71–80 of 90 posts
Not all fads are the same. Some are genuinely interesting product lines that just happen to start as a fad, but stick around (Beanie Babies, video games, and Magic: The Gathering). Others are just fads with no legs (Fidget Spinners, Slap Bracelets, and Cabbage Patch Dolls).
It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…
I don't even get how they're supposed to help with ADHD. They require too much attention to use (or I just suck at using them). I've always managed ADHD by doing things that require practically no attention - twirling a pen, doodling without looking, pacing the meeting room, etc.
They can become habitual to play with but frankly they are no better than lots of other things that move and be twiddled with. If you find doodling without looking distracting or any other coping mechanism works then stick with that.
If you can't get on with something that is supposed to be a "fix" then I suggest that you avoid it and do things that work for you.
It's hard to put my finger on what exactly unsettled me about the fidget spinner craze, but it seems related to this article. All the hype seemed ad hoc. For Beanie Babies, in retrospect, it felt like a coordinated center (the manufacturer/importer and its marketing arm) surrounded by a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. Fidget spinners just felt like every click-baiting view-monger jumping in with their hot t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly. Economics is all about trading. Trading is all about wants, desires, and needs. If I make something that everyone wants, it is not useless junk, useless junk is something nobody wants. So it's actually very important to have feedback from middlemen who's livelihood is actually tied to successfully making available desirable things. There's an economic study I remember seeing in the last couple of decades…
Making something that everyone wants is a separate thing than making everyone want something. You can do both and make a lot of money, but if the former is fixing the windows the latter broke people still aren't better off. For the "middle man" study, I don't know how they came to that conclusion. But the more obvious assumption seems to be that economic output can support more middlemen, so I'm curious what data the…
That was my conclusion as well - when times are good you don't mind someone who contributes little hanging around. When times are tough, they're out and what little value they offered is replicated by someone desperate to stick around. When a business has a lot of administrative staff times are good and those watching the market can conclude, due to the number of administrative hires, that times are good for a particular market sector. But concluding that it means middlemen are undervalued seems like whoever authored the study had some odd motive.
If you read between the lines this is the broken window fallacy: We need people to make useless junk in order to have jobs. But now there is no one making sure the useless junk stays popular, so less jobs. Except that's exactly the broken window fallacy: We could instead spend that money on other things.
If you read between the lines this is the broken window fallacy: We need people to make useless junk in order to have jobs. But now there is no one making sure the useless junk stays popular, so less jobs. Except that's exactly the broken window fallacy: We could instead spend that money on other things.
The broken windows fallacy has an element of coercion or force that's not present in consumer fads. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy fidget spinners in order to live their lives/operate their business. The baker replaces his broken window because it's untenable not to. People buy fidget spinners because they _choose_ to value the spinner more than other goods that they could purchase.
In the end, the fallacy is that "it allows us to run an economy" doesn't actually justify anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I guess we just move on to different junk. Rather than one company (Ty, from the example) presiding over and managing the popularity of the product for years, the fads come and go. Which is of course what's always happened. Remember Pokemon? There's a craze that's not a craze at all - it's been going on since the 90s. It doesn't seem to be getting killed by fidget spinners. In the meantime hundreds of smaller fa…
Seriously. Furbies, tamogatchis, pogs. There was that season where suburban moms were practically dueling to the death over Tickle Me Elmos.
If you read between the lines this is the broken window fallacy: We need people to make useless junk in order to have jobs. But now there is no one making sure the useless junk stays popular, so less jobs. Except that's exactly the broken window fallacy: We could instead spend that money on other things.
Not exactly. Economics is all about trading. Trading is all about wants, desires, and needs. If I make something that everyone wants, it is not useless junk, useless junk is something nobody wants. So it's actually very important to have feedback from middlemen who's livelihood is actually tied to successfully making available desirable things. There's an economic study I remember seeing in the last couple of decades…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I hate the fidget spinner is simply the fact that is a useless item consuming massive amounts of resources which will just end up in the trash - after it has consumed attention and money from people. The amount of plastics and metal that are just going to be thrown away due to them - not to mention their packaging which gets thrown away.... I wish that we could come up with a reasonable way to require stan…
Today's landfills will be tomorrows mines.
My stepson went through the fidget spinner phase in about a month, I think he has a dozen of the damn things I keep finding them. The longest he's stayed interested in anything is a cheap kite I bought him, so I think next year remote control plane.
(off topic sorry) but how about a better kite? A Revolution 4 line is an amazing kite, and stupidly fun to play with and brilliant to watch. And can be launched alone. Highly recommend them, example video - https://youtu.be/sPSyuvCJF4M So much can (and will) go wrong with an rc plane - another alternative would be a quad?
He also wants to build a robot so I'm thinking something tracked with camera's and sensors.