We live in a consumerist society... not a capitalist society

[nadinbrzezinski]

and Microsoft is a perfect example.

Look folks they will release a new shiny toy... soon... we are told, but look at the pattern. How much crap, not only computers, do you have at home that you have bought because somebody ELSE created that need? These range from electronics, to clothing, to brand insert here.

Oh and those who fail these days fail to create a sense of aw... and false expectation. Yes, will use MS. When windows 3.1 came out, I went and bought it... hell even got hardware that could run it... a 386 with no math co-processor... ah the days... RAM that thing had a bit of it, 512

We could all have gone on with 3.1 for quite a bit longer than any of us did... then came 98... again there were lines and excitement, exactly what a new shinny bauble needs to get us what we really don't need. Truth be told we really didn't need it. Then came Me... ah the piece of crap to be the piece of crap... only to be surpassed by VISTA... the point is if you look at MS... and the business model, it is a pure consumerist one. The need is created in the mind of the consumer who goes and buys the new shinny. Oh and I am just using MS as an example... a more outrageous example is the fashion industry. Talk about creating needs by recycling fashions... what I wore at 15 is back in fashion...

In the end this gets us spending... aka consuming. We don't, the economy will ahem slow down.

So next time you see a commercial for the greatest bauble THINK is this something I need, or somebody else thinks I need? And why are they making this (insert bauble here) so ahem COOL!!!!!!!

[Robbien]

1. There was an article out today about landlines going the way of the dodo bird

Landlines are cheap and the phones lasts ages and ages.

Cell phones are fancy, expensive and wear out fast.


You best believe this is a consumerist society.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Ah yes, cell phones on the third one

and I don't use it that much. Breaks every three years, right on time for renewing a contract.

:-)

[Mike 03]

3. As usual, I think you are dead on right.

In fact, what you write is true: If we were to stop spending, our economy would perish in the blink of an eye, and so would the economies of our trading partners.

And count me among those who shop pointlessly to fill some void within myself. When I get depressed or anxious, I definitely succumb to the "buy" bug. (Not so much lately, but in the past.)

EDIT:

Kick and Rec, to be sure, but just to add: We don't produce anything anymore that the rest of the world needs or wants. Our primary purpose in the scheme of things is to consume, just as you are saying. That is why the world put up with us under Bush. Because we did our duty and we bought and we bought, and we shopped and we shopped.

[derby378]

4. Depends on whether you have a consumer mindset

It's a deliberate choice one makes to think like a consumer instead of a citizen, albeit a choice that doesn't take a lot of brainpower.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Do you watch the teevee machine? It is not just to entertain you know

:-)

[etherealtruth]

5. You hit the nail on the head

Sadly, I am guilty (in many ways) of the crass consumerism I loathe. It takes a tremendous effort to break this lifestyle choice ... I have to remind myself daily :(

[Beam Me Up]

7. The "Century of the Self" series explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3LSyck0YTE&feature=PlayList&p=4A87C6061F314BCD&index=0&playnext=1

[UP_4012]

8. Uh, what?

You can use Microsoft in tens of thousands of ways to justify a point, but this is not one of them. It does not fit in this scenario for a number of reasons.
1. Windows 3.1/3.11 was a terrific system, but was limited by the fact that it could only reliably address about 64 megs of RAM (assuming MS-DOS v6) AND it was a 16-bit system. Applications needed more and more RAM, not because of bloat, but because they suddenly needed to do much more. (Presentations, Image editing, music editing, etc)
2. Windows 95 did several things, it eliminated the need to buy MS-DOS as a separate product, and went to a full 32-bit hybrid kernel.
3. Windows 98 added support out of the box for HDD SMART monitoring, and raised the RAM limit to 768 megs. It also added full USB support, which standardized the way you connect things to the system. It aslso introduced FAT32, which allowed disks up to 64 gigs to be partitioned as a single disk. (Using a freeware partitioner, you can make a 1TB FAT-32 for Win98).

The reason new versions are released is to support demand for more powerful programs that in turn need more powerful operating systems and hardware. Sure, you do have to buy the new version to get the new features, but that is nothing like a cell phone. A cell phone just wears out every year or two, whereas you can run the same version of Windows provided you DON'T need the new features/software support it provides.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. It is an example, a real example

just as the fashion industry is another

Like it or not we do live in a consumerist society... it depends on you and me to continue to buy shit... whether we need it or not is immaterial

SPEND..

You can justify MS not being part of the system, but simply you are wrong... it is part of the system. It is called planned obsolescence, whether it is your IPOD (another good example) or last fall's fashions.

