If people were really smart, particularly in the USA, What do you think they'd stop doing by now?
If people were really smart, particularly in the USA, What do you think they'd stop doing by now?
Giving money to Amazon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Google .etc
It's like, you can't have an argument for price gouging, when you're enabling them by spending. If people were smart, they'd stop giving them money 10 - 15 years ago and they'd be right now, trying to reconstruct so they can be more economically friendly than how they are now.
A person is smart. People, not so much.
Great movie
Because with stuff like this you cannot simply say "everyone should know better" they don't know btr, they don't care, they don't understand. For a myriad of reasons people will always do stuff counter to best logic, so you cannot ask them to. The only practical way to prevent stuff like this is through regulation and a government that serves the people. Lol it's nice to dream.
Yeah, and also even if there's smart people doing it, it doesn't matter. Supposed 10% of people don't use Amazon, as long as 90% are fine, it won't affect them. Most people won't look beyond "it costs me less", the whole reason thing like temu is widespread is exactly that. People don't care about other people, ethics of things, or even the long term effects of their actions. They just see low price vs high price on everyday setting.
If a chain restaurant gave half price food for a year in a loss to take out all local businesses people would gladly buy it. And then when everything is gone and that chain raises price because there's no competition they'll just blame other people, economy, whatever they can find.
In many cases it also comes from the side that people can't afford to spend more money for the right reasons. Many people are living paycheck to paycheck, and those that aren't, are still not well off and want to save as much money as they can for retirement/emergencies. You can't count on anyone except yourself for your future, so they'll take whatever costs them less now.
If a chain restaurant gave half price food for a year in a loss to take out all local businesses people would gladly buy it. And then when everything is gone and that chain raises price because there’s no competition they’ll just blame other people, economy, whatever they can find.
Nice summarization of modern day capitalism, this is pretty much the play book. Operate on a loss and Survive off of investments until you have created a monopoly, then the price is whatever you want, use your newfound endless wealth to pay the government to create fake consumer protections that's only goal is to increase the startup capital required to attempt to compete with you thus securing your monopoly, all while the poorest people have all of their money transferred to the people with too much money.
Then you have people come around with this unwise narrative that people need to just "choose with their wallets" like somehow you can convince enough people, who are at a majority financially unstable because of unregulated capitalism, to spend more money than they have, to stop capitalism. I totally understand where they're coming from with this, but sadly it just serves the capitalists by placing the blame for their gross greed on the people instead of on them. Its the same thing with consumer recycling agendas when global warming was a new concept, its redirecting the blame onto the wrong people.
Stop. Electing. Fraudsters.
Especially when the fraudster is a convicted felon.
I'm doing better now, but 15 years ago Walmart was the only option I had for food. Local/regional grocery stores were more expensive and I was living paycheck to paycheck with growing debt.
"If people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient option" is really not feasible.
"If people were smart" they would read and stop putting oligarchs in power.
“If people were smart they would stop buying the most cost-efficient option” is really not feasible.
In fact, more and more people don't have the luxury of buying more expensive options.
Of course, stealing is an option, and I think 'If people were smart' they would accept that stealing from Walmart is not an ethical or pragmatic problem, but it's a risky behavior so I wouldn't criticize people for not stealing. [edit: see Fubarberry's reply]
Stealing from walmart also isn't sustainable if many people are doing it. For example there were a ton of walmarts and other stores in the Chicago area that recently closed due to high theft at those locations. Now whole communities there are left without convenient shopping options, which can be a big problem for people with limited transportation options.
But you'll notice that the price comparison is narrowing and Wal-Mart is slowly not looking better off than the competition. It's almost like shopping at Dollar Tree is more feasible, it's what some of us are going to be forced to be doing if not now. Just shopping Dollar Tree almost regularly.
Building electric car charging stations without security cameras.
About 75% of the chargers are disabled in my city. The primary method of disabling them is roll up with a sawzall and just chop the cable off. Gets you $5 worth of crack, which is always a nice incentive structure when there’s unguarded copper lying around.
The only chargers that survive are in front of 24 hour businesses.
Believing public figures on camera, or on a dais with a mic in front of them.
