Conscious Consumerism and YOUR life

[Costanza]

What businesses, products or services do you buy/use because you support the owner or their cause?

What businesses, products or services do you not buy or use because you oppose the owner or their cause or methods?

Do you ever spend your money in ways which are detrimental to you or your beliefs? Do you support businesses or products with your money that you don't with your mind?

Have you ever adjusted your spending to match your beliefs?​

 

[Flawless]

there was a thread last night with some dude looking to buy a used Mac for his niece, dude could have bought a new laptop for half the price but he would rather spend twice the amount on a second hand laptop

 

[bromack1]

I'm glad you raised this question...

I hear too many people complain about corporations... but in those instances where they don't constitute a monopoly, you have the right not to buy there products...

For example, I use the model, if they don't employ black folk, they don't get my dollars...

 

[Costanza]

An example from my life would be that I stopped shopping at Wal-Mart this year. It can be difficult because they have everything at good prices, so when my car was broken down it offered a tempting convenience. But I don't support the way they drive small competitors out and especially the way they crush unions, keep wages low and scheme to keep workers part-time. So why should I support them as the tenth person in line at the one register they have open?

 

[Greed]

What businesses, products or services do you buy/use because you support the owner or their cause?

What businesses, products or services do you not buy or use because you oppose the owner or their cause or methods?

Do you ever spend your money in ways which are detrimental to you or your beliefs? Do you support businesses or products with your money that you don't with your mind?

Have you ever adjusted your spending to match your beliefs?​

No, and it sounds lime a nightmare of a marketplace.

If someone has a product that I value more than the money in my pocket and they are willing to sell it to me, then I'll buy it. Vice versa, if I have cash in my pocket that I'm ready to part with for a product they want to sell, then they should sell it to me.

And why are your premises so one-sided? If you think about the sell side, why would it make sense to worry about what a person, you're trading with, likes? Who cares about the color of their favorite shirt or the color of their favorite person, let alone their union stance.

It's modern day savagery to forego a trade, that makes you better off, just because of an arbitrary personal preference you are unnecessarily projecting onto the other person.

 

[bigirl]

I try my best. As a rule I do not support walmart AT ALL but recently they had EXACT same lamp made my exact same manufacturer in China as Bed Bath and Beyond just in 2 different boxes with 2 different brand names. I inspected every inch of the lamps including manufacturers tag and were the same lamp but $89.99 in BBB and $39.99 in walmart so what was I to do? I do not have $50 to just throw away just to feel like a good person for not supporting walmart and have serious doubts as to if supporting BBB is any better.

I do NOT buy GMOs nor from any companies that pay big $ lobbying against labelling GMOs bill. That pretty much means any packaged processed american food. I also do my best to not support whole foods as much as possible but there is one particular thing called field roast that ONLY they carry and I need it so they get that tiny lil change for that and if I see good sales I will pick up a minimum amount of items maybe once a month or every 2 months.

Basically try to avoid big corporate everything as much as possible. If I buy "brand name" clothing it is never at full price only at supersales or tj maxx loehmanns type places. My one weakness is classic Adidas in orange which are hard to come by and if I see them I must grab them.

 

[Majestic Lion]

It's modern day savagery to forego a trade, that makes you better off, just because of an arbitrary personal preference you are unnecessarily projecting onto the other person.

No. It's not savagery to have principles that you live by, nor is it "arbitrary". You just don't agree with the reasoning, that is another matter entirely.

 

[Greed]

It is savagery if those principles leave you worse off than you were before.

 

[Costanza]

I try my best. As a rule I do not support walmart AT ALL but recently they had EXACT same lamp made my exact same manufacturer in China as Bed Bath and Beyond just in 2 different boxes with 2 different brand names. I inspected every inch of the lamps including manufacturers tag and were the same lamp but $89.99 in BBB and $39.99 in walmart so what was I to do? I do not have $50 to just throw away just to feel like a good person for not supporting walmart and have serious doubts as to if supporting BBB is any better.

