Grant McCracken: The Rise of Artisanal Everything and 'Cruelty-Free Capitalism'
In Return of the Artisan, anthropologist Grant McCracken explains how we've shifted from an industrial to a handmade economy.

"I think you could argue that Alice Waters changed us almost as much as Steve Jobs did, almost as much as Chairman Mao did. I mean, it's extraordinary to see what follows from her creation of a tiny restaurant in Berkeley in 1971," says anthropologist Grant McCracken. "The artisanal revolution ushers in a new model of production and consumption. At its best, it ushers in a cruelty-free capitalism or aims for something like that."
Steve Jobs, Mao, and…Alice Waters? Who is she, exactly?
I'll get to that in a moment, but first, let me ask you a question: While you're hanging out in your hip, handmade loungewear, sipping your pot-still bourbon, and noshing on some homemade sourdough bread covered with butter you churned yourself from your neighbor's stash of unpasteurized goat milk, did you ever stop to wonder just how you—and America writ large—got to a place where Wonder Bread is a shorthand for all that is terrible and mediocre and any sort of super-rustic, craggy, unsliced, dense, dark loaf of barely processed grain is a sign not just of cultural sophistication but of moral superiority?
Only a generation or two ago—for our parents and grandparents—the cutting edge of consumption was to buy the most industrial, machine-made products you could afford, preferably objects that had never been touched by human hands and carried a brand insignia that conveyed high status or value. When it came to even white-collar jobs, the dream was often to dress exactly like everybody else and work for a giant corporation that was bigger than the market and, thus, could guarantee you a job for life. You died and went to heaven if you were an IBM salesman, all of whom wore blue suits, white shirts, red ties, and black shoes.
But now we live in an artisanal age, where everything is small-batched and hyper-personalized. This revolution has been building for years or even decades, and now it is everywhere around us, influencing not just what we wear, eat, and listen to but how we work, where we live, and how we think of our deepest identities. Mass production, including of personalities and social types, is out, and individualization is in.
In Return of the Artisan, anthropologist Grant McCracken explains "how America went from industrial to handmade" in the post–World War II era. This is a funny, deep, and well-written book that takes us to small towns and hipster neighborhoods all over the country, from New York City to Bowling Green, Kentucky, to Berkeley, California, where Alice Waters changed everything when she opened up a revolutionary new restaurant called Chez Panisse.
There's no better guide to this brave new—and sometimes incredibly annoying—world than McCracken, a Baby Boomer raised in British Columbia during the 1960s and an early theorist of how the digital revolution and rise of the internet were remaking us in ways that are mostly better but also deeply challenging to community. His own life is as long and strange a trip as the one he documents in Return of the Artisan.
Previous Reason interviews with and select articles by Grant McCracken:
"Is America Too Forgiving? The Case of Lance Armstrong," February 20, 2021
"Grant McCracken: The New Honor Code vs. Radical Wokeism," February 3, 2021
"How To Have a Good Idea: A unified theory of fantasy football; Eat, Pray, Love; and Burning Man," December 2012
"How Cultural Innovation Happens: Q&A with Anthropologist Grant McCracken," June 7, 2011
"The Politics of Plenitude," August/September 1998
Today's sponsors:
- Everyday Dose is the coffee alternative I start my days with. It's made from nonpsychedelic mushrooms, collagen, and nootropics that elevate my mood, sharpen my focus, and give me an energy boost, all without the jitters and digestive issues that come with drinking traditional coffee. It tastes great too and is quick and easy to make. Try risk-free, with a 60-day, money-back guarantee by going here now.
- The Reason Rundown With Peter Suderman. Free minds. Free markets. Big stories. That's The Reason Rundown, which comes out every Friday. End the week with concise, thought-provoking stories from the journalists at Reason, the magazine of logic, not legends; coherence, not contradictions. Hosted by Features Editor Peter Suderman, in each episode he talks to a single Reason journalist about a single big story. Subscribe today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No. What has happened is that the miracles of capitalism and industry has made things so cheap that having a lot of stuff is no longer a sign of affluence. So, the affluent have decided to have their stuff be "hand made" as a way of showing their wealth and superiority over the lower classes.
