People with less money spend more of it ... . — Pfhorrest

More of it than those who have a lot? More nonsense. The basic cost of living is the same for everyone. The rich are able to spend more than that. What you might mean is that they spend more of their income.

If you want to bring down the rich then at least look at the real animal instead of creating something that looks easier to demolish.

while the other can “borrow from himself”, the latter person has way better odds of coming out ahead in the end. — Pfhorrest

This is such rubbish.

It’s true, as you say, that more business fail than succeed, but that’s generally about small business. They fail because the owners have very little understanding of what they’re doing. Sadly they lose their money and end up with only debt.

Business doesn’t borrow from itself. Where do you get that from? They borrow against their good credit rating.

. If you didn't want Microsoft, you pretty much had to buy an Apple, which was more expensive. — Bitter Crank

Yes, and because of that many were able to enter the computer age without having to pay for the top end. Business is quite a savage arena. Most of us get by without having to enter the ring. All we have to do is wait for the benefits to come our way without any risk at all.

But the quote suggests that government favours business over people, that it betrays people in the interests of big business, that it serves big business.

I had thought this discussion was about the rich and poor in a democratic society in which our governments generally operate under the same expectations. So I don’t get the reference to other nations who obviously operate on radically different notions about what purpose governments serve.

Having access to credit doesn't improve your odds of winning or losing, you're still every bit as likely to fail and just as unlikely to succeed; going into debt to do it it just makes your losses worse and your (still very unlikely) wins worse, to the benefit of those who gambled on you. — Pfhorrest

Presumably these odds your talking about are more than just your opinion. If you’re talking about borrowing money just to get by then yes you’re likely to end up in trouble. But to borrow money for development of a product or for growth of a business is what’s behind all the jobs out there.

Government is a committee to tilt the playing field in favor of big business." (A paraphrase of Karl Marx's statement, "government is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie".) — Bitter Crank

Your smarter than that Bitter Creek, throwing in a quote from someone else as if that sums up the problem and answers it at the same time, and paraphrasing it in a different era.

Yes, some corruption, no doubt, and tilting in favour of big business, well probably all business, big and small. But in reality a balancing act that can only just be maintained in the dynamics of a global economy. Of course Marx could have had no idea that governments would go on to introduce social benefits like unemployment and retirement pensions. I guess the great fear of governments is rising unemployment, which is a bit like a gun to your head.

So let’s keep the idea of government in perspective.

Consider this, using your scenario of buying a chair from the person you met and spoke to in buying a chair. Assume they become very popular because of this attitude and their business expands rapidly and they sell many, many chairs. The rarity that could be managed at a leisurely pace, face to face, perhaps a discussion on unrelated matters, interaction is now in high demand. It would have to be to reduce or replace the Commodity Fetishism. How will they serve their many, many customers on that personal level, source the chairs, transport them, manage the accounts, and so on? Do you see what I mean? It’s very success strangles it’s original aspirations.

I agree with everything you say.

The point being ‘custom made’ items in this way are not entirely about the exchange of money and services. There is a human interaction in the form of collaborative investigation. Being treated like a ‘human’ rather than taking part in an activity viewed only as purchasing goods and services. — I like sushi

But what’s next in terms of creating a reduction in Commodity Fetishism, what’s the next step in terms of reducing the fetishism?

.
It does, however, get entangled with the general conditions that Marx saw the formation of individual aesthetics. The problem as drafted by Marx was not that individual desires were substituted for something not-individual but that what an individual wants is shaped by systems of exchange. — Valentinus

Yes. I think that’s where Sushi and I part ways.

I thought we were at least on the same page. Maybe not. Anyway let me address this:

My point is then that people would attach status to possession of more ‘original’ products and thus seek out more original products and - key point - this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol. — I like sushi

“more ‘original’ products “. By this I think you mean products that have been created by the resources of human endeavour that include, for example, a love of the materials, respect for technique, satisfaction of making a ‘human’ product, satisfaction in the moment, and communicating and interacting with the potential ‘consumer’ on such a level, and passing on the experience encapsulated in the product, that is, not being part of the current commodifying of products.

