The German election

[EiZei 0]

2. do you think an economy can live without any insutrial production (i mean a big economy, not luxemburg or liechtenstein). most services are created around industrial products. no industry - no services and thus only a little third sector, the dream of the 40's, among them clark's afaik, that the third sector will slowly replace the second sector is an illusion. there's little beyond industrial production, too little for a big country to make a living on actually.

Well, at least a certain portugalian professor at my college/institute/whatever seems to be keen on the idea that europe does the research, developing and the very top of high-tech manufacturing while the chinese etc. do the dirty part. Personally I dont think the rest of the world would settle for that though.

[denoir 0]

how can you say something like that and talk about globalisation a few lines above. germany is the world champion in exporting its products so it's least dependant on home demand than any other country, esp. the US.

also home markets are far from being saturated in germany. ppl save too much of their money and companies don't invest their's due to a general feeling of uncertainty which makes - i admit - a part of the problem.

I'm having difficulties making sense of your post, but I'll try.

First of all, German exports are taking the same beating as all of the Eurozone countries - because of the very strong euro. Second, Germany is especially hurt in the area of industrial exports as more and more countries have the capability of making just as good industrial products at a much lower cost. The only thing holding it up today (with a few exception where European or German firms have exclusive technologies) is reputation and name brands. Incidentally, that's quite the correct direction to go - with mass production you're dead, but with unique products you might have a chance.

As for market saturation, that's simple. You just need to take a look at the CPI/Inflation development. If you want something less abstract, you can look at the ownership of industrial products / capita (although that can be misleading as there can be other infrastructural causes for a certain distribution).

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]A society that is carried economically by industry can't work well with a strong social system.

that's an unproven statement and complete nonsense btw.

Actually, it can quite simply be shown with relatively simple math. Have you heard of the problem called

The Prisoner's dilemma?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

Two suspects A, B are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and having separated both prisoners, visit each of them and offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution (turns King's Evidence) against the other and the other remains silent, the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence and the betrayer goes free. If both stay silent, the police can only give both prisoners 6 months for a minor charge. If both betray each other, they receive a 2-year sentence each.

Which is the optimal strategy? The answer is: both betray each other. This can be mathematically proven that such systems always end up at the Nash Equilibrium - a stable solution. Another approach to such problems (market based and welfare regulated system mix is a very typical example) are evolutionarily stable strategies. Simply put, if one side can get and advantage over the other, it will. A system is only stable when no side can take advantage of the other.

In the case of market based vs welfare regulated system, it's mathematically an unstable saddle point where both sides can take advantage of the other due to their co-dependence. The asymptotically stable solution is actually an inversion of the desired state.

Incidentally if we look at a practical example, that is exactly what happened. Say hello to the Swedish Model, or the "third way". The ideal was a free market economy that was regulated to serve a welfare social model. The market would provide the money, to finance the welfare. With social protection, better education, unemployment would not be a problem and tax levels could be held at a minimum. Can you spot the problem?

In Sweden what happened was the following: The ideologues discovered to their surprise that the market system was not a closed one, but dependent on other markets which had no interest in a social bound model. Their solution to that was to raise the taxes (this was drawn to extremes so that during some periods people could end up paying more than 100% taxes ). Then came the next problem - taxes could easily finance the social security in times of high economic growth. When the economy was weak however, taxes of course gave less money. They side stepped this issue in such a way that every time the economy would turn to the worse, they borrowed the money to finance the welfare. The Swedish model came in action in the 1950's. By the late 1980's early 1990's the interest on the national debt was so high that Sweden could not pay it. Solution: Cut down the social security, education etc

So what we are left with today is exactly an inversion of the model they wanted to have. We have very high tax rates, like in a welfare regulated system while we (compared to other European countries) have low expenditures on social security, education etc - like in a market regulated system. Incidentally, we're at the Nash equilibrium, as mathematically expected.

Note that it is possible to get stable market/welfare combinations, but not possible to get asymptotically stable ones. That means that you can get a system that can be slightly changed, without any dramatic consequences. Large changes however in a system that is not asymptotically stable always leads that it drops to a different equilibrium. In the case of Sweden, it was the national debt that pushed it off the edge.

