There are some simultaneous practical needs for owning pets such as: home security, personal security, guides, rodent control, entertainment, after-work relaxation, etc... Yet, do you really need the most expensive breed to accomplish these tasks? Not necessarily.
In a capitalist economy, the goal is: the preservation of wealth. Earning a large income while living a modest material lifestyle similar to the common man is something to be proud of and helps to keep this wealthy person grounded in reality. I.e. Warren Buffet. A person like this receives material prestige simply because of his savings total while remaining grounded in the material life of the common man. Someone who spends very little on unnecessary consumer goods is more qualified in preserving wealth than someone who spends more for whatever reason. It is simple financial math. Does not need personal material possessions in competition with wealthy friends to boost his ego or confidence... A simple game of Chess will suffice.
You just called several million people fools because they walk around with headphones.
Huge headphones. I wouldn’t go outside with my Harmon/Kardons, first because I don’t want them nicked and second because they’re huge, ungainly, and cancel a fair bit of sound. Over-ear headphones can’t be safely used as utility, and as pure fashion they’re meaningless.
Bottom line is, in your case, always buying the most expensive brand name product equals bad shopper equals irrational consumer behavior in a capitalist economy with the goal of wealth preservation.
Doesn't appear Warren Buffet is trying to bring his wealth past the grave. He pledged to give it all away before his passing and has already given a huge chunk already.
I don't believe you can hold a candle to Warren Buffet.
You have truly lost sense of the point of our conversation, good shopper vs bad shopper... It does not surprise me, as you usually have a hard time staying focused in a losing battle. You have been on the defensive since the beginning when you use fiction to defend.
As always, every time you open your mouth fiction comes out of it. With Kanye West, the fiction never ends.
The fact is buying style over substance is irrational and if you do than you are a bad shopper or promoting irrational consumerism.
Nonsense. Your style affects how the world sees, judges and treats you. Taking that into consideration when you make a purchase is in no way irrational. Wanting to be seen as cool by your peers is in no way irrational.
If you think Warren Buffet is an angel read this article about his oil trains and how they cause the price of gas to rise and causes sever environmental disasters.
By Buffett does not want a safer way of transporting oil (a pipeline) because it will hurt his train business.
Dear Sog35 a.k.a. Kanye West, I didn't read the article because I don't believe anyone is an angel on this planet, while anyone can spin a tale. I don't believe he is rational with his obsession for consuming Bic Macs, Cherry Cokes and Dairy Queen ice cream. I am sure he is aware of that too. However, he is multiple times more rational than Kanye West because is aware that irrational people/consumers do exist and there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate irrational behaviour altogether. He also correctly believes everyone exhibits irrational behaviour at least from time to time. You deflected toward a negative story about Warren Buffet because you have nothing positive to offer about yourself.
Kanye West spends his time and effort promoting himself as a style icon therefore will only give substance a passing mention for appearance purposes, and that won't change. The truth is he has no substance or has incorrect substance while he is the epitome of fiction.
Have you heard of the tried and true saying "Appearances can be deceiving"? A rational person will say "You look good but do you meet my practical needs the best. If not, then adios".
Screw ‘em. You will pretend that this reply invalidates my argument.
Forgoing something best for you for something worse that will make you be seen as better is by definition irrational.
Screw 'em? The world? That's the rational approach? I will not pretend anything, nor will I surreptitiously use hidden text to put words in someone's mouth.
"something best for you" is subjective. It can be safely assumed that the people buying Beats over aurally superior price comparable headphones aren't highly motivated by the sound. So what is best for them? The respect and admiration of their peers probably figures quite high in that. And hence it is a totally rational decision. Doing the thing that accomplishes the goal is rational.
If you think the goal is irrational, well fine, but most of the world exists as an aesthetic, and people do care about style as in indicator of taste, prosperity and status.
Screw 'em? The world? That's the rational approach? I will not pretend anything, nor will I surreptitiously use hidden text to put words in someone's mouth.
"something best for you" is subjective. It can be safely assumed that the people buying Beats over aurally superior price comparable headphones aren't highly motivated by the sound. So what is best for them? The respect and admiration of their peers probably figures quite high in that. And hence it is a totally rational decision. Doing the thing that accomplishes the goal is rational.
If you think the goal is irrational, well fine, but most of the world exists as an aesthetic, and people do care about style as in indicator of taste, prosperity and status.
The sound and comfort of Beats headphones met their practical needs once they tried one since it was likely a huge step up from the EarPods they were using. Style and celebrity endorsements were added bonuses, unlikely the deciding factor. Most of them can't tell significant differences in audio quality of headphones in the same price range and naturally lean to a bassy sound because it affects their emotions more easily (a parlour's trick to impress). These people aren't audiophiles who happen to be a rare breed. If the sound and comfort had not met their needs the headphone would not have been purchased.
Yes a misguided audiophile would have bought the Beats headphone simply to receive respect and admiration from friends who are not audiophiles themselves. Not rational if his friends found out later he was an audiophile and wussed out on his dignity.
My point is where is your evidence that rational thought and conclusions always win the war? Large parts of the world are on fire, fundamentalist religion has as big a grip as ever, hatred, inequality, misery and cruelty are rife throughout, and Android is winning*.
Here is one example but you can find as many as you want if you have a broad knowledge in history: the American Civil War to end legal slavery in that country. It is safe to say that legal slavery is never coming back to America.
One example does not make an always. And depending on your interpretation of semantics, some would say that economic slavery is very much in force and legal America. Plus of course, illegal slavery still very much exists worldwide as a shadow economy, including within the USA, so from one perspective the war hasn't even been won.
