Were Econ Cha-Cha Opponents Forced to Buy Luxury Products When They Have the FREEDOM to Buy More Affordable Products?

Do econ cha-cha opponents have no choice because FDIs "unfairly" own the means of production (read here)? There's always the tendency to say that they participate in capitalism because they have "no choice" but to participate in it to survive. The screenshot above is of Rosario Guzman of the IBON Foundation. They say that the business owners "unfairly" own the means of production (read here). The photo above makes me laugh because why in the world are they using a MacPro? I ask, "If you hate capitalism, why use Apple?" They have their usual rhetoric that it's because the workers should own the means of production as if workers were the ones who bought the equipment. It's as if the workers become the most liable for bad business decisions. One wrong check mark and the company may go south. Another question to fire is, "Did society force you to buy Apple products which you know for well, is rather expensive?" 

This may make one ask, "Did you think the expensive was always the best?" If so, they may think they can spread their message better with more expensive stuff. Investopedia also sheds light on why people are prone to buying luxury goods.

Are Higher-Priced Goods Really of Higher Quality?

One possible explanation for this is the human tendency to overemphasize the positive elements of a product and ignore its disadvantages. For example, in the case of Apple Inc. (AAPL), consumers wait overnight for new releases of iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers. This despite the fact that Apple products are not technologically unique or superior.

In fact, Samsung makes phones with better features (compared to most models of the iPhone), and Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) and Xiaomi make phones that typically have a cheaper price point. Nevertheless, Apple experiences a high degree of brand loyalty and seems to break sales records year after year.

Because some people perceive non-luxury goods as inferior simply by virtue of them being non-luxury (and not on the basis of their characteristics or qualities), they also come to the irrational conclusion that higher priced goods are of better quality. Contrary to the evidence, they may believe that you get what you pay for, regardless of whether the goods are actually better than their more affordable counterparts.

If they did better research on finances, they could buy laptops from Samsung and Xiaomi at a lower price. In the free market, there's the choice of whether one wants to buy an Apple product or if they want to buy the more affordable alternative. For example, I might buy the "Communist" Xiaomi phone over an iPhone for a lower price and better battery life. I might buy an HP laptop instead. They should've done some research on gadgets that cause. In finances, the principle is never to buy a bag worth USD 500.00 with nothing inside it. Instead, buy a USD 75.00 bag with PHP USD 425.00 on it. They had their free choice and it had consequences to follow. 

Their purchasing habits may prove their financial illiteracy. If one thinks that more expensive is always better--I can expect them not to know basic economics. That's why discussing economics with an overspender can be a futile exercise (read here). An overspender only knows how to spend--not how to budget. Even more ironic is overspending on imported luxury goods while supporting policies discouraging FDI (read here). The person can buy a Gucci bag, an iPhone, and all branded goods but goes to rally against FDI. When asked, "You hate FDI but why buy imported luxury stuff?" Again, if they say they're just forced to participate, were they forced to buy the iPhone, the MacPro, or the Gucci bag when they had a choice for more affordable goods--local or imported? 

They don't see the real beauty of the free market. In a free market, even in a Communist country like Vietnam, there's the choice between luxury goods and non-luxury goods. If I were in Vietnam, I could choose whether or not I'd like to eat gold-leaf steak or I could choose to eat more affordable steaks. I could choose to eat more affordable chocolates or high-class chocolates. Vietnam's current president To Lam ate a golden steak after laying flowers on Karl Marx's grave. To Lam could've chosen to eat at the Sichuan Restaurant instead of Salt Bae's Nusr-Et Steakhouse. Nobody forced To Lam to eat at Nur-Et Steakhouse. To Lam ate that golden steak of his own free will. 

I'm laughing at people who buy luxury products while saying they're just forced to participate in capitalism. It's not like capitalism doesn't give people a choice between different products under fair government regulations. I can buy a luxury or a non-luxury product because I have that choice. I can criticize capitalism under the Customer Protection Act or my right to review businesses. I can complain if a business establishment fails to meet the required safety standards. That's why we still need government to regulate all forms of economic activity. Even Communist countries like China and Vietnam can now enjoy the free market's choices to a certain extent.