Quote[/b] ]

the system has been functioning for a long time but does not any more because of the shitload of unemployed who make labour expensive (see my posts above why). if the whole social sector would be financed by indirect taxes and not by direct contributions the problem simply wouldn't exist in the extent like today. with the present system unemployment generates further unemployment making labour more expensive again.

What do you mean by "indirect taxes"?

As for unemployment and labour cost, there are two factors involved. One is the availability of manpower (i.e market rules), which is quite simple that if the demand is low and the availability is high, then price is low. The second part is more indirect and depends a bit on the economic ideology the politicians are following. But basically it would be something like this: If many people are unemployed then then the government needs to raise taxes to finance their welfare. So the corporations will pay more money in taxes and have less money to hire people for.

Actually, both are true as the system has to reach some form of market equilibrium or all people would be hired or fired, which evidently they're not.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]So the industrial worker now works 6 hours per day instead of 8 and he's loving it. But who is going to pay for it?

workers work longer lately. the whole system is going back to a 40, 45 or 50 hour week hour week like 30 years ago.

My point exactly, the idea of people working less for the same money - without having an external supply of money is not a stable solution. You need constant growth for that and that is something that you don't have thanks to the outdated industry-centered economy.

For really radical examples of such change, you should take a look at China whose economy is expanding rapidly while at the same time the labour related expenses are also expanding. At one point they meet and then you're no good to the market (at least not if somebody else can do what you can). People want perpetual constant growth in quality of life, while perpetual economic growth is an impossibility.

Quote[/b] ]do you think an economy can live without any insutrial production (i mean a big economy, not luxemburg or liechtenstein).

Yes, the UK for instance. It almost exclusively lives off the economic service sector. But that can be replicated elsewhere as well, so they're living on borrowed time.

The ultimate answer is that you need to produce something now that has global market value. That means it has to be unique. And if the industry wants to survive, it needs to that. You won't have a chance making a generic industrial product, say like a toaster as the economic diversity of the world and the free flow of information guarantees that:

1) Somebody else knows how to make one

2) They can make it cheaper

What you might survive on is making a specially designed toaster. Say a toaster designed by F.A Porsche ( ). Now this product has a unique value as it is a unique German design, so it does have a place on the global market.

And that's where I see Europe going today, and the rest of the world tomorrow - a refinement of the production paradigm, in the same way there was a refinement when we stepped from agriculture to industry. What I think we'll see is that the generic industry sector will be reduced to a minimum and all outsourced to cheaper,  second-world countries (like agriculture is to a large degree today). What will be left is unique cultural production, which is unique enough to make money off.

[Bernadotte 0]

You won't have a chance making a generic industrial product, say like a toaster as the economic diversity of the world and the free flow of information guarantees that:

1) Somebody else knows how to make one

2) They can make it cheaper

But this is not just Europe's problem. Even China will eventually be upstaged by cheaper toaster manufacturers in North Korea or some other emerging economy. When will the industrial bargain chasing end? Not in our lifetime. But probably when the difference between a toaster maker's salary in China and the salary of one in Germany is less than the cost to transport a toaster halfway around the world.

[denoir 0]

Yes, that is one possibility, but I think the answer is industrial automation. It would be the same way agriculture is today - at least in the western world. So when wages are not a relevant factor the industrial production will probably geographically converge to the geographically optimal positions - i.e where you have plenty of raw materials for the industry so you don't have to transport that half around the world. So it's quite possible that it will be distributed around the world.

And I really think we're going there quite fast. Mass production is very little of an issue in the western world today - people are having new, "soft" requirements on the products they buy.

To give an example, I recently bought a new apartment, and I'm in the process of moving there. So I'm buying various stuff to furnish and equip it with. Now, my requirements go beyond having just "a toaster, a sofa, a desk, a lamp" etc Instead, like most people in the western world, I do have some aesthetic requirements on the stuff I buy. Design is a relevant issue. In fact, had I only functional requirements, I'd be spending a fraction of the money I do as it is now.

Industrial mass produced stuff is immensely cheap, and that's what people worrying about industrial production being moved to China etc are forgetting. You can get quite a solid generic China-produced toaster for €10. The Porsche designed toaster costs > €100, and that series of products is selling really well. That's a 90-10 division between design and function. So, what should the German and European industry focus on? The €10 mass produced variety, or the €90 design?

