Finally! The semester is over. Finals are almost over. My years at school are almost over. This is the last blog I have to write. There was that book, predictably irrational, that we read at the beginning of the year. In it, the author discussed how setting deadlines can help motivate people to get work, saving, etc done on time. Well, I feel like 60% of the blog posts for this class came in the last 3 weeks or so. I don't know for sure, but from the people I've talked with this seems to be accurate. Just something i thought was entertaining to think about.
Anyways, more to do with choices. Like I have said, i think more choices are preferable in any and all situations. Something i was thinking about, however, is how the ease of the choice affects the happiness of the person making it. Take for example the person who makes the easiest choices in life; the guy who cheats on tests, works where he's not challenged, drinks excessively, doesn't strive for anything, litters, etc. These are all extremely easy decisions to make in the short run, but do they produce happiness? I don't believe so. The choices like committing to a family, going to school, challenging yourself to excel, taking on more responsibilities, and making the more long term decisions, in my opinion, will lead to happiness. This is, however, where marketing and business run into a problem. Their goal, in large part, is to induce the sale immediately whether its good for the consumer or not. I don't think its the responsibility of the companies or corporations to monitor people's behavior, but this is a problem they have to address. When I hear people crabbing about profit driven companies or sales people who's only goal is to make the sale, I am usually bothered by the fact that they're missing who's making the ultimate decision. The responsibility to make long term decisions is up to the individual. If he or she chooses not to do so, then he or she must deal with the consequences of short term decisions.
I realize I used this blog project, in many ways, to provide my opinion as to why people and ideas are wrong. I didn't use much in the way of documentation or sources, but rather used reason to express my opinions on certain matters. I fully understand that these are my opinions and not verifiable facts. What i was hoping for is responses by people telling me where i went wrong in my logic and reasoning. I am entirely open to changing my viewpoint if a new and more sound argument is presented. Again, its my personal opinion, but thats how people learn critical thinking skills the best, by being able to support their arguments under scrutiny. I did find this project to be useful, and actually enjoyed writing quite a bit.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Christmas....
There are a lot of different religions and beliefs structures out there. Its my personal opinion that we should be humbly respectful of all, so long as they do not harm others. Still, most people celebrate in some manner around the time of the new year. I am not religious, and don't subscribe to any mainstream ideology, but around this time of year I tend to wish people a Merry Christmas. What bothers me more than most things is when people correct me and say, "happy holidays" with a conceded, instructing tone to their voice. I went out of my way to be kind and courteous, and that person insists on correcting me. There is no value or connection created between us when that happens.
I don't really have a lot to say about this. I was just wondering what kind of people correct another person who is wishing them well. If there is someone who proudly corrects those who wish them a Merry Christmas, i would love to hear your rational as to why.
I don't really have a lot to say about this. I was just wondering what kind of people correct another person who is wishing them well. If there is someone who proudly corrects those who wish them a Merry Christmas, i would love to hear your rational as to why.
Minimum wage...
We talked a lot recently about cultures and subcultures. We did that assignment in class which had us create a political platform that would cater to the different subcultures and demographics that could get us elected. Who did most of the lower income, less skilled workforce vote for in the last election? Obama. Why? For many reasons, but one of them being his parties stance on the minimum wage laws. The Democratic, and quite often Republican, party support the steady and continual growth of the federal minimum wage. Does this help the poor, less skilled workforce? No. http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/01/24/the-minority-case-against-the-minimum-wage/ Thats a very well written article explaining why the federal minimum wage laws actually hurt the lower class more than anyone else.
My last post was about choices, well here's a situation where a lack of perceived choices causes harm. If the election was between Obama and Romney, both choices would end up damaging the lowest class among us. You'd think that as a demographic subculture, Mexicans, African Americans, etc would research choices like this. Why do people continue to consume crap when it comes to making political decisions, and by that i mean elect one of the two candidates thrust upon them rather than researching the candidates and issues, and deciding for themselves. More choices are never a bad thing, and most of the time get people thinking about rationalizing and justifying their ultimate decision. I would bet a months pay that over half of the people who voted in the last election would fail when it came to justifying and rationalizing their decisions. They'd regurgitate the superfluous rhetoric spewed by the political candidates and pundits, entirely unable to reason their way through an argument. Choices require knowledge, take away the choices and you take away the incentive to understand the fundamental ideas behind an issue.
*** As a thought... we talked a lot about the extended self, hourglass self, etc, etc. What does voting for a person like Obama or Romney say about yourself? Both openly support and condone torture, both support the killing of innocent civilians abroad as long as its for "the greater good", both promote the status quo, neither is an honest, pure, or inspirational figure, both speak in rhetoric akin to sophists, etc, etc. Just something to think about.
My last post was about choices, well here's a situation where a lack of perceived choices causes harm. If the election was between Obama and Romney, both choices would end up damaging the lowest class among us. You'd think that as a demographic subculture, Mexicans, African Americans, etc would research choices like this. Why do people continue to consume crap when it comes to making political decisions, and by that i mean elect one of the two candidates thrust upon them rather than researching the candidates and issues, and deciding for themselves. More choices are never a bad thing, and most of the time get people thinking about rationalizing and justifying their ultimate decision. I would bet a months pay that over half of the people who voted in the last election would fail when it came to justifying and rationalizing their decisions. They'd regurgitate the superfluous rhetoric spewed by the political candidates and pundits, entirely unable to reason their way through an argument. Choices require knowledge, take away the choices and you take away the incentive to understand the fundamental ideas behind an issue.