As a consequence people “thus seek out more original products”.
Presumably because of the satisfaction both parties received in the transaction.

“this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol”.

What is their to stop the ownership of this “original” product from becoming a status symbol? You would have to alter the consumer attitudes of people, which you may have mentioned earlier in a comment about education. Perhaps this has already been attempted with socialism, and the attempted communes of the sixties. But in a way you create the possibility of another form of elitism or at best a separate self sustaining community. Maybe the Amish might be considered an example of what you imagine, but from what I understand that’s only a perception we have of them.

But anyway, your OP was about the possibility of custom made products creating a decrease in Commodity Fetishism. I guess my thoughts now are, no they can’t.

Beautifully put.

Philosophical pessimism has produced a lot of interesting work in literature and plays, and probably in other fields that don’t come to mind. Which is sort of ironic.

You can’t keep increasing wages because there are so many knock on effects. But you can make their wages go further. The government can help with that. The tax rate is not just 23%, it’s all the other annual government fees added to it.

I would be satisfied to know that everyone in society was taken care of by one another and by their contribution to their community. — Lif3r

I hold that to be the responsibility of the government; how they spend money, what their priorities are, what they supply to the people and what the people pay for it: water, energy, health, education, rates, etc. people can refuse to buy consumer goods, a better car, more clothes, more furniture, they can cut back on that. But they can’t cut back on using energy, or paying rates, or government fees, or health costs. The responsibility of the government is the people.

'm tired of talking about what got us to this point. I want to talk about how to increase financial stability for everyone — Lif3r

Well this is how you do it. You have to define the problem first before you can fix it.

If all people’s living conditions were alleviated without stripping the rich of their money would you still be concerned about the income of the rich?

Okay, so then would you agree this is a failure of government.

I am not here to tear down the system. — Lif3r

But you have defined the enemy, and in a very general way.

I don’t doubt your figures. However, bare in mind that 60 companies is not exactly a crumbling system. The government’s tax take comes from somewhere. Where is it?

I know there is an extreme imbalance in wealth and that life is hard for many people. But I think the problem is more one of government than greedy CEOs. Governments seem to have stepped back from the responsibilities. Maybe they’re too influenced by big business or maybe they’re just not good enough for what the times demand. I don’t think there’s any benefit to targeting the riches of others or tearing down the system.

The top tax bracket as far as I can see is 37%. I’m guessing you’re not paying that.

A quick summary of Michael Bloomberg’s life from Wikipedia.

Bloomberg was born at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, in Brighton, a neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts on February 14, 1942.[13] His family is Jewish. He is a prominent member of the Emanu-El Temple in Manhattan.[14] Bloomberg's father, William Henry Bloomberg (1906–1963), was born in Chelsea, Massachusetts, and worked as an accountant for a dairy company. He was the son of Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg, an immigrant from Russia.[1] The Bloomberg Center at the Harvard Business School was named in William Henry's honor.[15] His mother, Charlotte (Rubens) Bloomberg (January 2, 1909 – June 19, 2011) was a native of Jersey City, New Jersey.[16] Charlotte's father, Bloomberg's maternal grandfather, Max Rubens, was an immigrant from what is present-day Belarus.[17][18]

Or do you expect the poor to just be satisfied that they can afford the CEO another yacht this year because the CEO was lucky; born to the right people under the right circumstances. — Lif3r

Very few CEOs would be like that. Very few would succeed if they were.

maybe not, but I have seen the history books. We are experiencing a similar pattern to the rest of the world. The wages divide, and then the people divide. — Lif3r

What countries and what era are you referencing?

Even if it continues to over tax the majority of it's citizens, — Lif3r

23% does not seem that extreme to me. What do you think it should be?

Second thoughts again. This might sound extreme, but I suspect Capitalism to be an evolutionary stage of our development just as having an opposable thumb is.

I can’t believe anyone would believe we need more people. Maybe better distribution but not more.

You asked what comes next to keep Capitalism from crumbling. But is it crumbling?