Thinking that they have the "one simple trick" for everything when most matters are actually a complex network of issues where there isn't one answer.
And not counting for the variables like what could go wrong, short-term gains, long-term gains .etc
Ignoring the fact that alternative voting systems exist and there can be more then two political parties.
It's not about "smart" vs "dumb." People's ideas are shaped by their Class Interests and Material Coniditons.
That we haven't learned more from history and keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Voting for fascists/not voting
They would understand that socialism is not communism. Also you can have capitalism and socialism at the same time, you just have to give and take a little.
They would understand that socialism is not communism.
Socialism has so many definitions that this can be subjectively true or false. This isn't even some trivial gotcha, the terms were used interchangeably even by significant writers of the 1800s. For another example, a socialist mode of production and a capitalist mode of production are contradictory.
If one wants to make these kind of broad claims without starting pointless arguments, they'll need to use a more specific term than 'socialism'.
You're wrong about literally all of that.
Drinking alcohol. Lots of people drink way too much and make life ruining decisions.
The obvious answer is fossil fuels, right? Few people want to cook the climate, they just can't quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.
Less obviously, feeding all our most sensitive data to random websites and apps. Again, the threat just doesn't look enough like a sabre-tooth tiger.
Fossil fuels is kinda a prisoner's dilemma issue. Everyone cooperating to save the planet is obviously ideal, but realistically there are always going to be companies/countries that won't. And as long as it's cheaper to not be environmentally friendly, there's always going to be someone taking that option.
For example, lets say country A passes new regulations on manufacturing to be more environmentally friendly. The new regulations take the country's manufacturing from low pollution to very low pollution. However the increase in cost causes many companies to stop manufacturing locally, and instead outsource their manufacturing to country B with low regulation and moderate pollution during manufacturing. The end result is more money leaving the local economy of country A, and increased global pollution.
It's a similar prisoner's dilemma for the individual companies involved. If your competitor is able to make their product for cheaper because their process is less environmentally friendly, then they can undercut you and put you out of business.
The tragedy of the commons is definitely part of it, but until recently there was a sort of global consensus anyway. Domestically climate change action - real action - is unpopular.
Few people want to cook the climate, they just can’t quite fathom something that abstract and slow-moving, so they do it anyway.
I don't think the problem is that people are unaware. Even people who believe they are against cooking the environment have other rationalisations, like "the economy isn't able to shut down all the coal plants yet, it'll collapse". Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
No, it's not that people are unaware, or even don't believe it, it's that they can't reason about it strategically
It's spending now to save later. If that's about military spending or emergency services everyone gets paying taxes for it, but words are as far as most will go to stop nonspecific far future weather. Even when people talk about the situation with climate change, you hear them frame it in moral terms instead of practical terms.
Case in point: Canada has a carbon tax, and a majority want to get rid of it. Denialism is not a prominent part of the campaign, just the fact that it costs something. And not even much, and it's all given back in refunds - doesn't matter, the extra gas cost people will bear is zero.
Thinking that "being smart" means shit. We need to realize that the people who run things aren't necessarily smart. Presidents aren't necessarily smart. Professors aren't necessarily smart.
And being smart doesn't mean you're good. Evil smart is a nightmare, because destroying is so much easier than building.
What would we do if we were good? Now that's a question.
There's smart and then there's cunning.
A lot of people in power aren't smart - they're cunning.
Processed food and high sugar diets are killing us.
These foods are addictive, and ubiquitous. A well informed and smart american would still have a problem switching over to whole food only. (Where the ingredient label only says one thing).
+ meat
Yeah, I said it.
I respectfully disagree, but in glad you have a diet that works for you
You're not getting cashback on your credit cards yous daft cunts 😂 You're paying it in advance
Stop generalising groups of people.
I cannot think of a proper example rn, but I see this everywhere.
meme example
group a does x
also group a: says something contradicting x
This happens across the board, not only in political topics.
Stop driving (pollution, deaths, cost of living etc) and remodel cities and town around PT and AT , restricted gun ownership
Buying and carrying guns.
they would stop wasting their money
Payday loans.
The smart part is realizing the havoc payday loans inflict on one's finances.
If people were really smart, how would they post insults to make them less obvious?