*** As a thought... we talked a lot about the extended self, hourglass self, etc, etc. What does voting for a person like Obama or Romney say about yourself? Both openly support and condone torture, both support the killing of innocent civilians abroad as long as its for "the greater good", both promote the status quo, neither is an honest, pure, or inspirational figure, both speak in rhetoric akin to sophists, etc, etc. Just something to think about.
Choices...
I haven't really begun to read the paradox of choice yet, but i have been thinking about our conversation in class the other day. We were told that an excessive number of choices actually leads to less happiness. For the life of me, i can't think of a situation in which that would hold true for me.
It seems to me that one cause of this alleged trend is that people base their happiness about a choice on the choices people around them have made, essentially the old, "the grass is always greener" adage. It seems like you might find a lot of people saying, "well i could have made that decision", or "what if i had done that?". I believe that speaks more about the individual attributes of that person, and hopefully doesn't define our society as a whole. If the research is accurate, it would hint at the idea that people are rather envious individuals who aren't confident in their ability to make reasonable choices.
The example i was given as a response in class about the doctor giving Graham several choices to make that she had no prior knowledge about is a very specific and knowledge intensive situation. Moreover, its a situation which requires an immediate decision. With the advent of the internet, given enough time, we have the ability to research literally any topic on earth. But with the example i was given, i think the doctor would need to quickly outline the options to her, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and let her decide. If she asked for advice from the doctor as to what he would do, in my opinion I think it's his obligation as a certified professional to give her an answer, and its her obligation to understand that's what he would do not what she should do. In certain situations we must rely on the intelligence of other people, we simply can't make informed decisions in every single circumstance.
Like I said, i literally can't think of a situation in which fewer choices would be more desirable to me. More choices provide me with a greater array of options to fit my particular needs. Whether it be paper clips, drinks, cars, colleges, partners, medical procedures, doctors, companies to do business with, chips, friends, books, music, homes, whatever, I honestly, and with conviction, would prefer more choices to fewer.
It seems to me that one cause of this alleged trend is that people base their happiness about a choice on the choices people around them have made, essentially the old, "the grass is always greener" adage. It seems like you might find a lot of people saying, "well i could have made that decision", or "what if i had done that?". I believe that speaks more about the individual attributes of that person, and hopefully doesn't define our society as a whole. If the research is accurate, it would hint at the idea that people are rather envious individuals who aren't confident in their ability to make reasonable choices.
The example i was given as a response in class about the doctor giving Graham several choices to make that she had no prior knowledge about is a very specific and knowledge intensive situation. Moreover, its a situation which requires an immediate decision. With the advent of the internet, given enough time, we have the ability to research literally any topic on earth. But with the example i was given, i think the doctor would need to quickly outline the options to her, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and let her decide. If she asked for advice from the doctor as to what he would do, in my opinion I think it's his obligation as a certified professional to give her an answer, and its her obligation to understand that's what he would do not what she should do. In certain situations we must rely on the intelligence of other people, we simply can't make informed decisions in every single circumstance.
Like I said, i literally can't think of a situation in which fewer choices would be more desirable to me. More choices provide me with a greater array of options to fit my particular needs. Whether it be paper clips, drinks, cars, colleges, partners, medical procedures, doctors, companies to do business with, chips, friends, books, music, homes, whatever, I honestly, and with conviction, would prefer more choices to fewer.
Marijuana
In the last election several states legalized the use, sale, and production of recreational marijuana. Being that most of the students in this CB class are marketing students, I thought it was interesting to think about how companies were going to attempt to market pot to the consumers. I believe that in the minds of a lot of people marijuana still has a very negative connotation to it. Moreover, its still illegal on a federal level to have any association with the drug at all. The state of Colorado has said that it is wary of making pot a tourist attraction, and is worried about a tarnished reputation. For many, pot will market itself, but im wondering if these dispensaries will attempt to attract the business of those on the fence about the drug. Or will they wait and allow the word of mouth to spread, the lack of side affects speak for themselves, and curiosity to take over? When im down in Leadville for Christmas, i suppose i might have to take a few hours out of my break and do some... research.
So i guess my question is, will dispensaries promote themselves, and how will they do it? Its a very sensitive area, and an interesting topic to think about.
So i guess my question is, will dispensaries promote themselves, and how will they do it? Its a very sensitive area, and an interesting topic to think about.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Burning man.....
Other than the unnecessarily wordy content, or the annoyingly frequent in-text citations, the article we read about burning man, in my opinion, missed the mark in a lot of ways. First, the question, "can consumers escape the market?" assumes "the market" to be well defined. What is a market, what does a market consist of, what qualifies a transaction as a market transaction, etc, etc, etc? These are all questions that go unanswered in the text.