Well, if the incentive is just to improve your self-esteem, then I'd agree you were throwing your money away. Is that really the sum of why you don't support Wal-Mart?

I do NOT buy GMOs nor from any companies that pay big $ lobbying against labelling GMOs bill. That pretty much means any packaged processed american food. I also do my best to not support whole foods as much as possible but there is one particular thing called field roast that ONLY they carry and I need it so they get that tiny lil change for that and if I see good sales I will pick up a minimum amount of items maybe once a month or every 2 months.

Basically try to avoid big corporate everything as much as possible. If I buy "brand name" clothing it is never at full price only at supersales or tj maxx loehmanns type places. My one weakness is classic Adidas in orange which are hard to come by and if I see them I must grab them.

You say "as much as possible" a lot. Isn't it as possible as you want it to be?

 

[Costanza]

No, and it sounds lime a nightmare of a marketplace.

If someone has a product that I value more than the money in my pocket and they are willing to sell it to me, then I'll buy it. Vice versa, if I have cash in my pocket that I'm ready to part with for a product they want to sell, then they should sell it to me.

And why are your premises so one-sided? If you think about the sell side, why would it make sense to worry about what a person, you're trading with, likes? Who cares about the color of their favorite shirt or the color of their favorite person, let alone their union stance.

It's modern day savagery to forego a trade, that makes you better off, just because of an arbitrary personal preference you are unnecessarily projecting onto the other person.

So if I know that I can get a sweet deal on a certain type of diamond that is extracted through the risky and forced labor of poor children, the savagery is not taking the deal?

 

[bigirl]

Well, if the incentive is just to improve your self-esteem, then I'd agree you were throwing your money away. Is that really the sum of why you don't support Wal-Mart?
You say "as much as possible" a lot. Isn't it as possible as you want it to be?

I dont support walmart because of its horrible treatment of its staff, putting small businesses out of business and selling crappy made in china bs for like a 10,000 % profit baiscally.

As for as much as possible with whole foods it is exactly that. As much as possible. I do not eat meat nor gmo soy foods and where I am at right now they are the ONLY place that carries certain few products that I NEED so I only support them for those products and if I happen to see really good sale on something while there I will scoop it up while already there and also make sure to eat as much from the bulk bins and olive bar as possible and ask to sample EVERYTHING from cheese and prepared foods counters and leave full

 

[Costanza]

I don't support Walmart because of its horrible treatment of its staff, putting small businesses out of business and selling crappy made in china bs for like a 10,000 % profit unless that profit allows me to save 50 bucks on a lamp. Basically.

Fixed.

Correct?

You set your price at $50 for that lamp but you could easily produce $50 in savings by filling up a shopping cart. What's the difference?

 

[Greed]

So if I know that I can get a sweet deal on a certain type of diamond that is extracted through the risky and forced labor of poor children, the savagery is not taking the deal?

Unlike my example, your example is fill with harm to someone along the production chain. In your example, you are better off by bypassing that seller.

My example was full of difference of opinions that expressed no explicit harm.

 

[Costanza]

Unlike my example, your example is fill with harm to someone along the production chain. In your example, you are better off by bypassing that seller.

My example was full of difference of opinions that expressed no explicit harm.

"Beliefs" and "opinions" do not always pertain strictly to the harmless.

Take my Walmart example-- Suppressing wages, scheming to deny full-time status to workers to avoid paying insurance, driving smaller competitors out of business... I'd say they do considerable and tangible harm.

 

[Greed]

"Beliefs" and "opinions" do not always pertain strictly to the harmless.

I can concede that.

But maybe you should consider that the values of our actions are dominated by who is harmed and who isn't. If an action is harmful to someone along the way, like in your example, then neither is better off. If no one is harmed, like in my example, then everyone is better off.

 

[Greed]

"Beliefs" and "opinions" do not always pertain strictly to the harmless.

Take my Walmart example-- Suppressing wages, scheming to deny full-time status to workers to avoid paying insurance, driving smaller competitors out of business... I'd say they do considerable and tangible harm.