I think the answer is pretty obvious there. With the heterogeneous world economy today, people in the first-world can buy a designed toaster, paying in essence for the design, while people in poorer countries can buy generic toasters. Excluding in the third-world countries, everybody can have a toaster. In the distant future, if all the world is economically equalized you'll have a wide range of choices in toaster design. Do you want a Chinese designed toaster decorated with dragons or perhaps something else? The actual industrial production of the toaster will represent a very small part of the overall price.

So bottom line, what Germany needs to do is to get rid of its generic industry. Anything that can be mass-produced elsewhere for less money should be eliminated. Germany should use its cultural tradition to make unique products and forget about traditional generic mass production. And that kind of changes goes way beyond Schröder or Merkel.

[Daddl 10]

The problem: 90% of the people (even those who don't have to look after each penny) rather buy the cheap toaster and spend their money for other things (like holidays abroad, japanese cars, chinese manufactured computer hardware, etc.). Unfortunately while a 100 Euro toaster will leave more money in the european part of the distribution chain the number of cheap mass produced toasters sold is much higher - especially with high unemployment and people being unsure about their professional future (which is a big factor in Germany atm). You don't invest money or buy too many luxury goods when you can't rely on keeping your job for long or on quickly finding another one when laid off.

The other problem with abandoning mass production is that in the end the market needs these goods, even here in well off Europe - and importing them all leads to a negative cash flow. You can only sell so many high-price, high-quality (the latter being more an asumption than a fact) products, but mass goods are needed every day. Of course our industry still controls many of the production sites abroad - but that is changing more and more. If you don't own the production and you have to import all the stuff, then you're fucked.

[Bernadotte 0]

...like most people in the western world, I do have some aesthetic requirements on the stuff I buy. Design is a relevant issue. In fact, had I only functional requirements, I'd be spending a fraction of the money I do as it is now.

Industrial mass produced stuff is immensely cheap, and that's what people worrying about industrial production being moved to China etc are forgetting. You can get quite a solid generic China-produced toaster for €10. The Porsche designed toaster costs > €100, and that series of products is selling really well. That's a 90-10 division between design and function. So, what should the German and European industry focus on? The €10 mass produced variety, or the €90 design?

I think the answer is pretty obvious there. With the heterogeneous world economy today, people in the first-world can buy a designed toaster, paying in essence for the design, while people in poorer countries can buy generic toasters. Excluding in the third-world countries, everybody can have a toaster. In the distant future, if all the world is economically equalized you'll have a wide range of choices in toaster design. Do you want a Chinese designed toaster decorated with dragons or perhaps something else? The actual industrial production of the toaster will represent a very small part of the overall price.

Did I really need to buy a toaster tested in a wind tunnel?  Of course not.  I bought it because of other features.  Sure, it looked better than the other models but I was able to get its aesthetic value without paying more than I would for the box toasters on the storeshelf.

Now, if I bought a Porsche brand toaster I'd have to remove the logo or be the laughing stock of every friend I have.  Not because it would look bad.  It's because intelligent people know that high quality aesthetics, design and uniqueness don't have to be expensive; something that people who spend 10 times more on a Porsche brand don't realise.  As far as my friends are concerned, having a Porsche logo on your toaster is like wearing a sticker on your forehead that reads:  I Have No Taste

Even the merchants know the difference - they call it luxury branding.  They know their products aren't selling because of aesthetics.  Sure they don't look bad and they certainly look different, however they mainly sell because the purchaser is confident that very few other people will have the same toaster.  And for this reason I don't agree that Europe will ever be able to float its economy on such goods.  As soon as the "common" man has one then it will lose most of its luxury value.

Two other emerging trends (besides Ikea) threaten the whole future of a Porsche toaster based economy:

1.  Ebay.  A great part of its popularity comes from offering unique goods.  The person who buys an aesthetically appealing toaster on eBay is not only satisfying a desire for uniqueness but he is doing it at a fraction of the cost than the Porsche customer.  Furthermore, he is demonstrating that he doesn't need see a Porsche logo to know when something looks good.  (i.e. He actually has taste.)

2.  Mass customisation.  The customer gets to chose nearly every aspect of his toaster's design over the internet and the thing gets to his storeshelf (or front door) within a day or 2.  So far it's been mainly applied to automobile production, but there's no reason clothing, computers, furniture and yes, toasters can't be bought the same way.  This will eventually take off as more and more potential investors realise that an individual will pay eBay to have a Bob Marley memorial toaster delivered to him in Amsterdam from Nine Miles, Jamaica.  And then everyone will be able to demostrate that they do (or don't) have good taste at a fraction of the cost of being a Porsche brand consumer.