This idea that those at burning man, as well as the writer of the article express, that money isn't allowed in black rock city, nothing may be sold or bought, and barter, trade, and generosity are to be used assumes that money has some inherent negativity associated with it. Does it? What is the root of money? http://emanaton.com/article/philosophical/franciscodanconia Read that except, and find out for yourself. Money is nothing more than a tool of exchange. It represents the value of your labor, your mind, your ability to create beauty, etc. Money facilitates the transactions between two people and simplifies the process, nothing more. Lets say for instance I spent the first part of my time at burning man creating a wonderful piece of art. I then realize I need a pair of sandals, so I go trade my piece of art for a pair of sandals. I fail to see the difference between that and selling my art, obtaining money, and purchasing the sandals with that money. Either way, the value I created is what earned me the pair of sandals. I forgot exactly how Graham stated it in class, but she said something along the lines of, "bringing money into a transaction depersonalizes the experience and diminishes interaction between the two parties." I reject that notion completely, based largely on the content of the link posted above. That statement seems to imply that money and produced goods are independent of each other, which i believe to be entirely wrong. Both are wealth, simply in different forms. Whether i have a piece of artwork to trade for sandals, or $65 to trade for sandals which i obtained from selling my artwork, the transaction is the same, the value proposition is the same, the interaction is the same, and the mutual benefit is the same. One of the interviews from the article quotes a man as saying, "When people vend things they’re not personally attached to the things that they’re selling and they’re not really attached to the money that they’re getting for it, either. It’s going to go towards purchasing things that might be precious to them, but, but it’s distanced, it’s this [compressing gesture with hands] intellectual space that, you know, creates distance .between people." Why you would ever cite a quote in a research paper thats this nonsensical is beyond me. But again, this guy seems to be trying to say that material goods and money are the antithesis of each other. They're not, they're one in the same, simply different forms of the same principle, a representation of man's ability to produce.
Do the people at burning man, or the author of the article, realize why this is a type of community that can't exist for more than a week at a time? They claim to have created a consumer-less community of friends, but have they? No. A more accurate description of what they have done is to create a productive-less community. During this week in August nothing but drug induced art is produced, no food, no medicine, no transportation technology, no science, no wealth, no prosperity, no sustainability, no energy, no water, nothing. Nothing to better society as a whole, nothing to better your neighbor, nothing to better the stranger you'll never meet, nothing. I think the biggest problem with the article is that it portrays burning man as this sort of ideal that we should aspire to. Wrong. Its easy to become disillusioned and began to believe this festival has some moral center, but I think its important to realize the truth about burning man. Its unbelievably easy to pack up camping supplies, go live in the desert for a week, have no obligations, no job, no timeline, no responsibilities, and get fucked up on acid, DMT, shrooms, whatever. This is a high that can only last until your wealth runs out though, with wealth being water, food, and the necessities to live. These burning man goers consumer massive amounts of goods throughout the festival, food, water, drugs, fire wood, gas, propane, snacks, alcohol, etc. The difference between their "community of friends" and "the market" is that the market necessitates production and creation. Their community of friends simply stocks up on supplies and consumes these supplies over a week long period in the desert until they're gone. If humans could live off of obscure artwork and hard drugs, then yeah, this would be an idealistic society. Unfortunately, however, i don't think we've made it there yet.
The article also claims, in many ways, that "the market" inhibits creative expression and artistic creativity, that we must set aside market principles to truly create works of art. Im getting kind of tired of writing about burning man and how the attendees are hypocritical, but ill finish up with this last argument. The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, U2, Pink Floyd, The Chili Peppers, The Who, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Van Morrison, Pearl Jam, Etc, etc, etc, on to eternity! And thats just music. Think about the art that exists in out society today, from the creativeness of marketing ads, to culinary artistry, to painters, writers, and poets, the beauty of our cities, bridges, and accomplishments, the online community of creativity is endless and growing, our cars, homes, and belonging are all beautiful, our photographs, school work, and cohesive human nature are awe inspiring, even down to the individual people in our society, nearly everything is gorgeous. Has "the market" made it more difficult to make a living through music, writing, or art in general? No, there are more artists in the world now than at any other point in human history. All this thrives in "the market". To claim that the market inhibits creativity is naive to the extreme and ignores the beauty of the world around us. "The market" has created the most conducive environment for creativity in the history of the world. Not to mention healthcare, medicine, space travel, air travel, car transportation, nuclear power, the internet, bridges, tunnels, cities, communities, parks, schools, science foundations, museums, stadiums, infrastructure, the large hadron collider, bullet trains, robots, computers, phones, prescription drugs, food from all over the world available locally for reasonable costs, holidays, ski areas, etc etc etc.
I guess to the question, "can consumers escape the market?", id have to answer, "why would we want to?".
***And yeah, i realize that much of what the article was concerned with focused on how corporations are evil, not capitalism. Their actions, however, don't make sense if their goal is to discredit and denounce corporations. They would lead us to believe that you must escape the market in order to take a stand against the "evil corporations". No, a capitalist society does not support corporatism. There is a difference, and you can denounce one while participating in the other.
***Let's be realistic... For all the hype and self righteous claims about the meaning of burning man, this event is simply a reason to go camping in the desert for a week, trip out, experience oddities, and enjoy the experience for what it is, careless fun.