Second thoughts. What Capitalism has created, which is now a problem, is huge population growth. How do we deal with that?

so if capitalism broke the barrier, then why is there still a huge separation between the rich and the poor? Why is that separation increasing? — Lif3r

What Capitalism did was lift people out of poverty. The gap between rich and poor might be there, but the “poor” as you call them are far from being as poor as they were.

It’s possible that Capitalism as we’ve known it may change, who knows how it may change, for better or worse, but the evidence of its success is there to see.

But there is a view that especially among the older generation part of the reason for the leave vote was people wanting to turn the clock back, to return to a pre-globalised economy, to 'get our country back'. The naiivety of this view is clear but that doesnt stop it persisting. — Tim3003

This comment is streaked with vague sort of surface facts that suggest something but when you read it amounts to nothing but a bias or prejudice. So it’s not just a Trump supporters who are the problem, but the older generation as well?

“ there is a view ”. Whose view?

“ part of the reason for the leave vote ”. What part? Was it a minor part or major part?

“ The naiivety of this view is clear”. The view they’re supposedly naive about is the view you ascribe to them. And what’s clear about it?

Like your view of a Trump supporters you ascribe your perception of the older generation then argue with that to prove them wrong.

Perhaps their point of view is not from naivity but a view born of long term observation and experience.

What Trump and other populists give people is what they feel they want. ie feel, from their uneducated fear-propelled guts. His means is to exploit base fears, not to educate in the realities of the situation, its perspective, or what future knock-on effects short-termist policies can have. Populism is a politics not of reason but of ignorance and fear. That's what separates it from communism, socialism, liberalism, all of which have some philosophiccal basis which their politicians can hope voters learn and agree with rationally.

I'm sure Trump's supporters don't especially want to hate immigrants, but they are scared into seeing immigrants as threats to their jobs and culture, and their fear is whipped into prejudice and nationalism by liars and distorters like Trump. That's happened throughout history. Its human nature for the strong to exploit the weak I'm afraid. — Tim3003

This positioning of “Trump supporters”, whatever that is, as “uneducated” seems a little lazy. You’d need to define “educated” first and then, I suspect, your definition would be biased. There’s a feeling, or attitude, towards these people that they’re not educated well enough to vote, that they’re not smart enough. Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t lump Trump supporters into one basket. If I was one of those people I might begin to suspect that you might think it’s a good idea if I didn’t vote, to take that right away from me. If I felt that way which way do you think I might vote next time?

It's only a forced act if the person didn't want it. If a person doesn't feel that their existence was forced onto them, why would they see their birth as an act forced on them? — leo

I know a woman who gave birth to a child with a minor problem that can be corrected with modern surgery. Once it would not have been correctable. But when both parents heard from their doctor about the problem observed at the moment of birth, both of their feelings were, “What have we done to this child?” They felt totally responsible for putting this child in this situation.

There are many children in hospital with far worse, ongoing problems, and I can’t help wonder if that is also the thoughts of those parents, that the child did not ask for this, that we imposed it on him/her.

The situation is no different whether the child has a birth defect or not.

I have issue with your next claim you make that without a price we wouldn't value something. I don't see how your previous statements support such a claim, and I see lot's of counter-examples of which I provide 3.

But please, explain how the context supports the claim I am focused on. — boethius

Okay. I’m not saying that we can’t value something if it doesn’t have a price. I think, or hope, I made that clear. It’s my opinion that a price on a product is inclined to make people consider how much they really want something. How much (not in terms of money) but how important is this product to me, and how much do I really want it? Or is it just a whim? Having something given to you is not the same as having a number of items on the shelf for free that you can chose from.

f the pot in your example was given away, it may hold more value than if it was sold, as the sales price may indicate that it can be replaced for the same price; so, if it's not expensive, the owner may not care much about it. Whereas, as a gift, it may symbolize the entire relationship. — boethius

But not everything produced can be given away. I think I like sushi is still talking about co-existing in a world of economic transactions.