This isn't the rise of a new form of capitalism. And it isn't the future for anyone except for various well off hipster doofuses. This guy is a fucking idiot. Seriously, like upper class twit of the year level stupid.
Gillespie has written a few of these lately and it's really pissing me off. He did the same sort of beatification of John Mackey just a few weeks ago, and it's weird. He simply doesn't live in a world I recognize and he claims it's certain elites who single-handed remade whole elements of society.
It is just a sign of the bougie, white, culture that the reason staff is steeped in. It can't just be that having something home made and unique is just kind of cool and a way to show off your wealth. No, it has to be that you have invented a new kind of capitalism that is going to replace the old and remake the world because bougie white people are so fucking important and do things like that.
Have you ever talked to an old woman who is more proud of the linens she got from Sears than the quilt her mother made? Where is this idea that mass produced good were EVER a signal of luxury? I'm just gobsmacked.
I am too. People loved machine made stuff because it was cheap and practical not because it was a sign of wealth or better. Yeah, it is such a bizarre claim to make. Again, these are the same people who figure out how to can their own jelly and think they are doing something new and groundbreaking. I am not kidding. I know these people. I live among them. And they are scary as fuck in a lot of ways.
Nick is 'the photographer' from The Gernsback Continuum.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ati-02) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
A bit off topic, but why the fuck did so many people in the 70’s and 80’s cover hardwood floors with carpet?
I wondered that myself. There are a few reasons. One is that refinishing hardwood can be expensive if you aren’t doing it yourself. The other is that people growing up before the late fifties did not have wall to wall carpeting. So when that became a thing in the late fifties to early 60’s it was viewed as an upgrade and innovation. My parents were born in the 30’s and they have that perspective. They HATE hardwood floors.
"Where is this idea that mass produced good were EVER a signal of luxury? I'm just gobsmacked."
Lots of mid quality stuff was a way for middle-class people to pretend that they were rich.
I bet at least one of them has some intentionally stupid hand-made thing that will never be used, like the $1000 "artisan" axes that were the rage in Brooklyn(!) a few years ago.
I suppose he travels about in an artisanal automobile, running on either home made gasoline or small batch electricity. Eschew electricity created by industrial plants and only use that overseen by those also working from home like journalists.
"I had it all. Even the glass dishes with tiny bubbles and imperfections, proof they were crafted by the honest, simple, hard-working indigenous peoples of... wherever."
Like how before the industrial revolution being pale was a sign of wealth because it meant you didn't have to work on a farm, but after the industrial revolution being tan became a sign of wealth because it meant you didn't have to work in a factory.
In the 19th Century, the "Robber Barons" were all drawn as fat, and many were in real life too. Now, anyone with the slightest means is trying to get and stay slim, because they can afford gym memberships or home exercise equipment.
Only a generation or two ago—for our parents and grandparents—the cutting edge of consumption was to buy the most industrial, machine-made products you could afford, preferably objects that had never been touched by human hands and carried a brand insignia that conveyed high status or value. When it came to even white-collar jobs, the dream was often to dress exactly like everybody else and work for a giant corporation that was bigger than the market and, thus, could guarantee you a job for life. You died and went to heaven if you were an IBM salesman, all of whom wore blue suits, white shirts, red ties, and black shoes.
What fucking dystopian alternate reality did Gillespie grow up in, Jesus Christ. No wonder the writers here are out of touch, they lived in some Bizarro universe.
Totally out of touch with reality.
Did Gillespie not have grandparents himself? Or did he decide their values were "problematic" when he was 12 years old and stopped talking to them?
Fuck off with this bullshit.
No shit. It is like Gillespie watched Mad Men and The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit and thought they were contemporary documentaries of the time.
Basically, like the all of the reason staff, Gillespie is just an ignorant provincial hick. He is just different than a traditional hick because his province is the Acela corridor. These people are just fucking morons.
I wonder if he realizes that he comes off as completely insane. My grand-parents took pride in home-made products, or making their own bread and pie crusts from scratch. They did their own quilting and blankets and looked down on store-bought, mass-produced goods. Sometimes you did buy the Green Giant canned goods when it was something you couldn't grow yourself, but they preferred to have their own vegetable gardens, their own pecan trees and bean fields.