This idea that those at burning man, as well as the writer of the article express, that money isn't allowed in black rock city, nothing may be sold or bought, and barter, trade, and generosity are to be used assumes that money has some inherent negativity associated with it. Does it? What is the root of money? http://emanaton.com/article/philosophical/franciscodanconia Read that except, and find out for yourself. Money is nothing more than a tool of exchange. It represents the value of your labor, your mind, your ability to create beauty, etc. Money facilitates the transactions between two people and simplifies the process, nothing more. Lets say for instance I spent the first part of my time at burning man creating a wonderful piece of art. I then realize I need a pair of sandals, so I go trade my piece of art for a pair of sandals. I fail to see the difference between that and selling my art, obtaining money, and purchasing the sandals with that money. Either way, the value I created is what earned me the pair of sandals. I forgot exactly how Graham stated it in class, but she said something along the lines of, "bringing money into a transaction depersonalizes the experience and diminishes interaction between the two parties." I reject that notion completely, based largely on the content of the link posted above. That statement seems to imply that money and produced goods are independent of each other, which i believe to be entirely wrong. Both are wealth, simply in different forms. Whether i have a piece of artwork to trade for sandals, or $65 to trade for sandals which i obtained from selling my artwork, the transaction is the same, the value proposition is the same, the interaction is the same, and the mutual benefit is the same. One of the interviews from the article quotes a man as saying, "When people vend things they’re not personally attached to the things that they’re selling and they’re not really attached to the money that they’re getting for it, either. It’s going to go towards purchasing things that might be precious to them, but, but it’s distanced, it’s this [compressing gesture with hands] intellectual space that, you know, creates distance .between people." Why you would ever cite a quote in a research paper thats this nonsensical is beyond me. But again, this guy seems to be trying to say that material goods and money are the antithesis of each other. They're not, they're one in the same, simply different forms of the same principle, a representation of man's ability to produce.
Do the people at burning man, or the author of the article, realize why this is a type of community that can't exist for more than a week at a time? They claim to have created a consumer-less community of friends, but have they? No. A more accurate description of what they have done is to create a productive-less community. During this week in August nothing but drug induced art is produced, no food, no medicine, no transportation technology, no science, no wealth, no prosperity, no sustainability, no energy, no water, nothing. Nothing to better society as a whole, nothing to better your neighbor, nothing to better the stranger you'll never meet, nothing. I think the biggest problem with the article is that it portrays burning man as this sort of ideal that we should aspire to. Wrong. Its easy to become disillusioned and began to believe this festival has some moral center, but I think its important to realize the truth about burning man. Its unbelievably easy to pack up camping supplies, go live in the desert for a week, have no obligations, no job, no timeline, no responsibilities, and get fucked up on acid, DMT, shrooms, whatever. This is a high that can only last until your wealth runs out though, with wealth being water, food, and the necessities to live. These burning man goers consumer massive amounts of goods throughout the festival, food, water, drugs, fire wood, gas, propane, snacks, alcohol, etc. The difference between their "community of friends" and "the market" is that the market necessitates production and creation. Their community of friends simply stocks up on supplies and consumes these supplies over a week long period in the desert until they're gone. If humans could live off of obscure artwork and hard drugs, then yeah, this would be an idealistic society. Unfortunately, however, i don't think we've made it there yet.
The article also claims, in many ways, that "the market" inhibits creative expression and artistic creativity, that we must set aside market principles to truly create works of art. Im getting kind of tired of writing about burning man and how the attendees are hypocritical, but ill finish up with this last argument. The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, U2, Pink Floyd, The Chili Peppers, The Who, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, Van Morrison, Pearl Jam, Etc, etc, etc, on to eternity! And thats just music. Think about the art that exists in out society today, from the creativeness of marketing ads, to culinary artistry, to painters, writers, and poets, the beauty of our cities, bridges, and accomplishments, the online community of creativity is endless and growing, our cars, homes, and belonging are all beautiful, our photographs, school work, and cohesive human nature are awe inspiring, even down to the individual people in our society, nearly everything is gorgeous. Has "the market" made it more difficult to make a living through music, writing, or art in general? No, there are more artists in the world now than at any other point in human history. All this thrives in "the market". To claim that the market inhibits creativity is naive to the extreme and ignores the beauty of the world around us. "The market" has created the most conducive environment for creativity in the history of the world. Not to mention healthcare, medicine, space travel, air travel, car transportation, nuclear power, the internet, bridges, tunnels, cities, communities, parks, schools, science foundations, museums, stadiums, infrastructure, the large hadron collider, bullet trains, robots, computers, phones, prescription drugs, food from all over the world available locally for reasonable costs, holidays, ski areas, etc etc etc.
I guess to the question, "can consumers escape the market?", id have to answer, "why would we want to?".
***And yeah, i realize that much of what the article was concerned with focused on how corporations are evil, not capitalism. Their actions, however, don't make sense if their goal is to discredit and denounce corporations. They would lead us to believe that you must escape the market in order to take a stand against the "evil corporations". No, a capitalist society does not support corporatism. There is a difference, and you can denounce one while participating in the other.
***Let's be realistic... For all the hype and self righteous claims about the meaning of burning man, this event is simply a reason to go camping in the desert for a week, trip out, experience oddities, and enjoy the experience for what it is, careless fun.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Exchange...
This doesn't necessarily have to do with consumer behavior, but its a thought nonetheless. Why hasn't a national microbrew keg exchange program been set up yet by some brewery or entrepreneur? I'm currently doing a project for one of my classes about starting a brewery. After doing some research in the field, we found that most beer drinkers aren't brand loyal at all. There certainly is a low degree of loyalty, but for the most part, what we found was that beer drinking was very much a hobby to most people, with the goal being to try as many different beers brand and styles as possible. With this being said, if there were microbrews from New York, Vermont, or Kentucky available here in Montana, my belief is that people would want to try them. And visa-versa, if our beers were available on the east cost, i believe people there would be crazy about them. A website could easily be set up in which bars and pubs could bid on the beer that they wanted. It would be a great selling point for that particular bar to say that they have beer from across the country available, that would change weekly. Not only would this benefit the bars and the consumers, but it would spread the availability and popularity of the different microbrews. This idea could help establish distribution on a nation wide scale rather than a comparatively small regional area. Shipping, of course, would be the largest cost, but what other problems do you see with this idea? Would you go to the Bacchus or some other bar in town more often if you knew they had a different microbrew each week from across the country?
