Originally Posted by Knight26
There's no flaw in the logic here. We're talking about video cards, not debating the merits of capitalist vs socialist economies. A retailer for a video card has the right to charge whatever people will pay for the product so they can earn as much as they can. It's pretty simple. They should not have to lower there prices so more people of lower means can buy the product if they are selling enough units at the high price.
There is not an argument here. Why is it a right? Why is this simple? Why should they not have to lower prices (respecting that I never made this argument)? Why are you justifying this - what is it doing for you?
There is no social need for video cards so trying to lump it together with "sandwiches or cancer treatments" makes no sense. It's comparing apples and oranges. People got to eat, they don't have to have video cards so "social needs" are irrelevant.
This is hilariously untrue, particularly coming from a member of an enthusiast pc forum - technological advancements have huge impacts on the quality of life for humans, including GPUs, from mapping the human genome, photon mapping, weather forecasting, advancements in quantam physics, bioinformatics, the whole capitalist finance industry's need for fast math
, mapping the brain, advanced medical imaging... and of course providing awesome visual art, which I would argue is incredibly valuable to the human experience and an essential factor in innovation and scientific discovery. You can't talk about AMD or nVidia in terms of market capitalism without acknowledging that they do much more than develop products for consumers.
I try not to be to harsh on this issues b/c I know there are plenty of bleeding hearts out there that think everybody deserves to be equal and in perfect world maybe that's true. But this is not a perfect world and people are not equal and a person doesn't deserve to have something just because someone else has it.
I did not make this argument and am not sure why you are going on this rant. I in fact agree - this is not a perfect world, and a world in which everyone owns all of the things imaginable is absurd. However, if a person needs a GPU to play games or do math there's no reason they shouldn't have access to it. It is not a problem of "rights" and "deserving," but priorities - is it better for AMD and nVidia to compete with each other for hundreds of market segments, producing 10 card lineups for consumers every generation like they do in market capitalism, or would it be better to abandon the market mentality and instead produce a couple of cards based on utility? Should some people have to choose between owning a GPU/sandwich or a monitor to run it with/chips, or does it make more sense to guarantee that people who need those things are guaranteed access to them (based on need, of course)?
I'm a communist, which is a loaded term - I think Communist Russia was a total failure and an atrocity and that Marx was a sexist and racist. But I also think that people should live in community rather than competition and that individuals should be empowered to make decisions about their material conditions rather than based on the whims of owners (ie workers should own their work instead of owners owning workers). Capitalism necessitates great inequality and suffering in order for a decent standard of living to be maintained (it is not a perfect world). I also think that in capitalism we live in total excess, where 1% of the world's population owns more wealth (and therefore has a better quality of life) than half of the world (ie yes, we do not live in a perfect world). This is not a question of whether perfection is possible (it isn't possible), it's a question of values (and, once you have those, distribution).
Everything is accessible in a capitalist economy, you just have to be able to pay for it. Just because a person can't afford something doesn't mean it isn't accessible.
This is an oxymoron - you are saying that it isn't accessible because they have to pay for it and since they can't it is accessible.
By the logic you present, everyone should take their excesses (income or what not) and spread it around so everyone can have a sandwich and graphics card. To hell with that, I worked hard to be able to afford my excesses so I only share them with people I know have worked equally as hard or harder.
This is also an oxymoron - why would you have to share your wealth with others who have worked hard? Don't they have the exact same access to things as you do (having worked as hard)? What is the incentive to share at all, especially with people who have worked harder than you and have greater access? Are you some sort of communist?!
If everyone was equal and everyone did contribute equally to society then that system would work but that will never happen. People are not equal and people will never contribute equally.
What do you mean by contribute? Hours per week, or some other impossible ulterior value (like GPUs)?
If GPUs are valuable, than yes, sure some people contribute more to... history than others. However, I'd argue that the guy cleaning the toilet at Intel is providing a valuable contribution to the guy who is producing the microprocessor and gets to sit on a clean toilet (he may even be working more hours!).
Anyway, I am not sure this argument is relevant without a standard for what "contribution" means, other than to say that it's pretty messed up that you think people aren't fundamentally equal, dude, and that makes you a really bad person (if you mean what you are saying at least
). While I agree, stuff happens and the world is imperfect and there will always be suffering, all humans are equal, and your attempts to place value on human life in terms of capitalist production are, well, not only offensive, but boring.
And without competition there is no innovation, no change, things become stagnate because there is no pressure to drive change, to evolve.
Competition is not something Darwin was concerned with, and capitalism is not a natural product of evolution. This is a bad metaphor early capitalists developed to justify exploitation (google evolutionary capitalism). Society exists because hunter-gatherers stopped competing and worked communally for the good of each other (while committing a lot of violence towards one another). The competition of alleles is in no way analogous to competition between individual members of a species.
Also, read a study on competition and innovation - there have been absolutely no significant advancements in science or technology due to market competition. Scientific and artistic innovation comes from driven people who care about their work (and are supported by a community of others to have access to the means of production with which to do their work). Edward Jenner invented vaccinations because he was a weirdo who heard a story about someone scratching their family with cows blood and thought he'd study it, not because he wanted to one-up the guy and get a new horse.
If there was no competition between Nvidia and AMD then we would not have the advanced GPU's we have now
tell that to nVidia or Intel
They didn't advance because they didn't have to - AMD wasn't keeping up (to rebuke computer nerd's obvious response: of course AMD makes some awesome advancements, but if your argument was true they would have never been behind). Much like we don't have alternatives to gas dependent transportation not because electrical cars are twenty years away but because there's still an oil and combustion engine markets to exploit.
and we wouldn't be wasting time discussing overpriced video cards on this forum to begin with.
I am pretty sure that these price-hikes only exist because of an artificial market based on the "act of labor" known as "mining coins"
As consumers, we drive the demand and competition, it's not the retailers fault that consumers are willing to pay absurd prices for things. I wasn't, that's why I didn't buy a third card when the prices went up. In fact, I've been debating selling the 2 290's I have and making some profit of the whole deal like a true capitalist.
...m'kay. Did the prices go down when you made a conscious stand as a consumer to not buy a third card? Do you think newegg's prices will go up when you hop on craigslist or ebay?
Originally Posted by TheOCNoob
BUT BUT Socialism/Communism works so well just look at Russia ! Everyone has Ferraris and Lamborghinis!!
BUT BUT Capitalism works so well just look at America! Everyone has Ferrarris and Lamborghinis?
Come on guys work harderEdited by claes - 3/16/14 at 5:13pm