I'm just baffled by this weird need to rewrite history.
It is like saying people buy off the rack suits rather than custom ones made by a tailor to show their wealthy. In bizzaro world maybe. Rich people never buy off the rack.
But someone not so wealthy might by high end off the rack suits as a way of pretending they are wealthier than they are.
I think even this is to simplistic.
People have always taken pride in stuff that they worked hard for. As recently as the 80s hat might be the new family TV or Car or Computer. Or it might be the hand-crafted chair that dad made in the garage, or the quilt that grandma made. Gilespe is wrong that people hated home made shit, but they also didn't hate the expensive stuff they bought.
There was nothing like Ikea back then. There was nothing like Walmart. I had 3 brothers and I wore all their hand-me-down clothes because clothes were fucking expensive, as a percentage of my parents' dual income. I was still using ski straps in the 90s because that's what my brothers skied on a decade earlier. My original bike, until I could save up to get a new one for myself, was a piece of shit banana-seat cruiser while all my friends were riding BMXs.
The difference between the past and today is merely the domain space of things that "you have to work hard for". You couldn't get cheap dining room tables, or TVs in the 80s but you can today. So there were a lot more things that you treasured for a long time because it cost you real tradeoffs. My parents still have the giant wood cabinet TV they bought in the guest bedroom of their house. Because it was a huge expense when they bought it. We live in an age of embarrassing wealth. Where Americans of all stripes can have the luxuries that the rich could barely dream of 80 years ago.
Outside of the very poor (homeless, etc) everyone in this country lives better than all of humanity outside of the extremely wealthy throughout history, and few realize it.
A lot of the ‘elite’ hate that, and want to ‘fix’ things.
I dunno about you but personally I derive more satisfaction from the fact that my Nike's are hand-sewn by children who's hands may still be stained by the blood of Uighyrs, rather than some, uh, cold, industrial-sized waffle iron.
Uh, there is a happy medium you know, like products made by people who at least aren't held in place against their will.
Take it up with McCraken, I'm not the one holding Alice Walters up alongside Mao.
Personally, I think it's all delusional 60s-era bong-resin, herpetologist handshake bullshit. Maybe a little currently-trendy historical retconning. Urban elites patting each other on the back for getting back to their roots during a time when a greater portion of the country still grew their own meals and slaughtered their own animals. Our local 4-H livestock auction where I grew up predates whomever Alice Walker is by about 4 decades. If bidding to buy a pig or cow to put in the freezer from the farmer who raised it isn't farm-to-table or a quilt off the girl who learned to quilt it, go fuck yourself.
This dumb shit feels an awful lot like NPR's story about environmentalists claiming responsibility for nuclear power's revival. No, you dumb fucks aren't responsible for shit. If anything, you've opposed the mechanization and abundance that has made the ability to generate your artisanal bullshit possible and claimed it from the people who the mechanization benefited first-hand. Fuck off.
There’s an episode of ‘Archer’ where Mallory is bragging about her new conference table made from a single piece of Brazilian Rosewood, and how six pygmies died making it.
It’s funny. I have some of the same criticisms of Gillespie’s take, but now I don’t feel like talking about it.
Somehow your comments are all about your anger, much more than criticism of Gillespie. I’m not sure where all this anger is coming from over some blog post.
Maybe you are just being dramatic to try to be entertaining or something.
Poor Mikey.
In other words, you agree with him, but he’s not on your tribe. The projection with you and Lying Jeffy is amazing.
So you change your views and feelings based on other people and not from facts, that checks out
Yet you’re still here talking about it……..
He likes the modern, hipper world where everyone struggles to get by in a job that lasts, at most, a year, you have tens or hundreds of thousands in college debt and everyone in the goddamned family is required to go out and be a wage slave otherwise you won't make the rent, in a 200 square foot upzoned urban sleep pod that's next to a homeless camp.
Shorter: Two can play that game.
What a fucking bizarre paragraph. Did Gay Fonzie ever talk to his own parents? The cutting edge of consumption since the industrial revolution has been machine-stamped stuff because it was suddenly affordable to have in any form at all, not because having a factory-made thing was a status symbol. Rich people still had handmade crap and it was still a status symbol.