Food service...
So, working in a kitchen you learn and see things from a very different perspective than when you're eating out with friends or family. There are so many things that customers can do, without even realizing it, that come off rude or careless to the kitchen staff. If you ever want to see, fairly accurately, what really goes on behind the kitchen doors at most restaurants, watch the movie "Waiting". Its funny, accurate, and worth your time.
One thing I noticed though is how subconsciously influenced people are by the actions and orders of the tables around them. With uncanny accuracy we can predict the orders of nearly every table after the first table receives their food. If the first people to order get steak, chances are, the vast majority of following orders will be steak. Same with any other entre we serve. Moreover, we noticed that dessert was particularly this way. If the first table didn't order dessert, chances are good that no one else would either. As an experiment, I had our chef give away a desert to the first table to order food for the past couple weeks. The percentage of tables who ordered desert went through the roof. By giving away the first dessert, we were able to almost triple the amount of desserts sold.
It seems that people, without ever realizing it, base much of their consumption behavior on the behavior of those around them. With giving away the first dessert, had we just nudged our customers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJEsNjH3JT8
One thing I noticed though is how subconsciously influenced people are by the actions and orders of the tables around them. With uncanny accuracy we can predict the orders of nearly every table after the first table receives their food. If the first people to order get steak, chances are, the vast majority of following orders will be steak. Same with any other entre we serve. Moreover, we noticed that dessert was particularly this way. If the first table didn't order dessert, chances are good that no one else would either. As an experiment, I had our chef give away a desert to the first table to order food for the past couple weeks. The percentage of tables who ordered desert went through the roof. By giving away the first dessert, we were able to almost triple the amount of desserts sold.
It seems that people, without ever realizing it, base much of their consumption behavior on the behavior of those around them. With giving away the first dessert, had we just nudged our customers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJEsNjH3JT8
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Political Platform........
The discussion we just had in class is the exact reason our country is so divided and gridlocked. Its bothersome that we didn't even question or discuss the ethical issues surrounding segmenting the population and trading favors for votes. That's essentially exactly what we were talking about, who has the majority and what policy issues of ours can we manipulate to acquire their support. Any true libertarian in the class would be just as frustrated as I was about the discussion.
First, one of the founding ideas of libertarianism is equal treatment of everyone by the government. That means liberty for all, regardless of ethnic or social classification. Pandering to the minorities by promising healthcare reform, immigration reform, tax reform, better education, lower interest rates for borrowing and lending, etc is great if you're in a particular group receiving the benefits. However, it polarizes the country and is simply immoral.
Whatever happened to politicians who ran on principles, morals, and convictions? Using just the last two elections as examples, we've seen that candidates will change just about any opinion they hold to conform to the generally excepted beliefs of the populace. The reason this is bad for our country is, as i have said in my earlier blog posts, because we were never designed to operate as a democracy, but rather a republic. Elections are meant to single out the most intelligent, most moral, most pure citizens and allow them to make decisions that affect the entire population. Where we see ourselves now is in the situation where we elect the weakest, most malleable, most easily persuaded citizens and allow them to dictate the future of us all. Really, the only positive attribute we now seek in a president is his or her public speaking ability, and tendency to tell us what we want to hear. I don't support either major political party, but to simplify my argument, i'll just use Obama as the most recent example. His position on Guantanamo Bay, oil drilling off the coast, corporatism, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and foreign involvement in general, tax policy, torture, the use of drones, etc have all changed or altered throughout his campaign and presidency. We refuse to elect people that see us as "Americans" and continue to elect those that see us as "votes" or "constituents".
What we just did in class was to segment the population and say, oh, you're black here's a something that will appeal to you, oh, you're Asian, here's something that will appeal to you, oh, you're white, here's something that will appeal to you. In other areas of business that completely fine, but concerning politics, its horribly wrong. This classifies people into groups, when really, in politics, there should only be one group that matters, Americans. Our politicians should be protecting the rights of all of us, not just the ones that will get him or her elected.
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Ran, Atlas Shrugged.
Its my opinion that this class discussion should have been strictly about business applications of sub cultures and segmentation, or at least touched on the ethical and moral issues of bringing this type of thinking into the political arena. Most people understand our country is fucked up, but few seem to question why.... we need to ask why, discuss why, and have a open and intellectual dialogue about why. Again though, just my opinion.
First, one of the founding ideas of libertarianism is equal treatment of everyone by the government. That means liberty for all, regardless of ethnic or social classification. Pandering to the minorities by promising healthcare reform, immigration reform, tax reform, better education, lower interest rates for borrowing and lending, etc is great if you're in a particular group receiving the benefits. However, it polarizes the country and is simply immoral.
Whatever happened to politicians who ran on principles, morals, and convictions? Using just the last two elections as examples, we've seen that candidates will change just about any opinion they hold to conform to the generally excepted beliefs of the populace. The reason this is bad for our country is, as i have said in my earlier blog posts, because we were never designed to operate as a democracy, but rather a republic. Elections are meant to single out the most intelligent, most moral, most pure citizens and allow them to make decisions that affect the entire population. Where we see ourselves now is in the situation where we elect the weakest, most malleable, most easily persuaded citizens and allow them to dictate the future of us all. Really, the only positive attribute we now seek in a president is his or her public speaking ability, and tendency to tell us what we want to hear. I don't support either major political party, but to simplify my argument, i'll just use Obama as the most recent example. His position on Guantanamo Bay, oil drilling off the coast, corporatism, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and foreign involvement in general, tax policy, torture, the use of drones, etc have all changed or altered throughout his campaign and presidency. We refuse to elect people that see us as "Americans" and continue to elect those that see us as "votes" or "constituents".
