How
time flies in the world of technology! My partner has just ditched the
"new" laptop she bought 18 months ago because, despite its many
attributes, it had two maddening characteristics: it was unable to keep up with
the speed of her neurotransmissions and it was reluctant to connect with
unfamiliar Wi-Fi systems - as if it was shy or suspicious of them. If there are
two things we all expect from computers these days they are speed and Wi-Fi
connectivity so it has been discarded, its cost written off, and replaced by a
model which is not only faster but also bolder (it needs to be, since it has no
socket for cable connection to a router).
It is
also quite expensive, so before buying it we reviewed our finances - mindful,
as always, of Mr Micawber's advice to heed the importance of cash-flow and its
starkly alternative bottom line results, "happiness" or
"misery". This I was able to do on my own laptop because - while I
will always be grateful to Micawber for explaining so succinctly the
advisability of regulating expenditure according to income - I do have
Microsoft to thank for providing a tool with which to do the maths: the Excel
spreadsheet. Left to my own devices the calculations would most certainly be
questionable. Happily, as it turned out, the insertion of the proposed purchase
into the "November" cell did not turn the ink red further along the
row. How I love computers - sometimes.
But
people's expenditure isn't always controlled according to Micawber's rational
principle. All too often a cashflow will result in "misery" because
of unaffordable purchases. Perhaps in such cases the possibility of a lottery
win might have been factored hopefully into the equation? When I was
re-organising my favourite websites into folders yesterday (it was raining) I
noted with some alarm that I had filed the National Lottery website in the
'Finance' folder, along with HSBC, Halifax, Lloyds, HMRC etc. Optimistic? I
think so: to date the National Lottery has had only a negative impact on our
finances.
It has
been observed that "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to
buy things they don't need, to impress people they don't like". It's true
that we are easily persuaded to spend more than is necessary - whether we can
afford it or not. The power of branding proves the point. Apple, for example,
is the only manufacturer which makes a good profit on handsets. It does this by
being able to convince people to pay much more than they would for other brands
and, while there are those who buy an iPhone because they prefer the
technology, there are others who simply want to be seen to be able to afford
it. Some can afford it: for the rest there is credit - a concept which tests
the notion of affordability. A cautionary note here - and I'm sure Micawber
would have agreed: credit is better employed in the acquisition of appreciating
assets than it is in the purchase of depreciating hardware.
But
this inclination to buy stuff on credit may be just a passing phase. Futurologists
are already predicting the end of personal ownership of cars - once they become
driverless and universally available on-demand per journey there will be no
need for individuals to buy them and keep them parked up for most of their
useful life. It could be the beginning of the end of superfluous consumption
and the dawning of a new age of sustainable economics. For years now it has
been possible to rent mobile phones: I hope the same will apply soon to laptops, as I've
accumulated quite a few "old" ones already.
Logical observations well noted as usual Jo. Thanks Tom
ReplyDeleteThank you Tom.
ReplyDelete