If anything, the absolute profusion of ultra-cheap Made In Shitholistan products combined with the more or less Direct-To-Customer sales via Amazon/Ebay/Etc have given western middle classes so much extra money that they can now afford to buy (and artisans can survive on the low wages they command in order to create) bespoke versions of some things that only rich people could once afford.
It's not that people changed what they value. It's that they were more easily able to acquire what they need and were left with more resources for what they want.
If we survive the drive towards authoritarian global Marxism we should eventually have near limitless energy and replicators like on ‘Star Trek’. Although I’m pretty sure the neo Marxists would gladly keep that tech out of the hands of the masses and continue to dole out crumbs at their whim.
Capitalism Plus?
ok https://oto.4u-review.com/profitbook-oto/
His brother Phil wrote the definitive book on Monkeypox.
What about Odie?
Rich have ALWAYS been about small batched and hyper personalized. Up and coming, jonesy middle classers aspired to it as well.
I'll point you directly to the custom tailored suit. Saville Row was where the man who had done well in life bought his armor for the office, bespoke, perfectly fitted for him alone. Suits aren't the daily wear thing they once were for most of us, but a couple of generations ago they were a huge divider.
The poors bought off the peg and hopefully got the sleeves shortened enough to not look like a complete slub. The fact that they could own several was great, but they sure weren't the same. The miracle of mass manufacturing meant they could get suits, or furnishings, or a poster of their favorite Monet painting to hang on the living room wall, but it was and is a far spoke from bespoke suits, handmade custom furnishings, and an original work of art on your wall.
The stuff that went with us when my parents passed were things like my grandfather's humidor, well made solid walnut furniture, a copper art-piece and a painting they'd bought from an up and coming artist.
The ikea shit ends up given to goodwill.
This revolution has been building for years or even decades, and now it is everywhere around us, influencing not just what we wear, eat, and listen to but how we work, where we live, and how we think of our deepest identities. Mass production, including of personalities and social types, is out, and individualization is in.
Mr. Gillespie, do you have any idea how utterly and unremittingly retarded that comment sounds? Do you really, for a minute, think that individualism is a function of consumer goods purchases? Moreover, the adoption of an artisanal brand is inherently not a matter of individualization. You do realize that an entire body of humor has arisen around hipster "individualism" being more uniform than even your IBM Man stereotype. This is just a really, really dumb article.
The Jacket is also very old, and has obviously not spent more than 20 minutes in the last year interacting with anyone under the age of 30. I have kids. Mass produced everything- electronics, furniture, music, tv, friends- isn't going anywhere.
Your mass-produced friends are going to stop being your friends at the end of the year unless you renew the license.
Just jailbreak them. Pirated mass produced friends are ether best friends.
In all fairness, not every artisanal, hand-made thing is a matter of snobbery or virtue-signalling, and the line between handmade and mass-produced is not so clear.
For example, I make my own laundry detergent by mixing Felz-Naptha or Dial Soap bits, Twenty Mule Team Borax, Arm & Hammer Washing Soda and Baking Soda, and Oxy Clean. The reason I do it is because I sneeze and break out in hives with most fabric softeners and scents. All of these are mass-produced products, yet used in a way custom-designed for my own health needs.
I can pickles, salsa, and pasta sauce because I want different flavors and varieties than commercially available. I make my own ice cream again because no one makes Ovaltine flavor brands in the freezer or uses fresh banana. I use a Soda stream to make custom ginger ale that's so strong it clears sinuses. All of this involves canning jars and lids, pots, can lifters, thermometers, spice mixes, an ice cream churn, and a Soda stream and bottles. All are mass-manufactured, yet all make products unique to my tastes.
And let's not forget that things like Crikut and Badge-A-Minit are like the Guttenberg Press of things which make for very handy weapons against Woke/Politically Correct/Religiously Correct Culture if you can't find a friendly local printer. They are mass-produced, yet also the new "Tyrant's Foe and People's Friend" for Everyperson! These are my next toys to enjoy!
Libertarian Sci-Fi writer Roger A. "Papa" Heinlein pointed out that even a Hippie unmechanized garden still requires an industrial process and factory to make the hand tools and implements.