What we just did in class was to segment the population and say, oh, you're black here's a something that will appeal to you, oh, you're Asian, here's something that will appeal to you, oh, you're white, here's something that will appeal to you. In other areas of business that completely fine, but concerning politics, its horribly wrong. This classifies people into groups, when really, in politics, there should only be one group that matters, Americans. Our politicians should be protecting the rights of all of us, not just the ones that will get him or her elected.
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed." - Ayn Ran, Atlas Shrugged.
Its my opinion that this class discussion should have been strictly about business applications of sub cultures and segmentation, or at least touched on the ethical and moral issues of bringing this type of thinking into the political arena. Most people understand our country is fucked up, but few seem to question why.... we need to ask why, discuss why, and have a open and intellectual dialogue about why. Again though, just my opinion.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Illegal downloads...
So, I illegally download movies on a regular basis. Much of the time I am able to get movies still in theaters, or at the very latest, I am able to get them only minutes after the DVD is released. I know that many, if not most, of my friends do the same. Movies, music, games, programs, etc are all easily attainable online. Most of the time you hear this portrayed as a bad and immoral trend, but is it?
There are many studies that show when pirated material is readily available online smaller bands and movie companies are benefiting. http://www.cnet.com.au/pirates-who-pay-do-illegal-downloads-actually-help-the-box-office-339342557.htm This makes logical sense too. We always hear about how evil big corporations are, and how we should support the little guys, well here's a great opportunity to do that. Pay for the movies and music worth your money, and pirate the ones you wouldn't pay for in the first place (like THOR or 3OH3).
Also, from a market standpoint, what does this trend say about the price of movie and concert tickets or DVD and CD costs? Clearly there is a large, and growing, group of people who are saying that the value received is less than the value spent. This is why we have to fight to protect the internet and the ability it gives us to have a voice. The major sponsors of bills like SOPA and PIPA are the media companies who are getting rich on low quality products.
I guess my question is, do you illegally download music, movies, programs, etc? Do you feel wrong doing it? Should I feel wrong? I do pay for music and movies that i know to be worth my money. I think the last movies i paid to see were Into The Wild, Atlas Shrugged, and maybe Batman or 310 to Yuma or something. The last music i bought was the newest Trampled by Turtles album. I simply wouldn't spend my money to buy most of the media i download, so its not like im robbing these companies of money. Its a strange question, and something i think worth discussing.
There are many studies that show when pirated material is readily available online smaller bands and movie companies are benefiting. http://www.cnet.com.au/pirates-who-pay-do-illegal-downloads-actually-help-the-box-office-339342557.htm This makes logical sense too. We always hear about how evil big corporations are, and how we should support the little guys, well here's a great opportunity to do that. Pay for the movies and music worth your money, and pirate the ones you wouldn't pay for in the first place (like THOR or 3OH3).
Also, from a market standpoint, what does this trend say about the price of movie and concert tickets or DVD and CD costs? Clearly there is a large, and growing, group of people who are saying that the value received is less than the value spent. This is why we have to fight to protect the internet and the ability it gives us to have a voice. The major sponsors of bills like SOPA and PIPA are the media companies who are getting rich on low quality products.
I guess my question is, do you illegally download music, movies, programs, etc? Do you feel wrong doing it? Should I feel wrong? I do pay for music and movies that i know to be worth my money. I think the last movies i paid to see were Into The Wild, Atlas Shrugged, and maybe Batman or 310 to Yuma or something. The last music i bought was the newest Trampled by Turtles album. I simply wouldn't spend my money to buy most of the media i download, so its not like im robbing these companies of money. Its a strange question, and something i think worth discussing.
Our buggy moral code...
After watching Dan Ariely's presentation in class this afternoon, I had some thoughts that wouldn't really be great for classroom discussion. First of all, i believe the topic of today's discussion touched on some of the fundamental reasons why our country is in such a bad place. In general, the inability of most Americans to make "cool-state" decisions. These are, as Ariely described in the book, rational long term decisions.
From marriage to savings to electing the next president, Americans show an overwhelming failure in their ability to make rational long term choices. Consider the debt our country is in, over 16 trillion dollars, leaving each and every citizen of our country with over 51,000 dollars of debt. In the past 4 years of Obama's presidency the national debt has risen by over 5 trillion dollars. At some point our debtors will come knocking and this debt will have to be paid. Unfortunately there is also the option to continue what we've been doing and pass the debt along to our children and grandchildren, accumulating more debt along the way. As i said in my previous blog post the easy decision is usually the wrong decision. Its unbelievably easy to ignore the responsibility we have to leave our children a better country than we were given, but unfortunately thats the path our generation has continued to take.
Is it rational to spend more money than you make on a personal level? No! Then i must ask why its rational to do so on a national scale. Its difficult to make the decision to cut foreign involvement, decrease military presence around the world, reign in the out of control welfare spending, and in general decrease the size of government, but its these decisions that need to be made for long term prosperity and security. I don't say these things to support or denounce a particular party, but to illustrate the necessity of making "cool-state" choices concerning our government. The fact of the matter is that we cannot continue to make these short term choices, we simply can't afford to do it much longer.
