If people are willing to pay ridiculous prices for items such as $1200 shoes or $5000 watches, or even a $600 PS3 at what point do the prices stop going up? At what point does someone say i will no longer pay these prices. Wouldn't this deflate the constantly rising price of things, including the cost of living? At what point does it stop? When will it cost $8 dollars for bottled water or $25 dollar for a happy meal. When will American revolt?
2006-12-24
14:35:24
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Economics
This is not a question of being able to afford an item but what requirements are met in order to dictate such a price for said item. For instance who dictates that a simple rock (diamond) be placed to a standard that someone would be willing to pay ridiculous amounts of currency for it. Regardless of what it takes to attain the diamond it is still but a simple rock. The point of the actual question is when you live in a world where people die from starvation, disease, among other things. What do you tell yourself when you make a purchase of a $5000 dollar watch that tells the same time as a $20 dollar watch? Each person makes there own choice as to what value is to them but what does that say for that individual? Im not judging, Im asking. Life doesn't always go on sometimes it goes extinct.
2006-12-24
15:32:52 ·
update #1
Will capitalism and consumerism destroy America? Nope, Capitalism is here to stay because a goverment controlled companies cant meet demand that a private company can. Privatization schemes in the 1990s all over the world as a good thing for the long term because that company can make discisions based on cosumer perferences than trying to meet goverment production goals. The cost of electronics will keep dropping in price long term regradless if Asian countries currencies rise, and the value of the dollar falls or rises because mass of production, and better manufacturing distrubtion automation will make shoes, CD players, computers cheaper regradless of currency flucations because of massive increases in efficencies.
America will still be wealthest country 100 years from now, but the gap in living standards between 3rd and 1st will narrow in the coming decades. Video games in 2006 are cheaper on average than a video game in 1987, and has better graphics, and artifical intellegence.
Food production gotten better becaues of biotechnology and now thier designing crops that can grow in any enviroment, and produce yields that would of been possible 60 years ago.
People are creative, ingeonous beings, regradless of race, relgion, criminality. Finally, America will not revolt because the odds of even a country with per captia of $5000 dollars the odds of revolt less than 1% a year statistically anyways.
America per capita around 40,000 probadly be 60,000 in the next 25 years, and America economy may slow down a bit on growth, but it will still grow better than the economy did in the 1970s
2006-12-24 17:09:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by ram456456 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
hen will it cost $8 dollars for bottled water or $25 dollar for a happy meal. When will American revolt?
Update : This is not a question of being able to afford an item but what requirements are met in order to dictate such a price for said item. For instance who dictates that a simple rock (diamond) be placed to a standard that someone would be willing to pay ridiculous amounts of currency for it. Regardless of what it takes to attain the diamond it is still but a simple rock. The point of the actual question is when you live in a world where people die from starvation, disease, among other things. What do you tell yourself when you make a purchase of a $5000 dollar watch that tells the same time as a $20 dollar watch? Each person makes there own choice as to what value is to them bu
2014-10-12 00:08:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, we are spending way too much, and saving too little. Your happy meal costs already $20 in some countries, but not here in the US. We are still paying much less for goods than most people in Europe do. For people who spend $1200 for a pair of shoes, they want to spend that, they have a choice, and could purchase 20 pairs or more for that amount. Way to many people will shop with credit cards and then take years to pay them off, that is what will destroy the US one day.
2006-12-24 16:57:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by HSB 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not every pair of shoes costs $1200; and not every watch costs $5000. A perfectly good, serviceable, and fashionable pair of shoes can be purchased at a price that represents a 90% discount, or more, from $1200; ditto with respect to a perfectly good, serviceable, and fashionable watch, which can be purchased at a price that represents a 90% discount or more, probably more like 95%, discount from $5000.
The people who buy $1200 pairs of shoes and $5000 watches are those who can afford to pay those prices and who are satisfied that they are receiving value for value at those prices. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and extracting exorbitant prices from them against their will. Money that belongs to the buyers of those items is being exchanged in wholly voluntary and mutually consensual transactions for shoes and watches that belong to the sellers. After the consummation of those transactions, money in amounts equal to the respective purchase prices belongs to the sellers and the goods sold to the purchasers belong to the purchasers.
If you are the purchaser in one or more of those types of transactions and believe that you have a legitimate complaint, please enlighten us by articulating your complaint and the reasons for it.
If you are not the purchaser in one or more of those types of transactions and believe that you nevertheless have a legitimate complaint, please enlighten us by articulating your complaint and the reasons for it, and also please enlighten us by articulating the basis on which you think you have standing to lodge any complaint at all about the transaction.
When I use the word "complaint" in this message I mean something entirely different from the word "criticism," and I hope you are able to observe this distinction in formulating your replies.
If you have skin in the game, you may have standing as a victim. If you do not have skin in the game, any complaint you may think you are entitled to lodge sounds more like a criticism or a species of kibitzing and identifies you as a critic rather than a victim, with no standing to lodge a victim's complaint.
2006-12-24 15:10:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Terrorism is defined academically as wanton centred on of civilians. it somewhat is engaged in by potential of governments or guerillas. there is not any difference in offender status with appreciate to perpetrators; it somewhat is the status of the victims that comes to a decision the difficulty. The term "terrorism" is heavily abused by potential of the mass media to reference any and all resistance movements that employ violence. somewhat,non-governmental protection tension interest is often talked approximately as asymetrical conflict; i.e. a militant NGO squaring off against a suitable armed forces. Collatoral injury could reference components or human beings yet despite the fact that civilians could die it would not encompass terrorism different than there grew to become into no credible protection tension objective,wherein case there comes forth a offender presumption that civilians have been in certainty the purpose. indoors the context of the Palestinian conflict,who's or isn't finally the terrorist of the piece could desire to be desperate on the muse of the civilian kill ratio. And the IDF kills a thoughts,lots greater suitable civilians that the incredibly some Palestinian resistance communities. despite the fact that they're in a position to wonderful at civilian targets,as is the IDF. the two are in a position to legally definable terrorism; despite the fact that the IDF if by potential of any normative everyday the greater suitable advantageous offender and somewhat constantly so,this on the muse of the kill ratio. Sorry to sound chilly-blooded yet it somewhat is international regulation and offender terminology is oftentimes decrease returned and dried.
2016-10-28 07:54:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
First You have to provide a definition for 'destroy'...
From where the people of the World, who have ability to see the reality, are looking to USA, the admitting that there is NOTHING left from America, it has been destroyed in the end of Twenty Century, when Americans' Capitalism system has failed everywhere in the World.
There is no doubt that the people of the World must find a new system that answers to the needs of this century and all near future centuries. Until that day, everyone must live with this corrupt capitalism system that its destroyed DEAD body has been fallen the ground disturbing everyone!
2006-12-24 15:28:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Iranian Amigo 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
It will not. As long as America continue to have semi-colonies, it will remain as the strongest country in the world.
2006-12-24 16:49:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Regidor P 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
NO, it's what is going to save it. People said the same thing as you when you could buy gas for $0.25 a gal. but life goes on.
2006-12-24 14:46:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
nah. its a dog eat dog, winner dog purchases other dog's hide kind of world.
2006-12-24 14:44:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by the Bruja is back 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Capitalism and consumerism MADE AMERICA!!!!!!
2006-12-24 14:46:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