarding the Flawed yet Perfect System
volod, are you an economist? Do you assume the consumer in the relationship is rational? And how and when do unbalances in the relationship correct itself?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 12:44 pm to volod
In Case 1, it is probably much easier to fix the game widespread with more users to report the bugs. Said game would be longer / more expensive to produce if released without.
IF other companies consistently released non-buggy games of equal or greater worth - those companies would eat away at the first companies following.
In Case 2, the system is creating more content - largely good for both consumer and author. You are also ignoring the "art" aspect in that it isn't just shitting out another book - writing a good book isn't something you can necessarily just decide to sit down and
do. (Martin has no idea how to finish his story in a compelling way IMO, his nature as a perfectionist makes him delay to strive and do so).
I don't really know where to start with case 3, people like this brand and continue to support it.
Also, you should avoid making blanket statements about an economic system and using only one sector as evidence.
You are pushing your own personal opinions on the masses. They enjoy a consistent product of ENTERTAINMENT for a reasonable price.
IF other companies consistently released non-buggy games of equal or greater worth - those companies would eat away at the first companies following.
In Case 2, the system is creating more content - largely good for both consumer and author. You are also ignoring the "art" aspect in that it isn't just shitting out another book - writing a good book isn't something you can necessarily just decide to sit down and
do. (Martin has no idea how to finish his story in a compelling way IMO, his nature as a perfectionist makes him delay to strive and do so).
I don't really know where to start with case 3, people like this brand and continue to support it.
Also, you should avoid making blanket statements about an economic system and using only one sector as evidence.
quote:
Now, admittedly consumer discipline is a major problem as well. If more people voted with their wallets these problems could be averted or discouraged.
You are pushing your own personal opinions on the masses. They enjoy a consistent product of ENTERTAINMENT for a reasonable price.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 11/21/19 at 12:50 pm to volod
There is not a better system than capitalism, but with that said nothing is perfect.
Disney for example, their name is so popular they can take just about anything and as long as its "Disney" it will become popular and because of this, the product becomes watered down.. Because they don't have to give its audience a really good story line.
Like with Marvel and Star Wars. Because they are in the business of appealing to kids, the storylines are basic and they make up for it by adding more special effects.
And when it comes to companies that have contracts with the federal government. I am all for companies making as much money as possible, but not at the cost of tax dollars.
I started a thread about Edward Snowden and mentioned how I am reading his book. I am at a point where he talks about how after 911, early 2000s, when the CIA wanted to up their game in gathering intelligence and protecting its information, etc because they were limited on how many people they could hire, etc.. There was a loophole that allowed them to hire contractors which they could then request more money to pay them... So the contractors would hire people who were sent to CIA facilities.
The more money the contractors paid employees the more money the contractors made from employing them. Snowden said he was clueless when he was first hired by a contractor. They asked him what he thought he was worth. He said he was making $30k at the time.. And he told them $50k. The person hiring him responded "how about $60k?" And then by the time he signed his papers his final salary was $62k. So the contractor charges the federal government $68,200 because they get 10% on every hire.
So in that type of situation, where government and the private sector intertwine.. I think that is a flaw as well.
Disney for example, their name is so popular they can take just about anything and as long as its "Disney" it will become popular and because of this, the product becomes watered down.. Because they don't have to give its audience a really good story line.
Like with Marvel and Star Wars. Because they are in the business of appealing to kids, the storylines are basic and they make up for it by adding more special effects.
And when it comes to companies that have contracts with the federal government. I am all for companies making as much money as possible, but not at the cost of tax dollars.
I started a thread about Edward Snowden and mentioned how I am reading his book. I am at a point where he talks about how after 911, early 2000s, when the CIA wanted to up their game in gathering intelligence and protecting its information, etc because they were limited on how many people they could hire, etc.. There was a loophole that allowed them to hire contractors which they could then request more money to pay them... So the contractors would hire people who were sent to CIA facilities.
The more money the contractors paid employees the more money the contractors made from employing them. Snowden said he was clueless when he was first hired by a contractor. They asked him what he thought he was worth. He said he was making $30k at the time.. And he told them $50k. The person hiring him responded "how about $60k?" And then by the time he signed his papers his final salary was $62k. So the contractor charges the federal government $68,200 because they get 10% on every hire.
So in that type of situation, where government and the private sector intertwine.. I think that is a flaw as well.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 12:50 pm to volod
You are looking at hyper specific examples (and not very good or coherent ones) on the micro level. You can always cite examples of where it failed but I can point to 10 more anecdotal examples of where it succeeds.
At the macro level (on average and for a long period of time), capitalism is a good thing and does all the good things you describe in your original post.
At the macro level (on average and for a long period of time), capitalism is a good thing and does all the good things you describe in your original post.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:04 pm to volod
If you buy a gallon of milk and it has a fish in it, don’t buy that same brand again.
Things correct very quickly.
Things correct very quickly.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:07 pm to volod
OP, a simple yes or no will suffice. But is this you?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:08 pm to volod
I'm finally going to ask: Are you serious?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:23 pm to volod
quote:
However the system has a tendency to make companies lazy and slothful while also not fulfilling the needs of the consumer.
Then they get replaced by another company that does.
What's the issue here?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:26 pm to volod
Paying programmers is expensive as frick, and having the tech support that we have now for video games is super expensive for companies.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 1:38 pm to volod
quote:
Now, admittedly consumer discipline is a major problem as well. If more people voted with their wallets these problems could be averted or discouraged.
You addressed your own dilemma with this statement. I would rather have consumers in a market economy determining winners and losers vs socialism. If there is a demand for a flawed product then apparently consumers are choosing the product regardless.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 2:02 pm to volod
quote:
Case 1: Video game developers have a tendency to release unfinished/buggy games to an global market. Then will then proceed to patch updates monthly to fix the game while still charging consumers full price as though it were a final product.
This is not even focusing on bad DLC practices, where part of the game is cut during development to sell at a later point to maximize profit.
Comparison-Imagine buying Microsoft word for a new computer at full price. Then download it to find that you only have access to half the software features. The other features will be progressively added over 6 months.
In these cases you’re not buying them at the full price initially. It’s more that the company knows consumers won’t pay for a 120-140 dollar video game. These games are very advanced and cost a fortune to develop. So you get enough for 60-80 dollars to occupy yourself for 2-3 months then they sell the add ons to you for 20-40 bucks and the consumer doesn’t think twice about it because the original price was spent 3 months ago and they’re hooked on the game and crave new content
It’s genius really
Posted on 11/21/19 at 2:08 pm to volod
Also there are many forms of capitalism. You can have pure unregulated capitalism, regulated capitalism, crony capitalism, etc etc.
Pure capitalism and free markets are virtually flawless, but require certain elements to succeed. Most of which are a largely informed and educated population that are committed to enforcing natural regulation of unethical business practices through boycott. And people say it creates monopolies but in reality monopolies are created by regulations that protect existing big business but make competing start ups difficult to get going. If there is a monopoly in pure capitalism that means the company has found the absolute most efficient way to make the best quality product that nobody else can beat in pricing or quality. Which is very very rare
Pure capitalism and free markets are virtually flawless, but require certain elements to succeed. Most of which are a largely informed and educated population that are committed to enforcing natural regulation of unethical business practices through boycott. And people say it creates monopolies but in reality monopolies are created by regulations that protect existing big business but make competing start ups difficult to get going. If there is a monopoly in pure capitalism that means the company has found the absolute most efficient way to make the best quality product that nobody else can beat in pricing or quality. Which is very very rare
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News