[Raptor 10]

Die Linke, Lafontaine (fully socialist)

http://www.dhm.de/lemo....200.jpg

Don't forget, Gregor Gysi (PDS):

btw, nice theard

ARGh...2% for NPD

[denoir 0]

The problem: 90% of the people (even those who don't have to look after each penny) rather buy the cheap toaster and spend their money for other things (like holidays abroad, japanese cars, chinese manufactured computer hardware, etc.). Unfortunately while a 100 Euro toaster will leave more money in the european part of the distribution chain the number of cheap mass produced toasters sold is much higher - especially with high unemployment and people being unsure about their professional future (which is a big factor in Germany atm). You don't invest money or buy too many luxury goods when you can't rely on keeping your job for long or on quickly finding another one when laid off.

Perhaps, but I think that is changing very rapidly. In the past, just having an industrial product (like say a dishwasher) was a luxury. In the same way like 100 years ago having exotic fruit, like bananas and oranges was a luxury.

I think definitely that the average consumer is much more concerned with the aesthetics (or better to say image) of things than they were say 30 years ago.

Quote[/b] ]The other problem with abandoning mass production is that in the end the market needs these goods, even here in well off Europe - and importing them all leads to a negative cash flow. You can only sell so many high-price, high-quality (the latter being more an asumption than a fact) products, but mass goods are needed every day. Of course our industry still controls many of the production sites abroad - but that is changing more and more. If you don't own the production and you have to import all the stuff, then you're fucked.

Well, there is of course the huge business-to-business industry (chemical industry, material processing etc), but I think we're fairly fucked there. We have expensive labour, limited natural resources and don't have any exclusive know-how in the field.

As for the limited market for high-price, custom items - you have to remember that many other countries are catching up with our economic levels. The Chinese are getting a solid middle class who wants to differentiate itself from the working class who buy generic products.

I think ultimately in a global economy, we have to ask our self, what it is that we can naturally sell. If we remove all the protectionist measures such as trade quotas etc, what do we have left? What do we have that the Americans or the Chinese don't, that we can sell to them?

(My answer to that is European culture and history.)

[Bernadotte 0]

Well, there is of course the huge business-to-business industry (chemical industry, material processing etc), but I think we're fairly fucked there. We have expensive labour, limited natural resources and don't have any exclusive know-how in the field.

How do you figure?  Firstly, the chemical industry is not labour intensive.  Secondly, Europe's chemical giants hold a great number of technological patents with a lot of life left in them.  Most are to do with process energy and material recovery brought about by Europe's tough environmental standards.  Decades ago such regulation were regarded by industry as a curse.  Ultimately it became a blessing because processing efficiency and, thereby, competitiveness was increased in nearly all cases.

I think ultimately in a global economy, we have to ask our self, what it is that we can naturally sell. If we remove all the protectionist measures such as trade quotas etc, what do we have left? What do we have that the Americans or the Chinese don't, that we can sell to them?

I don't really see the importance of selling stuff to economies as enormous as the US and China because they will always ultimately have the capacity to displace you from their markets.  First and foremost, Europe needs to focus on selling to the large number of small markets within itself.  Then it needs to expand that to the hundreds of small economies throughout the world such as the Central/South American coffee producers and middle eastern oil producers.

Let the US paint itself into an economic corner by trying to sell cigarettes to China where they've been growing their own tobacco for ages.  Instead, stay focused on Columbia where they will not likely ever produce an automobile that can compete with a BMW or Volvo.

[denoir 0]

Now, if I bought a Porsche brand toaster I'd have to remove the logo or be the laughing stock of every friend I have.  Not because it would look bad.  

Hehe, I suppose that's why that particular Siemens line of kitchenware don't have a Porsche logo ( I have the water kettle in the same series). Or perhaps because the FA Porsche design firm isn't affiliated with the car firm

(For the record, my toaster is a Bauhaus-inspired model, made by Krups IIRC - I did consider the porsche one, but I didn't like the parts made in blue plastic, plus it was a bit too bulky)

Quote[/b] ]It's because intelligent people know that high quality aesthetics, design and uniqueness don't have to be expensive; something that people who spend 10 times more on a Porsche brand don't realise.