This is simply not true. I know an artist that doesn't sell any of her original work, only prints; she simply doesn't put a price on the originals; she does so because she values the originals. — boethius

Well you’ve focused on only four lines of my post, so it’s a bit out of context. However your friend may make a lot more money selling the same thing repeatedly than if she sold the original.

Just to make what I am referring to explicit I’ll use a personal example. I have won money playing poker, yet the best game of poker I ever had didn’t involve me winning any money. The personal experience gained far outweighed the loss of money. — I like sushi

I absolutely understand what you’re saying here, I hope. And I want to go back to your first post about custom made products in terms of your poker analogy.

If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?

By this I mean that the ‘value’ of labour can be recovered through the interaction of the consumer with the producer - obviously this would be optimal if all transactions took places on an individual to individual basis. — I like sushi

The ‘value’ of labour your talking about is not monetary. That value x can be recovered in other ways through direct contact between producer and consumer.

Let’s say you were a potter. You made ceramic pots, you applied all the knowledge you had acquired yo each pot, and you also pushed yourself beyond what you knew and entered new territory in your work that took things to another level. The pleasure/value you received was in the act, which, let’s say was almost transcendental: pleasure, sureness of skills and knowledge, the opening out of new possibilities.

The next step is the transaction between producer and consumer. Someone loves the pot, they’re ecstatic, their response adds further to this value. What shall you sell this pot for? If it’s not your only source of income, then fine, except you still have to pay for your physical resources. But if not then you need to make a living. What is the worth of this pot in monetary terms? How do you avoid this trap of monetary value?

You could give it away. But ironically a payment makes people consider how much they really want something. If it’s free people will take with very little thought to what went into it. It’s almost like in the real world, outside of our lives, a monetary value has to be attached otherwise it has no value at all, including the personal value you imbedded in it.

I’m not massively familiar with this area so you’ll have to excuse as I claw around for the best terms. There does appear to be something conflicting in what I’ve read of Marx concerning what is and isn’t delineated as a ‘resource’ or ‘commodity’, and how they relate. — I like sushi

Forgive me if I’m teaching you to suck eggs or even wrong here.

Resources would be iron ore, for instance, and the labour removing it from the ground. Both have no value in themselves.
The iron ore is sold on to be turned into steel. Once again neither the steel nor the labour have any value in themselves. Then the steel is bought by a company that turns the steel into washing machines, or driers, or fridges. The labour still has no value in itself, but the fridge, the commodity, most certainly does.

The selling price of the fridge determines the profit factor, the difference between what was paid in labour and resources and what it’s sold for. The iron ore is worthless without the end result; the fridge, the commodity. The wages for the labour is determined by the profit in each fridge. If wage demands get too high then there’s not enough profit in fridges to bother. So, no fridges produced, no steel purchased, no ore removed from the ground.

Some fridges can be sold at very high prices because of their perceived value. None of that changes the level of wages or the price of iron ore or steel. A shortage of iron ore might change the price, among other things.

In some products, promoted well, they can get away with charging far more than went into production. I imagine iPhones being one such product, or jeans with the knee ripped out.

Then the commodity is sold back to the worker who’s been convinced that he/she must have the product, and in my opinion, within certain limits, enables the whole game.

Individualism — unforeseen

That’s what the advertising would have you believe, but really it’s narcissism, don’t you think? Playing up to the idea that your special, not like the others, not a sheep but an ‘individual’.

And if not narcissism then self esteem.

[quote="unforeseen;353348"
]1. The desire to be rich
2. The desire to be cool

But that's not really human nature. Human nature is flexible. It depends on your particular circumstances and socio-cultural condition.[/quote]

Well it ain’t animal nature. What’s left?

I know it sounds weird. I meant as ‘tailor made’, there seems to be technologies coming into play that will provide ‘custom design’ by the consumer and I believe this could drive more demand for actual individually produced items by individuals for individuals. — I like sushi

It’s not so weird. I know people who will go out of their way to buy organic milk and meat. They’re prepared to pay more for it because it’s no longer a commodity, because the transaction also contains ideas about health, the environment, support of small, individual producers, and rebellion against corporate culture.