The damn hippies are at it again...

BigV · 03-02-2005, 03:46 PM

Hey TS:

Have you noticed trends like this? I went into a Best Buy this holiday season and I saw a nice little inkjet printer for less than $10!! Wow, I thought. That's a twentieth of what I would/could have paid a year or so earlier for comparable technology. Neato!

As I checked out a little more, I learned that the ink refills were more than $40 and would last for only a couple of reams of paper. So owning one of these beasts meant that my upfront costs were spectacularly low, but the ongoing care and feeding costs were much higher. (I guess I should have bought 20 of the printers and scavenged the ink cartridges...another story) The manufacturers were protecting their investment.

How about this: the new Napster compares $10,000 to have a new ipod full of songs to $15 for a flash mp3 gadget with the same quantity of music. How can they do it? Well, it turns out you only rent the music, and the $15 is an ongoing monthly subscription fee. You're not buying the music, just paying to listen to it, certainly a different spin on the conventional thoughts about portable music.

These are just two examples where a company takes an idea for a product or service and ac-sen-chu-ates the positive and eliminates (rather, hides in plain sight) the negative. You want color print? Buy me. You want to roll with the Rolling Stones? Buy me. In both cases the real cost comes later. Yah, I know, caveat emptor. Fine, point taken. But these are well established business models, for things that are clearly discretionary. But things like soybeans and cotton do not fall into such categories.

When a company makes the investment, major investment, in a product technology like GM crops, it has a corporate imperative to seek a return on that investment. When that imperative is obscured and ingnored by the glare and blare of the front-end benefit, (70% increase in crop yields, 20,000 songs for $15, etc) I see a conflict coming, this kind of conflict. And this and this and this.

I tried not to compare this to a drug dealer and have conceded to my baser instincts. "Hey man, first taste is free!" Just today I saw an ad for "Bad Credit Refinancing of Second Mortgages--4 offers in 60 seconds". What about America's long term (no end in sight) petro-chemical dependency issues? Don't get me started on Global Warming... This whole behavior of low cost, low pain right now -- high cost, high pain later is pervasive and NOT in our long term best interest.

I do not want to curse our future generations with the prospect of being enslaved to the corporations that could/should/would withhold their daily bread. That is Not Right.

Don't misunderstand me, I am no luddite (although I have on sunny summer days been inexplicably unable to find batteries for the kid's GameBoy or the PS/2's power adapter...) There are real, tangible, desirable benefits to most technological advances. Unsurprisingly, that's why they call it Progress. But to march onward without consideration of what lies ahead is not progress, it's just mileage. To discard inconvenient data, to ignore context and disregard consequences while pressing the technical accelerator to the marketing metal is like riding along with Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. You might not crash and burn right away, you will need clean drawers right away, but you've got to stop and let someone who can see take over the driver's seat if you want to get safely to your destination.

Schrodinger's Cat · 03-02-2005, 08:47 PM

Well - in the face of that -

I was merely going to add the comment that GE crops often result in monoculture. Instead of growing several different strains of rice, for example, the third world farmer grows only one - the latest and greatest GE species. That's nice until a pathogen outsmarts the scientists (yes, viruses are smarter than scientists as anyone who has the flu can attest).

If a disease sweeps through an agricultural crop where farmers are growing different strains, some varieties will prove more resistant than others and the entire food supply will not end up being wiped out. However, if you are growing only one variety of a grain and your neighbors are only growing that variety and, in fact, your entire country is growing that one same variety, you are pratically begging to become the center of attention for the next famine relief effort.

russotto · 03-04-2005, 10:50 AM

Monocultures aren't caused by or restricted to GE. Neither is non-viable seed. Modern hybrids produced the old-fashioned way result in the same issues.

Not that Monsanto (or whoever owns the GE crop division now) isn't a bastion of corporate evil. They ARE the people who bought a Supreme Court decision which says that if some of their pollen gets on your crop and results in fertile offspring, you're violating their patent.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-04-2005, 09:48 PM

The only hope for the third world is to develop pancake trees so the natives can pick fresh pancakes and tap syrup from the trunk.

OnyxCougar · 03-06-2005, 04:33 PM

In regards to BigV's post....

I was watching TV the other day and saw an advertisement for a home loan that said it could "cut mortgage payments in half!"

Upon freezing the picture (viva la DVR) I read the fine print.

It's an interest only loan. Yes, the average home owner pays $1200 a month, and $600 of that is interest. With their loan program, you only pay the interest, and then, when you want to, you pay on the principal.

I wonder how many people bought into that?

richlevy · 03-06-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I wonder how many people bought into that?

Hopefully someone with a good lawyer who could sue the pants off the company. I do not consider myself overly litigious, but companies like that who deliberately mislead deserve to be thrown to the sharks...er...lawyers.

lookout123 · 03-06-2005, 11:31 PM

i don't know the ad you are talking about, but int. only loans are not new. or bad, for the right individual. if you plan on paying a home off and living in it for many years, move along, this isn't the loan for you. but if you aren't planning on being there more than 3-5 years (which is about average) and you have the discipline to save the difference between an amortized loan and an int only loan, then it is a very useful tool. YMMV.

there is no way to get tricked into this loan unless you are just brain dead. there are so many disclosures within your loan process that it would truly take a world class moron to not understand the difference.

wolf · 03-07-2005, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

In regards to BigV's post....

I was watching TV the other day and saw an advertisement for a home loan that said it could "cut mortgage payments in half!"