I responded after you edited, but I woul not call any of that tangible harm. Those are economic consequences that could have been avoided by the other party involved. There are no villains or victims in the scenarios you are outlining. Just winners or losers.

Winners and losers don't equate to villains and victims.

 

[Costanza]

I can concede that.

But maybe you should consider that the values of our actions are dominated by who is harmed and who isn't. If an action is harmful to someone along the way, like in your example, then neither is better off. If no one is harmed, like in my example, then everyone is better off.

I responded after you edited, but I woul not call any of that tangible harm. Those are economic consequences that could have been avoided by the other party involved. There are no villains or victims in the scenarios you are outlining. Just winners or losers.

Winners and losers don't equate to villains and victims.

Villains are those who create "losers" rather than winning together.

But less generally, you wouldn't call what happened in Bangladesh tangible harm?

 

[Greed]

Villains are those who create "losers" rather than winning together.

But less generally, you wouldn't call what happened in Bangladesh tangible harm?

The winner has zero moral obligation to make sure the loser also gets something out of the trade. The loser is responsible for ensuring the trade is also to his benefit since the transaction is voluntary.

There is nothing inherent in trading that implies a zero-sum game. The loser fucked up by not securing his own well-being. By default, the winner hasnt done something shady just because the loser isn't better off.

As far as Bangladesh, there is a thread on this board about that. Despite their events its a voluntary economic transaction. They need to work harder for themselves to ensure whatever safety standards are necessary are applied.

I said in that thread that any American is a hypocrite for criticizing those circumstance since you are enjoying the standard of living increases resulting from America's own experience with that phase of the industrial age. Overall, don't contradict what the Bangladesh people have judged is right for them.

 

[bigirl]

Fixed.

Correct?

You set your price at $50 for that lamp but you could easily produce $50 in savings by filling up a shopping cart. What's the difference?

The way I shop I will not produce $50 of savings filling up a shopping cart. There is also nothing there for me to fill up a shopping cart with. The lamp in fact is the only item I have ever purchased at walmart and probably the last. It was just so ridiculous it had to be done. I am sure that if I were to do a little research in Bed Bath and Beyond I would find just as much dirt and reasons to not support them too.

 

[Costanza]

The way I shop I will not produce $50 of savings filling up a shopping cart. There is also nothing there for me to fill up a shopping cart with. The lamp in fact is the only item I have ever purchased at walmart and probably the last. It was just so ridiculous it had to be done. I am sure that if I were to do a little research in Bed Bath and Beyond I would find just as much dirt and reasons to not support them too.

 

[Costanza]

The winner has zero moral obligation to make sure the loser also gets something out of the trade. The loser is responsible for ensuring the trade is also to his benefit since the transaction is voluntary.

There is nothing inherent in trading that implies a zero-sum game. The loser fucked up by not securing his own well-being. By default, the winner hasnt done something shady just because the loser isn't better off.

As far as Bangladesh, there is a thread on this board about that. Despite their events its a voluntary economic transaction. They need to work harder for themselves to ensure whatever safety standards are necessary are applied.

I said in that thread that any American is a hypocrite for criticizing those circumstance since you are enjoying the standard of living increases resulting from America's own experience with that phase of the industrial age. Overall, don't contradict what the Bangladesh people have judged is right for them.

How hard did you have to work for yourself to ensure whatever safety standards are necessary are applied?

And you have the nerve to point out hypocrites from your glass house.

I criticize those circumstances. To which utopia am I required to move and how am I getting there?

 

[Greed]

How hard did you have to work for yourself to ensure whatever safety standards are necessary are applied?

And you have the nerve to point out hypocrites from your glass house.

People on this board have a perpetually weird perspective.

I'm not like you or any other professed victim on this board. I've readily quit jobs that don't meet my standards for what I want to achieve, whether it be physical safety or financial security. I personally would never look to government or the goodwill of an employer to make me better off.

But to answer your question, I have to work very hard to ensure my own well-being. I take it for granted that on this board such a thing is a completely foreign concept.

I criticize those circumstances. To which utopia am I required to move and how am I getting there?