Well, it depends on how bad or common your taste is. High quality aesthetics and design do cost an arm and a leg. I'm not however talking about the porsche designs - those all fall in the category of mass consumer products. It's as simple as if you are looking for something to fit your style and context specifically, the production volume of that item can't be very big. And hence the price is high. In addition, if there's a design firm that has to live off it, prices go up.

But yes, there are a number of brands directed at the nouveau riche, which can be very expensive and absolutely horrid.

Quote[/b] ]As far as my friends are concerned, having a Porsche logo on your toaster is like wearing a sticker on your forehead that reads: I Have No Taste

Well, I'm sorry to say, but then your friends are as bad as those that buy such a toaster because of the logo (had there been one).

Quote[/b] ]Even the merchants know the difference - they call it luxury branding. They know their products aren't selling because of aesthetics. Sure they don't look bad and they certainly look different, however they mainly sell because the purchaser is confident that very few other people will have the same toaster. And for this reason I don't agree that Europe will ever be able to float its economy on such goods. As soon as the "common" man has one then it will lose most of its luxury value.

You're forgetting that we're talking about a global market here. So while only 1% of the average population might buy such a toaster, 1% of the world population is quite a lot. That's the beauty of a global market. Even a small market share is a huge number of consumers.

So that's really not an issue either. Luxury branding works quite fine on a global scale.

Quote[/b] ]Ebay. A great part of its popularity comes from offering unique goods. The person who buys an aesthetically appealing toaster on eBay is not only satisfying a desire for uniqueness but he is doing it at a fraction of the cost than the Porsche customer. Furthermore, he is demonstrating that he doesn't need see a Porsche logo to know when something looks good. (i.e. He actually has taste.)

Ebay is just a market place and has nothing to do with actual production. It just gives you a wider selection.

Quote[/b] ]2. Mass customisation. The customer gets to chose nearly every aspect of his toaster's design over the internet and the thing gets to his storeshelf (or front door) within a day or 2. So far it's been mainly applied to automobile production, but there's no reason clothing, computers, furniture and yes, toasters can't be bought the same way. This will eventually take off as more and more potential investors realise that an individual will pay eBay to have a Bob Marley memorial toaster delivered to him in Amsterdam from Nine Miles, Jamaica. And then everyone will be able to demostrate that they do (or don't) have good taste at a fraction of the cost of being a Porsche brand consumer.

Fair enough, but what you seem to miss is that a good designer costs a lot of money. You need to have a solid knowledge of culture and history besides being competent aesthetically etc A good design is expensive to make and if you want your item to be relatively unique (unlike the porsche toaster) then it costs an arm and a leg.

But what I'm talking about here is mass produced, but designed. I'm talking about where the actual production cost is orders of magnitude smaller than the value of the product. And I think that the toaster is a good example of that, regardless of taste issues. It's an example of a mass produced product where people pay for values not related to the actual production cost of the toaster.

[denoir 0]

Well, there is of course the huge business-to-business industry (chemical industry, material processing etc), but I think we're fairly fucked there. We have expensive labour, limited natural resources and don't have any exclusive know-how in the field.

How do you figure?  Firstly, the chemical industry is not labour intensive.  Secondly, Europe's chemical giants hold a great number of technological patents with a lot of life left in them.  Most are to do with process energy and material recovery brought about by Europe's tough environmental standards.  Decades ago such regulation were regarded by industry as a curse.  Ultimately it became a blessing because processing efficiency and, thereby, competitiveness was increased in nearly all cases.

Well, I said "chemical industry" as an example. I in fact know nothing about the state of the chemical industry. If they do have exclusive know-how, then by all means they can continue to exist while they have it.

Quote[/b] ]I don't really see the importance of selling stuff to economies as enormous as the US and China because they will always ultimately have the capacity to displace you from their markets. First and foremost, Europe needs to focus on selling to the large number of small markets within itself. Then it needs to expand that to the hundreds of small economies throughout the world such as the Central/South American coffee producers and middle eastern oil producers.

The importance is obviously that the big economies have huge markets.

But that's not really relevant either. You sell to a global market, if it is Chinese or Columbian doesn't really matter.

[Bernadotte 0]

Fair enough, but what you seem to miss is that a good designer costs a lot of money.