There is a place for both micro-batch handmade and cheap mass-produced items and, contrary to the subtitle of McCracken's book, none of it is "Cruel Capitalism" as long as all parties are free.
Nick should ask Grant for his side of the great American Anthropological Association story, from Margaret Mead's threat to flunk any student who voted for Goldwater, to the 2012 discovery that no one in the organization would confess to being a Republican.
Capitalism was already cruelty-free, since all transactions are voluntary.
> Only a generation or two ago—for our parents and grandparents—the cutting edge of consumption was to buy the most industrial, machine-made products you could afford, preferably objects that had never been touched by human hands and carried a brand insignia that conveyed high status or value.
Because for children raised under the privation of the Great Depression and World War II, such things were miraculous. Abundance for all. And purity and safety.
The new artisan schtick is an offshoot of our prosperity. We pay five time more for an artisan loaf of bread because we can afford it.
This is silly and only happens around the edges with a small percentage of food and crafts.
Hand-crafted cars? Houses? Refrigerators? TVs? Clothes (at scale)? Phones? Computers?
I don't think so.
You could argue that Alice Walters changed our world as much as Steve Jobs or Chairman Mao did. Unless you're Amish or Mennonite or religiously or culturally conservative, or lived in rural America, or rural France, or really any rural part of Europe where getting your food from a local farmer was, in no way, an oddity outside maybe places like Berkeley in 1971. In which case, you could argue that pretty much anyone else you've never heard of changed your world as much as Steve Jobs or Chairman Mao did.
For certain younger generations, anything you can put on instagram that makes you seem so much cooler and more unique than the rest is what it’s about. That’s why we now have artisanal everything, or retro-1950s style refrigerators.
I will never forget first eating Alice Waters' cuisine at a Los Angeles restaurant (maybe a chef influenced by her ran it). I had finally clawed my way out of poverty and had read that this restaurant was creative and special. I had never eaten anything so remarkable. I savored every bite. It permanently changed my expectations for food. Wonderful.
Capitalism is not about the best stuff. It is about the most efficient. Most goods just have to be good enough. Gold plating everything is nice, if you have the money. If not, the cheap shit that does the job will do.
The artisanal revolution is just wealthy people finding a way to show their status. That is it. It is just like buying a mechanical watch. You don't buy a mechanical watch because they are better than quartz ones. They are not. You buy a mechanical watch to show people that you are the kind of person who can afford one.
Yeah, Geiger comes across as a bit of Nick's mirror image. I don't know anyone who says or thinks "This thing I bought from China is a real value a fair price. A good investement!" as much as knowingly going in with the mentality "I need this exotic wrench to turn two bolts. At $1 per bolt, it's worth it."
That is it. It is just like buying a mechanical watch. You don't buy a mechanical watch because they are better than quartz ones. They are not. You buy a mechanical watch to show people that you are the kind of person who can afford one.
Not taking anything away from the general gist of your comment, but if anyone is curious, you don't have to spend a lot of money to get a good mechanical watch. There's an entire wristwatch subculture that goes way beyond the guy who steps out of his Rolls with a Patek on his wrist. There's much enjoyment to be had with Mechanical watches in the $100-$500 range with mechanical movements that will run a lifetime with minimal (in some cases none) service and... one of the things us enthusiasts like about mechanicals is that if taken care of, and if you have a good watchmaker you stay in touch with (like a good barber) your grandkids can be wearing it.
I have to be careful here, because I run the risk of being that guy who can babble on about a niche subject (akin to... I dunno... taxidermy) while everyone else at the party quietly nods and then finds somewhere else to be. In this case, wristwatches.
I'm not going to take firm sides in this debate, but there is kind of a 'bowf sidez' element to this.
For a lot of stuff, Briggs is 100% correct. I have a cheap set of flatware in my kitchen that I've been using since 1989. I didn't require it to be high-end, artisanal and handmade by a small group of hipsters wearing pork pie hats.
But on the other hand, Geiger definitely has a point. I bought a pair of outdoor hiking shoes a couple of years ago. In less than a year of relatively gentle use, the sole at the toe became unglued.