You don't owe anyone anything or have to move as payment for the quality of life you were born into through no volition of your own.

However, don't shit on someone else who can see the results of those choices and choose to work towards having their children live as well, in the future, as you live right now.

That's what kills me about you guys' preachy attitudes. I can't relate to the problems of the average Bangladeshi or Chinese so I say leave it to their best judgement, especially when they are just following the path of already rich countries. You can't relate to the life they have to live through and you proceed to tell them, unsolicited, what good for them.

And to get back to the point of this thread, it's ridiculous to care about the state of a random Bangladeshi when making your consumption decision. Stop thinking of them as your children and let them worry about themselves. I guarantee they'll have better results.

The way Bangladesh and China are making economic decisions to make themselves better off is an example how you would benefit from that same mentality.

 

[Costanza]

People on this board have a perpetually weird perspective.

I'm not like you or any other professed victim on this board. I've readily quit jobs that don't meet my standards for what I want to achieve, whether it be physical safety or financial security. I personally would never look to government or the goodwill of an employer to make me better off.

But to answer your question, I have to work very hard to ensure my own well-being. I take it for granted that on this board such a thing is a completely foreign concept.

Where did I profess victimhood? Why must you personalize the issue when you know almost nothing of me personally?

You don't owe anyone anything or have to move as payment for the quality of life you were born into through no volition of your own.

Not everyone interprets everything through the prism of obligation and what is owed.

However, don't shit on someone else who can see the results of those choices and choose to work towards having their children live as well, in the future, as you live right now.

That's what kills me about you guys' preachy attitudes. I can't relate to the problems of the average Bangladeshi or Chinese so I say leave it to their best judgement, especially when they are just following the path of already rich countries. You can't relate to the life they have to live through and you proceed to tell them, unsolicited, what good for them.

And to get back to the point of this thread, it's ridiculous to care about the state of a random Bangladeshi when making your consumption decision. Stop thinking of them as your children and let them worry about themselves. I guarantee they'll have better results.

The way Bangladesh and China are making economic decisions to make themselves better off is an example how you would benefit from that same mentality.

Total fiction. The masses in Bangladesh and China do not control their fortunes or lack thereof.

There's nothing paternalistic about treating all individuals as if their lives have values.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

Yes, Wal Mart has shitty labor practices, crushes local businesses, and sells sweatshop goods at inflated markups, but then who doesn't? They are just doing the same shit every other department store does. The main reason that their goods are often cheaper than most other places is because of their purchasing power and superior logistics NOT because they exploit people worse than the next store.

Besides, I don't believe that any Wal Mart has ever been successfully boycotted out of existence. if you're really against Wal Mart you need to attend your local city counsel meetings and try to get their building permits denied. How many of y'all have done that?

 

[Greed]

Where did I profess victimhood? Why must you personalize the issue when you know almost nothing of me personally?

Personalize? I thought I was making a blanket generalization about people who make post like the one you made originally.

Not everyone interprets everything through the prism of obligation and what is owed.

That's a direct judgment on why the world is the way it is.

No seller or buyer has any obligation to make you feel better about your 1st world concerns, or owe anyone more than what they owe to themselves.

If the world worried more about obligations and what was owed, the human race would actually fuck with each other less instead of making up arbitrary standards to hold each other to.

Total fiction. The masses in Bangladesh and China do not control their fortunes or lack thereof.

They are making their children better off just like every poor nation before that is now rich, including the United States.

You must think the rising standard of living in both countries are pure luck and have nothing to do with the choices they're made.

All you guys pretend you're some defender of poor people when every thought in your head makes it obvious you don't think much of them at all.

There's nothing paternalistic about treating all individuals as if their lives have values.

The paternalistic part is people like you defining the values their lives should have independent of their choice.

You consider them victims while they are making a choice that has clearly benefited China in the last 30 years and by all account will benefit Bangladesh in 30 years.

 

[Greed]

if you're really against Wal Mart you need to attend your local city counsel meetings and try to get their building permits denied. How many of y'all have done that?