I would love to leave my children a country with less debt and financial chaos than the one that was left to me, however, i really don't see a way to do this. Invariably the empire of fiat wealth we've erected will come to an end, it will be interesting to see how and when this will take place.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-farewell-to-congress-speech-transcript/
Read up, its well worth your time.
From marriage to savings to electing the next president, Americans show an overwhelming failure in their ability to make rational long term choices. Consider the debt our country is in, over 16 trillion dollars, leaving each and every citizen of our country with over 51,000 dollars of debt. In the past 4 years of Obama's presidency the national debt has risen by over 5 trillion dollars. At some point our debtors will come knocking and this debt will have to be paid. Unfortunately there is also the option to continue what we've been doing and pass the debt along to our children and grandchildren, accumulating more debt along the way. As i said in my previous blog post the easy decision is usually the wrong decision. Its unbelievably easy to ignore the responsibility we have to leave our children a better country than we were given, but unfortunately thats the path our generation has continued to take.
Is it rational to spend more money than you make on a personal level? No! Then i must ask why its rational to do so on a national scale. Its difficult to make the decision to cut foreign involvement, decrease military presence around the world, reign in the out of control welfare spending, and in general decrease the size of government, but its these decisions that need to be made for long term prosperity and security. I don't say these things to support or denounce a particular party, but to illustrate the necessity of making "cool-state" choices concerning our government. The fact of the matter is that we cannot continue to make these short term choices, we simply can't afford to do it much longer.
I would love to leave my children a country with less debt and financial chaos than the one that was left to me, however, i really don't see a way to do this. Invariably the empire of fiat wealth we've erected will come to an end, it will be interesting to see how and when this will take place.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-farewell-to-congress-speech-transcript/
Read up, its well worth your time.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Explain this behavior....
Consumer behavior, essentially, has 6 stages: Problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, purchase, and post purchase evaluation. With this being an election year, every citizen has a choice to make that will decide the next four years of this country's path. Whether realized or not, this is just another consumption process that we can analyze. My question is, where in the 6 stages have the American people gone so horribly wrong?
Do they enjoy being lied to? Do they support the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in countries they can't even locate on a map? Do they understand the constitution of the fundamental ideas behind it? Is forceful seizing of another's wealth and redistributing it to those in need really compassion? Is it understood that this country was never set up to be a democracy, but rather a democratic REPUBLIC? Have you noticed substantive differences in the policies of our government in the past... oh, 20 years? Is the war on drugs effective, constitutional, and necessary? Do you feel safer now that the TSA is allowed to violate your right to privacy? Are you safer since the war on terror began? How much research do the American people do on their own, completely independent of the television networks? On and on and on my questions for the American people go. Its frustrating to never get an answer.
Lets be direct, i believe the American people have failed in the second step of the consumption process. People don't care anymore. They are lazy, unmotivated, apathetic, and crushed. However, the problem runs much deeper than not researching the information. The foundation upon which to apply the information simply isn't there for most. Most don't understand how the federal reserve is directly accountable for the housing bubble and financial collapse of 2008. The concept of blowback and its role in the terror attacks of 9-11 are unknown to nearly everyone. Most don't understand the ideas of libertarianism, or the role it played in the founding of this country. Economics can be used to support nearly any viewpoint, and therefore must be looked at skeptically. Most people get all of the information they use to form their beliefs from major news medias. (FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Etc.) Its easy to do this, it takes little effort and little understanding. Parroting and regurgitating what other people are saying is a cop-out and a fundamental reason the course of our country has remained in a downward slide for decades.
Since the American people weren't even able to get past the second step of consumption effectively, i doubt most have properly evaluated alternatives. Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Andrew Napalitano, Ayn Rand, these are names that most people wouldn't recognize. (Ron Paul being a potential exception). These are people, that are often discredited and denounced by the major media outlets and, in turn, the American people. Its extremely unfortunate that this is true. Without reading the work that came from these minds and understanding the justification for the ideas in that work, the American people have chosen to reject these ideas outright. How shortsighted, shallow-minded, and ignorant. The two party system thrives in this country because of the lack of effort exerted by the populace. To think that we can classify 311 million people into two schools of thought is offensive to the extreme. It is however, easy, and thats the reason it continues to this day.
Rarely, if ever, is the easy course of action the correct course. Cheating, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long run results that you want? Stealing, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long term results you want. Eating junk food, its easy, but will it produce the long term results you want? Littering, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long term results you want? Failing to think critically, its easy and comforting, but will it produce the long term results you want? No. The point of this blog post is to encourage anyone who reads it to reevaluate the beliefs you hold, the reason you hold these beliefs, and the choice you get to make in November. If you're told something, chances are there is an inherent bias associated with the information. If you were to evaluate the purchases of the past 12 years concerning politics, are you satisfied? Can you honestly tell yourself that you're leaving a better country for our children than we were given? Have things gotten better or worse? Is there more cohesiveness or animosity in our country? Are our relations around the world better or worse? And the most important question of all, why? Research, research, research. Don't believe anything i told you, don't believe anything the news tells you, don't believe anything your friends tell you, research the issues for yourself and form your own opinions. Its hard, time consuming, and frustrating, but also rewarding and enlightening.
