The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

EXACTLY. And in doing so reveals that the underclass can be parasitical just as easily as the 'rich'. Ergo, he's a dimwit.

 

The Poor may Benefit; the horror of it.

 

Yes, but he's referring to what makes a successful parasite. In this case, the bulk of profits go to that and not to the underclass.

 

Ah ... so you can weasel out of it if the numbers crunch the right way?

This is a question of morality, not accountancy. Besides, it's actually more immoral to be a parasite which compels support than to be a parasite which depends upon voluntary provision of support. An able bodied person on govt assistance is COMPELLING support. A business dependent on the free choice of it's customers (to buy or not to buy) does not compel.

 

It's the other way round: one weasels out if the numbers crunch the right way by insisting that it's an issue of morality.

That's why the issue isn't who is a parasite but what makes a successful one. More important, what is the result of that success?

Some more points to consider: the claim that gov't assistance leads to losses for businesses is questionable because what is gained from such assistance is ultimately spent on goods and services provided by the same business.

The implication that that assistance is not based on freedom because it is imposed by the gov't is also questionable because the same gov't is elected to power by the majority and represents the people.

Third, the claim that businesses are dependent on customers' free choice makes sense only to those who face no competition. For the rest, the goal is to make customers buy more: hence, marketing, planned obsolescence, layaway plans, etc. And several of those factors have been going on since the early twentieth century.

You did not consider these points because you kept imagining that it's all about fluffy points like morality.

 

1) what makes a successful parasite is one who is able to continue living on/off the host undisturbed.

2) a business cannot 'make' customers buy - at all, or more. not in any way, shape, or form. unless you think that adult humans are as feeble minded as 3 year olds? is that what you think? because that's they only way you could reach the conclusion that we're 'made' to buy things.

 

That's right.

You are not aware of marketing and planned obsolescence? That's been discussed for decades. See, for example, Vance Packard's Hidden Persuaders. In light of capitalism, study the whole idea of consumerism, starting with Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class.

Also, it doesn't involve being "feeble[-]minded".

 

Wow, what a great business opportunity. Selling things that don't have planned obsolescence. I hope your business succeeds.

 

That's right.

 

What's right?

 

What you said. In short, planned obsolescence is in place, plus other means to increase sales.

 

So, given that consumers don't want planned obsolescence, you have a great opportunity. I wish you good luck in your new business endeavor.

 

I know all about marketing psychology and planned obsolescence. All it can do is persuade. We're all free to ignore that persuasion.

EG: I use a cobbled together desktop made from salvaged components. I have a 5 year old phone. My husband has a 6 year old phone. Our cars are teenagers. We only acquire used manufactured goods like clothing, furniture, white goods etc. Having said that, we can live with only what we have indefinitely, if needed. Obviously, since many many millions of people around the world live without any of these things.