I hate to break this to you, but when someone pays EUR 100 for a EUR 10 toaster very very little of that EUR 90 reaches the designers.  Much more of it goes to the marketing and other "truth management" departments. In fact, if any designers are getting wealthy it's more likely the ones who create the expensive advertisements they run in media directed at upper income earners.

You sell to a global market, if it is Chinese or Columbian doesn't really matter.

Do you honestly think it's irrelevant that China is much more likely to be able to build it's own luxury automobiles than Columbia.  One of those 2 markets has a much more stable future and it ain't China.  Building China's market for your goods may look ok on today's balance sheets but, in the long term, you are also creating a powerful competitor.

Unfortunately, big business usually doesn't have much choice in such things.  

Quote[/b] ]As far as my friends are concerned, having a Porsche logo on your toaster is like wearing a sticker on your forehead that reads:  I Have No Taste

Well, I'm sorry to say, but then your friends are as bad as those that buy such a toaster because of the logo (had there been one).

Why?

[nephilim 0]

its like buying the cat in the sack...

did anyone do the wahl-o-mat?

it suggestet me to vote spd after the querry...

but im not cuz they really messed things up...

[der bastler 0]

Linke all the way. The whole country is shifting to the right (a nod towards Schily/Beckstein), therefore to remain centered a small step to the left is necessary.

Now listening to: All Southern Rock -- ZZ Top -- Piece (timeshifted due to stream ripping)

[denoir 0]

Fair enough, but what you seem to miss is that a good designer costs a lot of money.

I hate to break this to you, but when someone pays EUR 100 for a EUR 10 toaster very very little of that EUR 90 reaches the designers.  Much more of it goes to the marketing and other "truth management" departments.  In fact, if any designers are getting wealthy it's more likely the ones who create the expensive advertisements they run in media directed at upper income earners.

Yes and no. They have teams of designers that come up with shitloads of designs of which some get picked for production. Those designers need to eat, hence they are paid etc

That's for the mass-produced stuff, like that toaster. In the case of really designer-appliances etc, the specific design you buy is unique or part of a very small batch. There the actual design costs a lot.

But that is all besides the point. Be it aesthetic differences, be it branding or be it clever marketing - that is what differentiates the product from the bare-bone equivalent.

Quote[/b] ]Do you honestly think it's irrelevant that China is much more likely to be able to build it's own luxury automobiles than Columbia.

Yes, I honestly think that in the long run it is irrelevant. And in the short run, even if they produce their own luxury cars, they'll still buy European ones. Thank the colonial era for that.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As far as my friends are concerned, having a Porsche logo on your toaster is like wearing a sticker on your forehead that reads: I Have No Taste

Well, I'm sorry to say, but then your friends are as bad as those that buy such a toaster because of the logo (had there been one).

Why?

Because they judge you by the brand of toaster you buy, and not the actual toaster? Because you fear that you would be ridiculed if you did not buy the "right" brand of toaster?

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As far as my friends are concerned, having a Porsche logo on your toaster is like wearing a sticker on your forehead that reads:  I Have No Taste

Well, I'm sorry to say, but then your friends are as bad as those that buy such a toaster because of the logo (had there been one).

Why?

Because they judge you by the brand of toaster you buy, and not the actual toaster? Because you fear that you would be ridiculed if you did not buy the "right" brand of toaster?

Of course they judge by the actual toaster.  That's the whole point.  It's still just a toaster.  It toasts bread.  That's all that the actual toaster does.  If it actally did anything else to justify costing 10 times more than other actual toasters then there might be room for further consideration.  But it doesn't.  And please don't suggest that people are only paying so much more for the aesthetics unless you truly believe that they'd sell just as well without the Porsche logo.  Oh, and it doesn't matter which luxury brand logo.  There will always be people with more money than brains willing to pay for a Rolex toaster or a Gucci toaster or a Chanel toaster despite being able to get aesthetically equal or better designs for a fraction of the price. Unfortunately, to find such equally well designed items without the brand logo and inflated sticker price requires taste.

[denoir 0]

Of course they judge by the actual toaster.  That's the whole point.  

What you said was, let me quote:

Now, if I bought a Porsche brand toaster I'd have to remove the logo or be the laughing stock of every friend I have. Not because it would look bad.