If you don't put in the time to research and understand the product you're buying, its benefits and drawbacks, and the alternatives to the product, you could very well end up purchasing crap. This is what the American people have been doing for decades and continue to wonder why this country is in the toilet. There are viable alternatives out there, you just have to look for em.
http://reason.com/
http://rt.com/
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
This last link is to Gary Johnson's election page. He is the 2012 Libertarian candidate for president. Like i said, look for yourself and decide for yourself. But being that we live in Bozeman, i figured people might be interested in knowing that he has climbed Everest (for the outdoor enthusiasts), supports legalizing marijuana, isn't funded by corporations like Obama and Romney, is against the NDAA, patriot act, and torture, and believes that government should not impose its values on marriage.
Remember what Obama ran on in 2008, and look into his promises and the outcome of these promises. Specifically research the issues surrounding the NDAA. If you're leaning more towards Romney, look into his foreign policy, blowback, the separation of church and state, and our current involvement in nation building overseas. Its scary stuff. And also, look into QE1, QE2, and the unlimited QE3. These represent the largest threat to our country and few people even know what they are, the effect they have, who supports them, why they are destructive, how they influence everything from the cost of education to lending rates and home prices. Research both sides of every topic, not just the side you believe to be right.
This is an important purchase, be sure you know what you're buying into.
Do they enjoy being lied to? Do they support the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in countries they can't even locate on a map? Do they understand the constitution of the fundamental ideas behind it? Is forceful seizing of another's wealth and redistributing it to those in need really compassion? Is it understood that this country was never set up to be a democracy, but rather a democratic REPUBLIC? Have you noticed substantive differences in the policies of our government in the past... oh, 20 years? Is the war on drugs effective, constitutional, and necessary? Do you feel safer now that the TSA is allowed to violate your right to privacy? Are you safer since the war on terror began? How much research do the American people do on their own, completely independent of the television networks? On and on and on my questions for the American people go. Its frustrating to never get an answer.
Lets be direct, i believe the American people have failed in the second step of the consumption process. People don't care anymore. They are lazy, unmotivated, apathetic, and crushed. However, the problem runs much deeper than not researching the information. The foundation upon which to apply the information simply isn't there for most. Most don't understand how the federal reserve is directly accountable for the housing bubble and financial collapse of 2008. The concept of blowback and its role in the terror attacks of 9-11 are unknown to nearly everyone. Most don't understand the ideas of libertarianism, or the role it played in the founding of this country. Economics can be used to support nearly any viewpoint, and therefore must be looked at skeptically. Most people get all of the information they use to form their beliefs from major news medias. (FOX, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Etc.) Its easy to do this, it takes little effort and little understanding. Parroting and regurgitating what other people are saying is a cop-out and a fundamental reason the course of our country has remained in a downward slide for decades.
Since the American people weren't even able to get past the second step of consumption effectively, i doubt most have properly evaluated alternatives. Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Andrew Napalitano, Ayn Rand, these are names that most people wouldn't recognize. (Ron Paul being a potential exception). These are people, that are often discredited and denounced by the major media outlets and, in turn, the American people. Its extremely unfortunate that this is true. Without reading the work that came from these minds and understanding the justification for the ideas in that work, the American people have chosen to reject these ideas outright. How shortsighted, shallow-minded, and ignorant. The two party system thrives in this country because of the lack of effort exerted by the populace. To think that we can classify 311 million people into two schools of thought is offensive to the extreme. It is however, easy, and thats the reason it continues to this day.
Rarely, if ever, is the easy course of action the correct course. Cheating, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long run results that you want? Stealing, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long term results you want. Eating junk food, its easy, but will it produce the long term results you want? Littering, its easy, but is it right and will it produce the long term results you want? Failing to think critically, its easy and comforting, but will it produce the long term results you want? No. The point of this blog post is to encourage anyone who reads it to reevaluate the beliefs you hold, the reason you hold these beliefs, and the choice you get to make in November. If you're told something, chances are there is an inherent bias associated with the information. If you were to evaluate the purchases of the past 12 years concerning politics, are you satisfied? Can you honestly tell yourself that you're leaving a better country for our children than we were given? Have things gotten better or worse? Is there more cohesiveness or animosity in our country? Are our relations around the world better or worse? And the most important question of all, why? Research, research, research. Don't believe anything i told you, don't believe anything the news tells you, don't believe anything your friends tell you, research the issues for yourself and form your own opinions. Its hard, time consuming, and frustrating, but also rewarding and enlightening.
If you don't put in the time to research and understand the product you're buying, its benefits and drawbacks, and the alternatives to the product, you could very well end up purchasing crap. This is what the American people have been doing for decades and continue to wonder why this country is in the toilet. There are viable alternatives out there, you just have to look for em.
http://reason.com/
http://rt.com/
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
This last link is to Gary Johnson's election page. He is the 2012 Libertarian candidate for president. Like i said, look for yourself and decide for yourself. But being that we live in Bozeman, i figured people might be interested in knowing that he has climbed Everest (for the outdoor enthusiasts), supports legalizing marijuana, isn't funded by corporations like Obama and Romney, is against the NDAA, patriot act, and torture, and believes that government should not impose its values on marriage.
Remember what Obama ran on in 2008, and look into his promises and the outcome of these promises. Specifically research the issues surrounding the NDAA. If you're leaning more towards Romney, look into his foreign policy, blowback, the separation of church and state, and our current involvement in nation building overseas. Its scary stuff. And also, look into QE1, QE2, and the unlimited QE3. These represent the largest threat to our country and few people even know what they are, the effect they have, who supports them, why they are destructive, how they influence everything from the cost of education to lending rates and home prices. Research both sides of every topic, not just the side you believe to be right.
This is an important purchase, be sure you know what you're buying into.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)