Not signed in (Sign In)

Welcome, Guest

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Winnipeg City Issues & Urban Affairs: Common sense - want vs need when spending

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 70

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Interesting that the freep actually put in a "common sense" article in the paper...although I doubt many will learn a lesson from it. Will this type of behaviour do "western" economy in? Would acquiring less stuff actually make us happier people?

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4167047p-4754849c.html

    Last week, Hill sent me an e-mail to share his thoughts on the ongoing 'want versus need' conversation. He believes most of us could spend less, donate more and still live happy, full lives.

    We just need to be able to distinguish between what we want and what we actually need. Hill sees few signs people are willing to sacrifice immediate gratification for long-term benefit.

    They don't understand the consequences of overspending and buying on credit, he says.
    "Paying interest is like smoking cigarettes. You get nothing for your money," the 79-year-old says crisply.
    ...
    Hill has lived his life as people of a certain generation do. You spent what you earned and not a penny more. You didn't run up debts. That way of thinking has vanished, he thinks, as people fall prey to relentless advertising of stuff they don't need.

    "I think the government should run a minute of warning after each ad on TV. It could say 'if you buy this crap it will make you fat, it will give you diabetes and you'll go broke.'"
  2.  
    Maybe government should take heed of this guys advice..."sacrfice immediate gratification for long-term benefit". Especially just prior to an election.
  3.  
    Posted By: FreethinkerMaybe government should take heed of this guys advice..."sacrfice immediate gratification for long-term benefit". Especially just prior to an election.


    Government wouldn't do it if the people didn't buy it...
  4.  
    Precisely, but aren't we supposed to elect "leaders".
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    We elect people who do what they think will get them elected the next time around.

    That being said, perahps it is another reason for term limits. During the final term that 'incentive' is no longer there, and the politician might actually do what's right for a change.
    Thankful People: Jimmytufish
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    I think Television, radio, internet and print based advertising venues should be able to be held liable for any products that are advertised with them.
  7.  
    Posted By: StBPeggerWe elect people who do what they think will get them elected the next time around.

    That being said, perahps it is another reason for term limits. During the final term that 'incentive' is no longer there, and the politician might actually do what's right for a change.


    Thanks, you're right. I only thought we elected leaders.
  8.  
    Posted By: DeanKI think Television, radio, internet and print based advertising venues should be able to be held liable for any products that are advertised with them.


    But why??
  9.  
    Posted By: StBPeggerHe believes most of us could spend less, donate more and still live happy, full lives.



    Thanks. Now he can go back to living his life, and let everyone else live theirs.


    Posted By: StBPeggerWe just need to be able to distinguish between what we want and what we actually need


    Why?
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Posted By: thorninyoursideWe just need to be able to distinguish between what we want and what we actually need
    Why?
    Just take a look down south at all the people who WANTED houses.
    You could also take a look at landfills, or where all the stuff we WANT to consume goes.
    http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ (look under 'Urban mines')
    • CommentAuthorDeanK
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Posted By: Freethinker
    Posted By: DeanKI think Television, radio, internet and print based advertising venues should be able to be held liable for any products that are advertised with them.


    But why??


    to make them be held accountable for the crap they put out
    Thankful People: StBPegger, benevolentspaceman
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Cigarettes are taxes to fund healthcare. Why not burgers andother fatty crap?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSputnik
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Posted By: StBPeggerCigarettes are taxes to fund healthcare. Why not burgers andother fatty crap?


    Because burgers aren't really that bad for you.

    Realistically speaking what is the difference between a burger and a meatball sub from Subway? So to draw lines around this food or that food is a pretty tricky thing to do.
  14.  
    That's a good point, but much like in a lot of european countires i would like manufacturers to be responsible for the lifecycle of their product.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcancelbot
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Moderator
    Posted By: Sputnik
    Posted By: StBPeggerCigarettes are taxes to fund healthcare. Why not burgers andother fatty crap?


    Because burgers aren't really that bad for you.

    Realistically speaking what is the difference between a burger and a meatball sub from Subway? So to draw lines around this food or that food is a pretty tricky thing to do.


    Good point. Burgers can be "part of a well-balanced diet" and they do have the benefit of providing sustenance, even if you subsisted entirely on them you would probably do a lot of harm to yourself.

    Cigarettes, on the other hand...no benefit (other than the nicotine buzz)...but a lot of harm.

    A really interesting question (and I'm veering into TMan territory here) is why alcohol gets the OK, while tobacco is vilified, and marihuana is illegal. Booze is responsible for a lot of problems in society, but it is deemed acceptable. The state's intentions may be good, but there is a lot of hypocrisy out there.

    But, of course, I digress...
  16.  
    So, let's say only needs should be made available for purchase.
    That would mean someone would need to determine what is a need vs what is a want.
    But if it's a need, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the state to provide it for you?

    I don't like where this idea leads.
    •  
      CommentAuthorzander
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    I think you're taking this too far. Nobody is planning on taking away your freedom to decide what you "need". Or your freedom to get into debt if you make the wrong decisions. <p>

    StBPegger's point was simply that we should be more aware of what we really need vs. what we merely want. Common sense would dictate that we provide for our needs before our wants. If your needs include a 42" plasma TV - that's your call, but it should be no surprise that people who expand their needs to include such things can run into trouble.
    Thankful People: StBPegger, benevolentspaceman
  18.  
    Posted By: DeanK
    Posted By: Freethinker
    Posted By: DeanKI think Television, radio, internet and print based advertising venues should be able to be held liable for any products that are advertised with them.


    But why??


    to make them be held accountable for the crap they put out
    Thankful People:StBPegger,benevolentspaceman


    So, if I buy a Ford, I should be able to go after the CBC, cause thats where I saw the ad, and Charlotte Church, cause it was her singing that drew me to the ad.....

    Where does it stop?

    What happened to caveat emptor?
    •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2008
     
    Why stop there freethinker? Why not go after the process that put us here on this planet in the first place?

    Sorry, slippery slope arguments don't hold a lot of credibility.
  20.  
    It's ok to have things you want.
    Really guys, it is.

1 to 20 of 70

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. >