See? Apparently the branding is more important to your friends than the actual toaster. Or you wouldn't be removing the logo.

Quote[/b] ]It's still just a toaster. It toasts bread. That's all that the actual toaster does. If it actally did anything else to justify costing 10 times more than other actual toasters then there might be room for further consideration. But it doesn't.

I would love to see how you dress and how your home looks, if functionality is the only thing you look for in products.

Quote[/b] ]And please don't suggest that people are only paying for the aesthetics unless you truly believe that they'd be able to sell just as many units without the Porsche logo.

As I pointed out, there is not Porsche logo on that kitchenware series. There's a Siemens logo, but that can hardly be considered a luxury brand logo.

Quote[/b] ]And it doesn't matter which luxury brand logo. There will always be people with more money than brains willing to pay for a Rolex toaster or a Gucci toaster or a Chanel toaster despite being able to get aesthetically equal or better designs for a fraction of the price.

So? In what way is that bad news for German economy?

Not that the assumption that you can always get something aesthetically equal or better is correct in any way. As a rule, expensive cars look better than cheap cars and the same goes for most other items. There are of course exceptions, but they are exactly that - exceptions.

That does not mean that all expensive items are aesthetically pleasing - far from it. But pick any item and there's a good chance that you can find a better looking expensive version than a cheap version.

[Bernadotte 0]

Of course they judge by the actual toaster.  That's the whole point.  

What you said was, let me quote:

Now, if I bought a Porsche brand toaster I'd have to remove the logo or be the laughing stock of every friend I have.  Not because it would look bad.

See? Apparently the branding is more important to your friends than the actual toaster. Or you wouldn't be removing the logo.

No.  At least with the Porsche logo removed then perhaps my friends would not realise that I blew EUR 100 on a EUR 10 toaster.

Quote[/b] ]It's still just a toaster.  It toasts bread.  That's all that the actual toaster does.  If it actally did anything else to justify costing 10 times more than other actual toasters then there might be room for further consideration.  But it doesn't.

I would love to see how you dress and how your home looks, if functionality is the only thing you look for in products.

About 50% of the furniture in my appartment I designed myself and had carpenters build.  The other 50% I designed and built myself entirely.  Some deco influences with a touch of deconstructivism and Charles Rennie MacIntosh Art Nouveau.  Oh yes, and it also happens to be very functional.  But hey, even if I do have lousey taste I'd rather be surrounded by what I think looks good rather than resort to Porsche's or Gucci's definitions.

And what about your home?  Designed to reflect what's inside your head or what's inside your wallet?

Quote[/b] ]And it doesn't matter which luxury brand logo.  There will always be people with more money than brains willing to pay for a Rolex toaster or a Gucci toaster or a Chanel toaster despite being able to get aesthetically equal or better designs for a fraction of the price.

So? In what way is that bad news for German economy?

I didn't say it was bad news.  I just don't agree with you about luxury brand goods being the key to Europe's economic survival.

[denoir 0]

About 50% of the furniture in my appartment I designed myself and had carpenters build.  The other 50% I designed and built myself entirely.  

Oh, well, I suppose that's very cheap Custom made furniture, if you want quality and not something made by the village carpenter costs at least an order of magnitude more than the designer made stuff.

It's quite simple, if you don't give a rat's ass of how it looks, or can't afford anything else, then you buy the mass produced stuff. There are some exceptions where you can actually get good looking mass produced stuff, but you can forget that if you have something specific in mind. The second stage is if you do care a bit about design and you do have somewhat of a budget, then you look at what the professional designers have to offer. And finally, if money is no issue and you have a very good idea of what you want, then you have it custom made.

An Armani beats almost any cheap polyester suit - but a custom made suit beats almost any Armani.

How much would a custom-built toaster go for?

Quote[/b] ]But hey, even if I do have lousey taste I'd rather be surrounded by what I think looks good rather than resort to Porsche's or Gucci's definitions.

You don't necessarily resort to their definitions - they have a wide array of stuff as well. It's just that is the step you more or less have to take if you want a product where the makers of it actually thought about its aesthetic appearance.. at all. Which is more than what you can say for most mass produced stuff.

Quote[/b] ]And what about your home? Designed to reflect what's inside your head or what's inside your wallet?