What a disgusting logic. Someone you don't like isn't doing anything to you or anything illegal, so just use the power of government to limit their activities.

I hope your username is accurate and you aren't black.

 

[QueEx]

What a disgusting logic. Someone you don't like isn't doing anything to you or anything illegal, so just use the power of government to limit their activities.

I hope your username is accurate and you aren't black.

Whether or not his protest is worthy or not, I think you're way over-the-top to call it disgusting. Protest, especially those of the non-violent variety, are as much a part of our form of governance as those things you might find self-evident, the Boston Tea Party and the Civil Rights Movement being preeminent examples that readily come to mind. Every city hall in America holds public hearings on the regular (through their city councils and zoning, adjustment and/or planning boards) on precisely the issue: whether or not a particular business is suitable to the location planned.

 

[Greed]

Whether or not his protest is worthy or not, I think you're way over-the-top to call it disgusting. Protest, especially those of the non-violent variety, are as much a part of our form of governance as those things you might find self-evident, the Boston Tea Party and the Civil Rights Movement being preeminent examples that readily come to mind. Every city hall in America holds public hearings on the regular (through their city councils and zoning, adjustment and/or planning boards) on precisely the issue: whether or not a particular business is suitable to the location planned.

It's disgusting because it reflects the mindset of savages.

On the face of it, you think it makes sense to petition change through government using non-violent protest in response to another party's non-violent action, that you don't like.

But if the other person's actions are non-violent, then what are you protesting?

In reality, you've outsourced the bat in your closet to you local morally bankrupt politicans.

Our philosophy differ because I believe government's only mechanism for action is force, and all force against anyone, who's done nothing wrong, is the work of a savage.

You brought up two examples where the non-violent protest was actually in response to explicit violence against the protesters, by their own government mind you. That's not what his comment was about. All of you subscribe to a mindset where you regulate voluntary trade with political force. You're just new-age savages who think you're refined because you vote in the bats instead of using it yourself.

 

[QueEx]

It's [citizen protests; residents voicing their opinions to and making requests of city hall] disgusting because it reflects the mindset of savages.

Is this some previously unheard of or underground form of radical libertarianism or radical conservatism? Seriously son!

While people are fretting over the NSA, this the kind of shit somebody better pay attention to: those who deem citizens to be savages for telling government how they feel

You're calling people savages for exercising a fundamental right, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that is a basic tenet of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?!?!?!?

Clearly, this thought process MUST arise out of some new kind of radical religion, maybe? - because people I know even on the far left and far right fringes, damn near universally, believe it to be the right of ordinary people to tell government what they feel.

 

[Greed]

Is this some previously unheard of or underground form of radical libertarianism or radical conservatism? Seriously son!

While people are fretting over the NSA, this the kind of shit somebody better pay attention to: those who deem citizens to be savages for telling government how they feel

You're calling people savages for exercising a fundamental right, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that is a basic tenet of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?!?!?!?

Clearly, this thought process MUST arise out of some new kind of radical religion, maybe? - because people I know even on the far left and far right fringes, damn near universally, believe it to be the right of ordinary people to tell government what they feel.

Either way.

I'm fine with letting people read both of our post and see if they think I said, "don't tell government what they feel."

 

[QueEx]

I'm fine with it either way, as well:

If the people reading your comments come to the conclusion that you did not say that they, the people, telling their government what they feel reflects the mindset of savages, then I'm okay with that.

If, on the other hand, people reading your comments come to the conclusion that you're now trying to disown what you said, I'm fine with that too.​

 

[Majestic Lion]

It is savagery if those principles leave you worse off than you were before.

According to...who? You?
By what standard(s)? Yours?

 

[Greed]

According to...who? You?

According to a cost-benefit analysis.

By what standard(s)? Yours?

Reality

 

[Majestic Lion]

According to a cost-benefit analysis.


Reality

LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL.

Enjoy your cancers.

 

[Greed]

LOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL.

Enjoy your cancers.

I don't get it. Is reality a cancer? Along with cost-benefit analysis?

Or will you get cancer by adhering to these things?