[UP_4012]

14. Really, Planned Obscelesence?

Really now, would you say the same thing about the evolution of common machinery? I.E. Piston engines become turbine engines, carbs replaced by fuel injection, etc. Is THAT just planned too? It's evolution, artificial, but it is an evolution of the capability of human created machines, or in this case, operating systems. If you want real consumerism, look at fashion, cell phones,mp3 players. They all die quickly and have to be replaced,and I agree that that is planned obscelensence. But an OS just evolves to keep pace with current demand.
In essence, would you stick with the old OS, even when it clearly cannot do what is required of it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Here is a free clue

about it

My mom has a wonderful stappler that her dad bought her when she was in HS... that thing works, it is close to 60 years old

These days I count on having to replace them every three years or so...

So yes, it is planned obsolescence. They need it

The same goes for a washing machine... the same goes for many things.

They are planned to fail.

My cell phone, it is planned and designed to fail... not because I need a new one... but because they need me to spend

As to Operating Systems... free hint, until they went commercial, as in home use, they had a longer shelf life. Programs are DESIGNED to need more and more juice... aka planned obsolescence.

It is integral to the system... no matter how many times you try to justify it with techno geek talk.

And you are also giving me a false choice. I need a netbook, for example, to be a glorified word processor. Essentially Word Perfect 5.1 did that wonderfully... that WAS a word processor. Modern day software are also light weight DTP engines with layout options that 90% of users will never use, or even know are there.

And yes I do push my software to the limit of their capabilities. But insofar as simple word processing, WP 5.1 did it.

[UP_4012]

22. I disagree.

If the OS were designed to go out of date simply because they designed it to, I would not be typing this now. I am running WFW 3.11 on a 1995 Dell. Still works, still connects to the internet, and still runs Word Perfect 6.0.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Can you run the latest bloatware? No. This is how the obsolescence works

in the software industry.

[UP_4012]

26. Of course not!

What is the solution? Write your own software? We see how well that works *cough*linux*cough*.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. There is ONE piece of software that I use for writing

that is MS... otherwise the lappie would be running Ubuntu, and much better too thank you.

Open Office does fine

As to how well it is working... the cell phone you carry, chances are has Linux Code, the win machine in modern days, ditto, OS X is a branch of UNIX.

And yes, it will RUN on older equipment, very well thank you very much... alas they are not based on a profit margin... alas they also have that issue of planned obsolescence, though on a longer time stream

[UP_4012]

30. I KNEW IT

Here we go. I have been using Linux for over 5 years,started with Debian, then went to Gentoo, and stayed with that until last year. Ubuntu has a VERY defined cycle of obscelenence. Every six months, they release a new version that breaks almost everything. Open Office is a joke. MS Office 2003 is 200mb smaller than Open Office,runs faster on wine than Open Office runs natively, which is open source, but funded by Sun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. A joke? Well lets put it this way, OO has yet to break files the way

MS does regularly.

[UP_4012]

32. Really?

I can use Office 2003 to read and edit 2007 files. No corruption so far. Also, if a file becomes corrupted from a power failure, etc, Office 2003 can recover the data with its built-in import tools. Open Office cant do that, and it cant do it 3x slower.
If you want some more info about Ubunutu, it is funded by Canonical which makes tons of money from users like you. Belive it or not, you are still a consumerist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. And I know that, your point

Now you are using your files INSDE Microsoft... now I need to save a file CREATED in OO, as a txt to see if Word 07 breaks it too.

Now Canonical is NOT making the money directly from me... but from OTHERS... such as the companies that use their software for product... such as your telephone company.

I know the business model and I have not said that they are not part of the system

EVERYTHING you consume is part of the system...

You live in a society that relies on 70% consumption for the economy to function, Whether that is dog food, or a word processor, or your Sunday's best, is immaterial. You and I need to consume

Clear enough? I am not delusional.

[UP_4012]

34. Okay

Sorry if i got carried away. To fix that, save it in Office 97-2003, or just save in 2007. It has that built in. And here is the killer.
You mention that our economy is consumer driven. True, but can it function otherwise?
Can you make your own dog food? Can you make it just as good as those commercial guys? Can you make you own flea and tick medicine? Can you grow your own food, fix your own car, fabricate a new patch for your clothing? The list goes on and on. Truth is, you cannot, and we can never go back to an agrarian system unless everyone has the skills to do everything. That is why we consume, at least for legitmate things. Things like fashion, less of.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. The economy was designed this way after the depression to prevent

some of the wide swings, read depression.

It was by design

As to whether it works, or we can go back to an agrarian world no... but we can heavily regulate it, and change the emphasis

I suspect that is what will happen after this party is over. As is right now the sheer consumerism is failing

But we do not live in a capitalist society, we live in a consumerist one... unintended effects and all that

As to OO... no, the problem is MS... I suspect, if it wasn't created in MS, it will break it. Why I will test that in a text file.

Ah the old saying MS don't run until Notes don't run... applies to OO these days.

:-)

[UP_4012]

36. That is where we can agree.

If we do anything at all, we must regulate the system. Capitalism without regulation is a disaster, an absolute end-all race to the bottom. We combined it with a socialist aspect, and in effect, created a new system. However, that socialist aspect has been redefined, and now just the raw comsumerist aspect is dominating. By redefined, I mean that all losses must be socialized, immediately. But only corporate losses. We need a free-enterprise fair trade system that takes care of everyone. That will take some regulation, and backbone, something our elected representatives have little to offer or show.