My wallet dominates there unfortunately. The original idea was a Bauhaus main theme, adapted to integrate contemporary technology. As it turned out, the renovation of the apartment itself cost much more than I had anticipated, so it basically blew away my interior decoration budget. Which translates to a good deal of IKEA furniture - it's extremely cheap and you can find stuff that has a clean enough design to not be offensive. The remnant of my budget goes to minor things such as lamps, kitchen appliances (yes, toaster included! ) etc

Hopefully, I'll get it to work altogether in a minimalist Scandinavian overall design. It is however very far from what I wanted. As a matter of fact, the only true thing left from my Bauhaus dream are a couple of lamps and one Kandinsky and one Klee oil reproduction.

It's very far from what was in my mind - which was a fairly clean Bauhaus setting - thanks to my wallet.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say it was bad news. I just don't agree with you about luxury brand goods being the key to Europe's economic survival.

Well, what do you suggest then? Today the luxury brand (or at least luxury brand by non-European standards) is selling quite well. That in fact is for instance what the US primarily imports from Europe. What we have is some culture, some history and the legacy of the colonial era. That's what we can present as unique - and that very much includes specific brands. The fact that many people buy something just because it is a specific brand is very good for the economic future. If slapping on a sticker that says "Gucci" makes an item more desirable - that's fantastic for the European economy. Why do you think for instance the Italians weren't at all upset about the textiles conflict with the Chinese? That they were more than willing to eliminate the import quotas?

Quite simple, because cheap Chinese T-shirts are no threat at all to Dolce Gabbana - they deal in completely different things. And thanks to among other things colonialism, the Chinese as well want Dolce Gabbana and not some Chinese luxury brand. Or if you wish a different example, take luxury cars in America. Sure you have plenty of domestic production, but still if you want a luxury car that will impress people that are impressed by such things, you'll buy an European one. A German one to be precise (or a British, owned by the Germans).

In the end, it doesn't matter if you like the design or the label on the product. The principle is the same - it is a market value that goes beyond the bare-bone industrial product at the core. And that's where Europe's economic future has to be. That is what we can sell.

[kavoven 4]

Intresting disput about toasters....^^

I admit, that I don't have the time to read all the posts and neither have I the knowledge to comment them really.

(My 18th birthsday is next weekend, bad luck )

But there is one thing I want to quote:

Quote[/b] ]"Wenn es uns nicht gelingt, die Arbeitslosigkeit abzubauen, dann haben wir es nicht verdient wiedergewählt zu werden."

Quote[/b] ]

"If we can't decrease the unemploymentrate, we are not worth to be reelected again."

Now guess, who said that? Schröder of course. He did so in 1998. Now, we have 5 Million people unemployed. (3-4 Million in 1998)

So, it's too late to tell anyone, what he should vote, but I think my opinion is clear

edit

6 minuts to go

[kavoven 4]

ZDF forecasts.

CDU/CSU: 37 %

FDP: 10,5 %

SPD: 33 %

Grüne: 8 %

Die Linke/PDS: 8 %

Other: 3,5 %

SPD lost many votes, CDU had 42 % one week ago in the forecasts, loses again, FDF has won extremly, greens like always, Die Linke/PDS, as expected

[Daddl 10]

Edit: Damn, you beat me to it... :P

Mhhhh... Great coalition or will the conservatives gain more votes as the counting continues?

[kavoven 4]

I have to say, that under this conditions no party will be able to run the country.

This elections are a lose for everyone in our country

[der bastler 0]

Oh, our democratic system has definitely lost with Schröder exploiting the Grundgesetz and Köhler accepting this move.

But it is a chance for Germany to break with the lame static warefare between entrenched black/yellow and red/green forces.

At least it is a small victory for civil rights as the voice of reason (Grüne, Linke) has gained some more weight.

[kavoven 4]

Oh, our democratic system has definitely lost with Schröder exploiting the Grundgesetz and Köhler accepting this move.

But it is a chance for Germany to break with the lame static warefare between entrenched black/yellow and red/green forces.

At least it is a small victory for civil rights as the voice of reason (Grüne, Linke) has gained some more weight.

We don't need "Grüne Fanatiker(green fanatism)" and we do not need "Frustrierte(frustrated)"

So I definatly do not agree with you bastler, is there any advantage for the BRD? Or do I have to remember you, what happend to the last system, in which we had small parties all around...

I hope this will change the current system, but I can't say in which direction.