A broad knowledge of history will bring up copious examples of things heading in a distinctly irrational direction and getting very screwed up. And people can live there lives in very irrational ways and not be particularly punished for it.
Lives are dictated as much by luck as by choices, and if you're lucky enough then even a litany of bad choices can end well. Rational does not always win any more than good always wins, right always wind, or open always wins. What wins is predicated on environment, culture, and a whole heap of chance. To think otherwise is naïve.
Destructive beliefs lead to the destruction of humanity whereas expansive beliefs lead to human expansion. Which beliefs are worth fighting for the most? Keep in mind, want for survival is basic human nature. Everybody possesses this survival instinct.
There are ongoing wars that have yet to be permanently settled. Correctly pinpointing the target and rational for fighting a war is not always simple. No one should believe wars are easily fought and won.
Comments
In a capitalist economy, the goal is: the preservation of wealth. Earning a large income while living a modest material lifestyle similar to the common man is something to be proud of and helps to keep this wealthy person grounded in reality. I.e. Warren Buffet. A person like this receives material prestige simply because of his savings total while remaining grounded in the material life of the common man. Someone who spends very little on unnecessary consumer goods is more qualified in preserving wealth than someone who spends more for whatever reason. It is simple financial math. Does not need personal material possessions in competition with wealthy friends to boost his ego or confidence... A simple game of Chess will suffice.
You dont see people wearing headphones on their way to work on the subway, bus, ect?
I see fools wearing huge headphones and/or blaring music such that they couldn’t possibly hear anything around them, sure.
Your question has nothing to do with what I said, however.
I see a hint of prejudice/generalization in that comment.
Good for you. You don’t see or hear what I see and hear, however, so that’s you.
You just called several million people fools because they walk around with headphones.
Huge headphones. I wouldn’t go outside with my Harmon/Kardons, first because I don’t want them nicked and second because they’re huge, ungainly, and cancel a fair bit of sound. Over-ear headphones can’t be safely used as utility, and as pure fashion they’re meaningless.
Bottom line is, in your case, always buying the most expensive brand name product equals bad shopper equals irrational consumer behavior in a capitalist economy with the goal of wealth preservation.
Doesn't appear Warren Buffet is trying to bring his wealth past the grave. He pledged to give it all away before his passing and has already given a huge chunk already.
I don't believe you can hold a candle to Warren Buffet.
You have truly lost sense of the point of our conversation, good shopper vs bad shopper... It does not surprise me, as you usually have a hard time staying focused in a losing battle. You have been on the defensive since the beginning when you use fiction to defend.
As always, every time you open your mouth fiction comes out of it. With Kanye West, the fiction never ends.
A pretty appearance with zero substance does not sell.
$orry, did you $ay $omething?
The fact is buying style over substance is irrational and if you do than you are a bad shopper or promoting irrational consumerism.
Nonsense. Your style affects how the world sees, judges and treats you. Taking that into consideration when you make a purchase is in no way irrational. Wanting to be seen as cool by your peers is in no way irrational.
Screw ‘em. You will pretend that this reply invalidates my argument.
Forgoing something best for you for something worse that will make you be seen as better is by definition irrational.
Kanye West spends his time and effort promoting himself as a style icon therefore will only give substance a passing mention for appearance purposes, and that won't change. The truth is he has no substance or has incorrect substance while he is the epitome of fiction.
Have you heard of the tried and true saying "Appearances can be deceiving"? A rational person will say "You look good but do you meet my practical needs the best. If not, then adios".
Not a word of sasrcasm. Recalibrate your sensors.
Quote:
Screw ‘em. You will pretend that this reply invalidates my argument.
Forgoing something best for you for something worse that will make you be seen as better is by definition irrational.
Screw 'em? The world? That's the rational approach? I will not pretend anything, nor will I surreptitiously use hidden text to put words in someone's mouth.
"something best for you" is subjective. It can be safely assumed that the people buying Beats over aurally superior price comparable headphones aren't highly motivated by the sound. So what is best for them? The respect and admiration of their peers probably figures quite high in that. And hence it is a totally rational decision. Doing the thing that accomplishes the goal is rational.
If you think the goal is irrational, well fine, but most of the world exists as an aesthetic, and people do care about style as in indicator of taste, prosperity and status.
I accept the notion that irrational goals/thoughts are widespread but in the end rational thought/conclusions always win the war.
I accept the notion that irrational goals/thoughts are widespread but in the end rational thought/conclusions always win the war.
I don't think there's any particular evidence for that. Turn on the news.
Yes a misguided audiophile would have bought the Beats headphone simply to receive respect and admiration from friends who are not audiophiles themselves. Not rational if his friends found out later he was an audiophile and wussed out on his dignity.
My point is where is your evidence that rational thought and conclusions always win the war? Large parts of the world are on fire, fundamentalist religion has as big a grip as ever, hatred, inequality, misery and cruelty are rife throughout, and Android is winning*.
Where is rationality winning?
* this bit is sarcastic
One example does not make an always. And depending on your interpretation of semantics, some would say that economic slavery is very much in force and legal America. Plus of course, illegal slavery still very much exists worldwide as a shadow economy, including within the USA, so from one perspective the war hasn't even been won.
A broad knowledge of history will bring up copious examples of things heading in a distinctly irrational direction and getting very screwed up. And people can live there lives in very irrational ways and not be particularly punished for it.
Lives are dictated as much by luck as by choices, and if you're lucky enough then even a litany of bad choices can end well. Rational does not always win any more than good always wins, right always wind, or open always wins. What wins is predicated on environment, culture, and a whole heap of chance. To think otherwise is naïve.
There are ongoing wars that have yet to be permanently settled. Correctly pinpointing the target and rational for fighting a war is not always simple. No one should believe wars are easily fought and won.