[UP_4012]

37. OO

OO seems to have a funky issue with converting. The 2.4 version converts between formats just fine. 3.0 has some strange bugs, and none of it looks right in anything, unless its OO 3.0. Jaunty says no...

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Well they have a new version of it... so that may solve the issue

or just plain out run 2.3... easy

[UP_4012]

39. Or, I could just go back to Intrepid, and fix all of it. (It has 2.4)

However it gets fixed, peace.

[UP_4012]

16. I am going to go a step further and call this example a category

mistake. Fundementally, fashion and computer operating systems are different. Clothing has not really changed. It does the same things it always had to do. It covers your body, keeps yu warm, and if designed to, makes you look good as a bonus. PC hardwre has changed constantly, always looking for a way to squeeze more power out of the existing tech. The OS has to evolve to keep new and old tech covered, while allowing new programs to do more things. All clothing has to do is cover you, and in the case of fashion, all it has to do is look good. FASHION is there just to make people go "OOO! WANT". I have no argument against that. We are a consumerist society, but Microsoft is not the best way to go about proving it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. It is, what does a computer essentially need to do for most users?

process paper, and perhaps XL... most of the software in the market is bloatware, with capabilities 90% of the users will never even know exists. But they are sold on, easier to use... more powerful...

I am sorry but most users will do fine with a simpler app, some even a ten year old app. They have the capabilities that people use today and used 10 years ago.

[UP_4012]

25. I see where you are coming from.

However, would you really continue to use Office 97? It lacks productivity tools such as letter-auto formatting, and powerpoint 97 lacks basic visual aid support. For the most part,the average joe would be fine on windows ME, but how in the world would you run an instant messaging app? How would you assemble a photo album? You could use something like paint+irfanview, but most users lack the skill, so they buy the software that does all that, and of course, the software needs the .NET features that ME lacks because .NET didn't exist yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. And those are created needs, not real needs

and that is the point

By the way there are many valid reasons not to run Word 97... Master document headaches come to mind, in that sense WP was a far more capable program... ah marketing...

[Mike 03]

40. To quote Oliver Stone, you are picking gnat shit out of pepper.

It doesn't matter what the product is; it only matters whether or not we can export it, and whether we can export it for a fair price.

[The_Commonist]

9. "How much crap...

...do you have at home that you have bought because somebody ELSE created that need?"

Not much.
Not much at all!

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Ye are the exception then

[Mike 03]

12. Nadin, you will appreciate this. The funniest tag I ever saw on a product was

this one, on a set of towels my mother bought me:

"Hecho en Los Estados Unidos"

I've puzzled over this for years. If the towels are made in the United States, why is the description of where it is made written in Spanish?

Who knows?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. For export to the Latin American Market

but probably the deal fell and they decided to sell in the US.

:-)

And it is hysterical

[Mike 03]

29. Yes! Probably! Thank you!

:loveya:

Keep up your wonderful posts.

You tackle the important, sacred, disturbing issues. I admire the hell out of you.

[KoKo]

15. As you know the Populist Revolution is just in it's "nibs" and this CANNOT GO ON!

How many "Shiny New Toys" can they through at a "lackluster population?"

How many before there's a huge REVOLT from a Coalition of the RIGHT AND LEFT....??

They (the Powers that Be) are living on much borrowed time...

Sooner or later it's ALL gonna hit the fan and the GREAT AWAKENING will occur.

Given what I'm seeing...it's "Sooner rather than Later."

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. But shiny toys keep people distracted, I still count on it

Yes, I am cynical

:hi:

[KoKo]

20. To SURVIVE...I had to pull back from Cynical...but...

the book is open..who knows what lies in the pages scrolling forward...

Shudder....

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I understand

trust me....

To me cynical means that I can expect nothing to change and surprised when it does.

[KoKo]

24. ahhh..nuff said...n/t

[Mike 03]

41. I'm really surprised that this thread is not receiving the plethora of intelligent responses,

and recommendations it merits.

Who can argue with your premise?

It is true that the state of our nation was not always this way, but over the past decade we have simply become an importing, consuming, debt-laden nation.

Devouring the products of other nations, while inventing nothing in return, constitutes consumerism.

What are we inventing? What are we exporting, other than our debt? Please elucidate this for me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. First it is not the last decade

this started a LONG time ago... and goes at least back to '45

It was a remake of the economy meant to avoid the ups and down of unbridled capitalism. And it is purely a matter of unintended consequences in many ways. But the way that we build shit these days is meant to fail... and most people don't want to realize that we do not live in a capitalist nation, but a consumerist one dominated by monopolies

The US has as much in common with Adam Smith, as the USSR had with Classic Marxism.

[Mike 03]

43. LOL, (blushing), I have learned so much from you that I never knew. NT