Daytime non-major network TV is full of ads for shady propositions. A few that I remember from my enjoyment of judge shows (Judy, Joe Brown, and Mathis, in case you were wondering) include: "we'll insure everyone" high risk, low payout, high cost automobile insurance, phone plans through private phone companies that charge about twice what the regular local carrier does, business/techical/medical assistant/truck driving schools that promise to take your money but can't guarantee you'll actually have any skills upon "graduation," personal injury lawyers, high interest short term loans that use your car as collateral and typically result in repossession of your car, and a variety of get rich quick work from your home scams, and of course, the Popeil Rottisserie, and the latest in unusable kitchen gadgets.

Trilby · 03-07-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

...the Popeil Rottisserie, and the latest in unusable kitchen gadgets.

So...you couldn't get yours to work, either, eh???

03-02-2005, 03:46 PM	#1
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	Hippie rebuttal Hey TS: Have you noticed trends like this? I went into a Best Buy this holiday season and I saw a nice little inkjet printer for less than $10!! Wow, I thought. That's a twentieth of what I would/could have paid a year or so earlier for comparable technology. Neato! As I checked out a little more, I learned that the ink refills were more than $40 and would last for only a couple of reams of paper. So owning one of these beasts meant that my upfront costs were spectacularly low, but the ongoing care and feeding costs were much higher. (I guess I should have bought 20 of the printers and scavenged the ink cartridges...another story) The manufacturers were protecting their investment. How about this: the new Napster compares $10,000 to have a new ipod full of songs to $15 for a flash mp3 gadget with the same quantity of music. How can they do it? Well, it turns out you only rent the music, and the $15 is an ongoing monthly subscription fee. You're not buying the music, just paying to listen to it, certainly a different spin on the conventional thoughts about portable music. These are just two examples where a company takes an idea for a product or service and ac-sen-chu-ates the positive and eliminates (rather, hides in plain sight) the negative. You want color print? Buy me. You want to roll with the Rolling Stones? Buy me. In both cases the real cost comes later. Yah, I know, caveat emptor. Fine, point taken. But these are well established business models, for things that are clearly discretionary. But things like soybeans and cotton do not fall into such categories. When a company makes the investment, major investment, in a product technology like GM crops, it has a corporate imperative to seek a return on that investment. When that imperative is obscured and ingnored by the glare and blare of the front-end benefit, (70% increase in crop yields, 20,000 songs for $15, etc) I see a conflict coming, this kind of conflict. And this and this and this. I tried not to compare this to a drug dealer and have conceded to my baser instincts. "Hey man, first taste is free!" Just today I saw an ad for "Bad Credit Refinancing of Second Mortgages--4 offers in 60 seconds". What about America's long term (no end in sight) petro-chemical dependency issues? Don't get me started on Global Warming... This whole behavior of low cost, low pain right now -- high cost, high pain later is pervasive and NOT in our long term best interest. I do not want to curse our future generations with the prospect of being enslaved to the corporations that could/should/would withhold their daily bread. That is Not Right. Don't misunderstand me, I am no luddite (although I have on sunny summer days been inexplicably unable to find batteries for the kid's GameBoy or the PS/2's power adapter...) There are real, tangible, desirable benefits to most technological advances. Unsurprisingly, that's why they call it Progress. But to march onward without consideration of what lies ahead is not progress, it's just mileage. To discard inconvenient data, to ignore context and disregard consequences while pressing the technical accelerator to the marketing metal is like riding along with Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. You might not crash and burn right away, you will need clean drawers right away, but you've got to stop and let someone who can see take over the driver's seat if you want to get safely to your destination. __________________ Be Just and Fear Not. Last edited by BigV; 03-02-2005 at 03:57 PM. Reason: messed up title

03-02-2005, 08:47 PM	#2
Schrodinger's Cat Macavity Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A Black Box Posts: 157	Well - in the face of that - I was merely going to add the comment that GE crops often result in monoculture. Instead of growing several different strains of rice, for example, the third world farmer grows only one - the latest and greatest GE species. That's nice until a pathogen outsmarts the scientists (yes, viruses are smarter than scientists as anyone who has the flu can attest). If a disease sweeps through an agricultural crop where farmers are growing different strains, some varieties will prove more resistant than others and the entire food supply will not end up being wiped out. However, if you are growing only one variety of a grain and your neighbors are only growing that variety and, in fact, your entire country is growing that one same variety, you are pratically begging to become the center of attention for the next famine relief effort. __________________ Macavity, Macavity, there's no on like Macavity, He's broken every human law, he breaks the law of gravity. - T.S. Eliot, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

03-04-2005, 09:48 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	The only hope for the third world is to develop pancake trees so the natives can pick fresh pancakes and tap syrup from the trunk. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-06-2005, 04:33 PM	#5
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	In regards to BigV's post.... I was watching TV the other day and saw an advertisement for a home loan that said it could "cut mortgage payments in half!" Upon freezing the picture (viva la DVR) I read the fine print. It's an interest only loan. Yes, the average home owner pays $1200 a month, and $600 of that is interest. With their loan program, you only pay the interest, and then, when you want to, you pay on the principal. I wonder how many people bought into that? __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

03-06-2005, 11:31 PM	#7
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	i don't know the ad you are talking about, but int. only loans are not new. or bad, for the right individual. if you plan on paying a home off and living in it for many years, move along, this isn't the loan for you. but if you aren't planning on being there more than 3-5 years (which is about average) and you have the discipline to save the difference between an amortized loan and an int only loan, then it is a very useful tool. YMMV. there is no way to get tricked into this loan unless you are just brain dead. there are so many disclosures within your loan process that it would truly take a world class moron to not understand the difference. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

03-04-2005, 10:50 AM	#3
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Monocultures aren't caused by or restricted to GE. Neither is non-viable seed. Modern hybrids produced the old-fashioned way result in the same issues. Not that Monsanto (or whoever owns the GE crop division now) isn't a bastion of corporate evil. They ARE the people who bought a Supreme Court decision which says that if some of their pollen gets on your crop and results in fertile offspring, you're violating their patent.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)