Luxury
So, I was chatting with my very good friend Aaron Thomeer, and we came to the obvious conclusion that this is not an economic crisis. It isn’t an economic crisis because we still have the cheapest food in the world. This isn’t an economic crisis because most people have computers, tvs, take vacations, etc. If this was a crisis, we wouldn’t have any of these things. So, are we saying that if people are going to have to wait for another few weeks before they can affored that PS3, it’s a crisis? This is truly ridiculous. With crises like these, who needs a stable economy? You should all give a good thinking on how many luxury things you truly buy, I think you’ll be surprised that you have a very comfortable standard of living.
And no, I haven’t forgotton from my last post that I have no idea how I’ve reached all the conclusions I’ve reached, I’m still working on it.
How are we defining “crisis” here? At a basic level, it seems to be a condition of instability. I would find it hard to disagree that this is not the case, regardless of availability of luxury items. Are you perhaps referring to economic collapse? Do you mean that a true “crisis” might make electrical availability much more scarce or expensive, so that people who already own such devices can’t use them anymore? Short of plague and starvation, how far must things turn around before they are crisis worthy?