I thought, "Huh, that sucks" then I went out and bought a different pair. Within a year of relatively gentle use, the sole at the toe became unglued. I finally looked carefully at the brand, and I realized both pairs that failed were the same brand. I will never buy that brand again. So now I'm willing to spend an extra $40, $60, $90 to get a pair that will last me five or ten years (or more if possible). Another area of modern "efficient" capitalism that really annoys me is the planned obsolescence.
I'm in the tech bidness, there was a time when you could buy a network switch that you could run in an IDF in a high-temp, high-dust factory for no-shit 20 years and never once had a failure.
Companies like Cisco realized this, and so now they've moved to "licensing" models which force (or nudge) you to buy new gear every few years. It's illegal to resell the hardware or to repurchase and use... without going to cisco and buying a license. And if you think Curvature (2nd hand cisco reseller) is a good option, be very careful. Curvature isn't doing anything illegal, but what Curvature reps WON'T tell you is that if you buy that used cisco switch, you're supposed to relicense it with Cisco.
Essentially, Capitalism is quickly figuring out that the best way to make money is that you won't own anything, and you'll be happy.
I’ve had similar experiences with a number of goods. That sort of thing pushed me towards Apple products, Milwaukee power tools, and other stuff that while costing a bit more has improved my user experience and required far less frequent replacement.
In case you'd not come across this quote from Terry Pratchett's "Men at Arms":
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
If they are bit more expensive, however, the battery changes always feel a bit like surgery.
Go high quality quartz-solar. Seiko, Citizen and Casio (g-shock) have these options. These tend to be very high quality (quality of the first kind, not the second kind) watches that will run for 20+ years without a battery swap. The only danger you run is that will a replacement battery be available in 20 years. I don't know, because I haven't owned any of my quartz solars for that long, yet.
Save. Buy the good thing that lasts. Incessantly purchasing cheap replacements ends up not being so cheap, and in many cases more expensive, though most people do not realize it.
Sometimes and sometimes not. It depends on the scale you're talking about. Sometimes the more expensive option is SO much more expensive that you can literally go through hundreds of cheap alternatives before you even approach the cost of the more expensive option.
A lot of it comes down to personal choice, and the hidden cost of failure/replacement. If failure comes with high risk, then go with a more expensive option, but if failure is a relatively painless procedure, most people will choose the cheap option and replace and never shell out the equivalent for the more expensive option. It's like putting $25,000 worth of solar panels on your roof to save $90 a month on electricity. Those solar panels will pay for themselves in a mere 23 years. Expect replacement at the 15-20 year mark.
Wearing one of the under $300 Seikos right now. Baby grand, has the scimitar hands like the Grand Seikos and the same general shape, classy, simple, and accurate to a couple seconds a day. I only own it because I like the engineering of a mechanical watch, and it's literally the only jewelry I ever wear.
I have a spendy watch, but I wear the Seikos just as often, they look as good as most watches from 5 feet away, and the only people who notice my expensive watch are middle aged nerds who are into watches.
A Daytona, or something like that, is what you wear to look like a millionaire who wants people to know he is a millionaire. My watch is more expensive than your car. A billionaire who wants to flaunt it will have something unobtainable and unique.
"Buy the good thing that lasts. Incessantly purchasing cheap replacements ends up not being so cheap, and in many cases more expensive, though most people do not realize it."
Again, I think this is too simplistic. Cheap watches solve a very specific problem. For people who just need to tell the time, it may very well not make sense to have anything else. I certainly didn't need anything fancy through my 30s and early 40s. I probably spent no more than $200 on solving this problem over 25 years.
The point is that it isn't some grand conspiracy that these cheap solutions exist. People aren't deluded. They aren't stupid. (Well, they may be deluded, stupid people, but that isn't why these products exist.) They just have different priorities than you. And that doesn't make them wrong.
But Rolex’s maintain their value pretty well, don’t they? I’ve heard that, but I stopped wearing wristwatches almost 25 years ago.
After many of years negotiating with an assembly line of ill fitting suits (one where the crotch came undone in the office),
I claimed this during my last HR Tribunal.
"Look, the crotch came undone! I swear it was the cheap suit's fault!"
Multiple investigations... never convicted.
Why it is almost as if capitalism is really efficient at getting you what you really need. If you need a pair of hiking boots for your kids that they will grow out of in 3 months, the cheap shit is ideal. If you need something that will wear in and last for you for 10 years, there are boots out there with lifetime warranties and you will pay for them.
I generally don't understand why people are so cranky about capitalism on both sides of this debate.
There is not a day that goes by where I don't marvel at how miraculous the modern world is. No matter what your current situation- poor, rich, dedicated to hiking, going once, whatever- there is a hiking boot product out there to solve your problem. Why people like Nick or Gieger consider that a problem is a strange mystery to me.
We have never had it so good, and that just isn't good enough for some people.
I still have hiking socks I bought to go to Scotland in 2003.
The best way to live.
Well, they shouldn't have been investigating your crotch!
We have never had it so good, and that just isn't good enough for some people.
This is where Briggs argument is correct. Inexpensive goods is why relatively poor people are so much better off now than they were not just 30 or 40 years ago, but a thousand years ago. Things are amazing. Relative wealth is up everywhere.
I think Jordan Peterson talks about this phenomenon of "everything is better in absolute terms" and there is no argument against that. For instance, women had no reliable way of dealing with menstruation until the 1930s, capitalism is responsible for that.
However, none of that means that we have to like everything about every trend within Capitalism, and act as if every element of it is above or beyond criticism. Even my zoomer kids have just begun to discover the "you won't own anything" angle in modern capitalism, and that was with zero helpful input from me.
Every real libertarian knew and has argued that Capitalism doesn't mean good outcomes for everyone, it's merely the best system for the aggregate, and the only system that allows the best ideas to flourish in the most efficient manner.
Nothing in my critiques should be taken as a call for government action. I still believe I'm well within reason (drink!) to point out the ice cream maker my parents bought in 1952 that's still running, vs, the one I bought in 2014 that ended up in the garbage.
If there is going to be a "You will own nothing and be happy" world, it will be because of government. We have had this type of world available for us for over decades. It's called your 20s. Remember? When all your friends rented apartments and drove leased cars?
"Every real libertarian knew and has argued that Capitalism doesn't mean good outcomes for everyone, it's merely the best system for the aggregate,"
Who is a libertarian with two exclamation points, and will argue that Capitalism means good outcomes for everyone? THIS GUY!!
Human misery is the default condition. If we do not provide for ourselves, the end result is us dead, and naked in the cold. Enter capitalism- free markets, property, and the ability to freely exchange with one another- and the outcomes are ALWAYS better.
I am not saying that capitalism solves every problem, of course. Entropy is a thing. Disasters happen. Sometimes evil people break the rules. And then there's that fucking government. But when people freely exchange goods, the outcome is almost always a good outcome. Even if you are starving in a natural disaster and spend $1000 for food- you have a better outcome than before your free exchange. Simply put, free exchanges WOULDN'T HAPPEN if the two people didn't both feel like the outcome is better for them.
My point of objection with you and others is on two grounds.
1) People will argue endlessly that people expressing different preferences are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Whether it's grumping that kids listen to crap music, or bemoaning people buying cheap Ikea furniture, or complaining about video games with zero-day DLC- generally these people do not understand how diverse each individuals' needs are, and they fail to understand why someone might make a different decision than them. I rail against it because what often starts with harumphing about how people could possibly need 23 different choices of deodorant later become these bizarre social movements where folks are demanding my company stop giving me straws with my drinks. It is annoying.
2) What you perceive coming from the WEF and Cisco may be a lot of shite, but it ain't capitalism. It is the same cronyism that has existed in society for time immemorial- from the early days of the chief giving favors to his brother in law, to the mercantilism of medieval Europe, to the corporatism of today.
While there is a very real desire in companies to avoid major capital outlays (I am a convert on this, where I probably would have agreed more with you 4 or 5 years ago), much of what Cisco is able to do comes from legal moats. From poorly reasoned patent law, to DMCA, to the over-reaction to the Dot Com melt down, that has led the government to favor large companies over start ups, what Cisco is doing can hardly be seen solely as capitalism run amok.
My point of objection with you and others is on two grounds. 1) People will argue endlessly that people expressing different preferences are WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I've never argued that. My complaint is about business models that don't favor me or my own choices. I'm the customer and I have every right to complain. My complaint may get lost in the avalanche of choices that other people make which result in the success of those business models, but that doesn't automatically make my claim invalid-- it just may make it irrelevant.
2) What you perceive coming from the WEF and Cisco may be a lot of shite, but it ain't capitalism. It is the same cronyism that has existed in society for time immemorial- from the early days of the chief giving favors to his brother in law, to the mercantilism of medieval Europe, to the corporatism of today.
What's coming from Cisco isn't government... it's the realization that if you want to increase sales every year, you have to find a way to force an every diverse and competitive market into buying and rebuying your products. What's coming from the WEF is the top-down imposed version of what the market is figuring out on its own. Those are, in fact two different things, even if they have the same odor.
While there is a very real desire in companies to avoid major capital outlays (I am a convert on this, where I probably would have agreed more with you 4 or 5 years ago), much of what Cisco is able to do comes from legal moats. [...] that has led the government to favor large companies over start ups, what Cisco is doing can hardly be seen solely as capitalism run amok.
Maybe? What's the libertarian position on intellectual property? I still can't get a good read.
Further, cisco is just one example... that was the one I had easily at hand. The other example which doesn't seem to have any legal moats is the licensure of software, on a yearly basis. You can't buy the program, but you can subscribe yearly, it requires an always-on internet connection to work, because it phones home to verify the validity of the license, and won't run without it.
Your electric car is no longer supported by the manufacturer, and you can no longer charge it at the charging stations. Imagine telling Americans that the car they bought 15 years ago might not be able to fill up at the station if the manufacturer turns off a remote feature at HQ.
Oh, and lastly, you SEEM to making a rather cogent argument against the article's premise. That is, if people always are making the wrong choices.
Nah of you want a good mechanical watch the only way to go is IWC portugieeser. Any thing less is crap
I like IWC. Very well made. Portugieser 40 is a classy looking timepiece. I like the Ingeneur too, but that's me. I like my watches like my women, as few complications as possible.
My spendy watch is a Fiddy. It was a lot cheaper three years ago, but so were Rolexes. And everything else. Last time I looked they were way over double what I paid, and I would never spend that much, but I guess everyone got their Covid stimulus checks and went out and bought watches.
A Portugieser starts at $7500. And since it's an in-house movement, maintenance is going to be more expensive than many new watches. You don't need to spend that kind of money to get a good mechanical or automatic watch. The Portugieser is also a big watch and has pitiful water resistance. I mean, it certainly is an attractively designed watch and if you have the hulk wrist to pull it off, good for you. But for most people, that's not a sensible recommendation.
There are plenty of nice watches with a common, proven off-the-shelf, high-end, easy-to-maintain movement; for most people, that's the best choice.
Yes and no.
They have. In fact, they are going up in price. A bunch. During the pandemic used ones were going for more than new because you couldn't get a new one right away.
However, they don't always go up forever. And there's a cost to owning a mechanical watch. You have to maintain it, service costs several hundred dollars (close to a grand for a Daytona), so owning them costs up to a couple hundred a year. And if you're buying at today's prices I don't know if they'll hold up or not.
That said, yes. A well maintained rolex in good condition will sell close to what you paid for it.
Except it is not unfair, assuming the wealthier man acquired his wealth through voluntary transactions (or inherited it from someone who did.)
Taking someone's money under some pretense is what is unfair.
Captain Vimes is an idiot. Terry Pratchett was an idiot too when it came to economics.
There are two ways the rich become rich: (1) creating new value and products that people want, and (2) government corruption and rent seeking.
Conservatives and libertarians prefer (1).
Progressives and socialists are trying to impose (2).
So, if you thought someone was using something that was made in China for more than it's worth, how would you tell them? Asking for a friend reading reviews on Amazon.
" The other example which doesn't seem to have any legal moats is the licensure of software, on a yearly basis."
You really don't think software licensing has a legal moat?
Sigh.
In any case, there is a whole movement called Open Source which began in resistance to this model. For pretty much every piece of software you can buy, there is an open source alternative out there. Or you can probably find someone to do the same for you.
What you are perceiving as a cynical cash play is in fact a natural market outcome. Because people want their software updated continuously. They run on OS's that they want updated continuously. Security holes are regularly found. They want a service, and the market is responding.