Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About SeaShark

  • Rank
    5,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Keystone State
  • Interests
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Wow...107 posts in the thread and you're the first one to throw out "idiot". Does attacking something with a pejorative label somehow make you right? Asking for a friend . . . Even IF that were the case, I certainly wouldn't say "everyone"...I find that many people here have a comprehensive understanding of the benefits of hard work. Of course, there are also those who believe that the lack of hard work entitles them to free, free, free...but those are the privileged few.
  2. Probably should have read post #88 before you capitalized and underlined half the name of the website.
  3. Sure...look at one side of a coin. Everybody and every instance you cite is true, but you refuse to look at the OTHER side of the coin. It works like a see-saw. The cruise industry goes down and the other side of the see-saw rises. How much do you think companies that make masks, hand sanitizer, and rubber gloves are making? Without the pandemic, their income would drop like a rock. As mentioned earlier, no cruise = new deck. Tell the carpenter and the lumber yard that there is no economic benefit. You simply can't look at it in a vacuum...thats Econ 101...no matter how much you think it bolsters a point.
  4. As noted before the hand-wringing is nothing more than a method of transferring blame to the company when one's wants ($$$$$$$$$$$) exceed their means ($$$$). You always feel better when it is the other guy's fault.
  5. Just goes to show two points... #1 When the facts aren't on your side, resort to name-calling as a counter argument. If you can simply label someone as a "cheerleader" then you MUST be right. At the very least it will make you feel better about yourself. #2 Time to trot out the old "the name of the website is..." argument. Nothing more disingenuous than trying to use one of the possible meanings of a word to skew a point. As a reminder, yes...this is Cruise Critic. And that is "Critic" as in: "one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique" ...it does not mean "Critic" as in: "One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder". But you keep doing you. For our convenience, of course.
  6. Perfect example of what I'm talking about...you are narrowing your focus to the affect on the local economies, not looking at the big overall picture. Once again, economics doesn't occur in a vacuum.
  7. Ah...so you are making the CHOICE correct?
  8. The real question is why would you, an educated consumer, EVER buy the 16oz for 1.99 when you could get the 2 liter for .99??
  9. I realize you are in agreement. I'm trying to point out (to everyone) that economics doesn't occur in a vacuum. You have to consider the big picture. If I don't spend X on a cruise, then I'm able to spend X on something else...it isn't a "loss", but a shift in economic activity. Sure...it might be a loss strictly in the cruise line vacuum, but it will be a gain somewhere else. I didn't go on three cruises this year, so instead I got a new deck for my home. The cruise line missed out on my money, but the contractor and the lumber yard did not.
  10. Well, to be honest the point was that the economy isn't "missing" the meal consumption since the people will still eat whether on a cruise or not. Further, 1. People also eat differently at home than on a cruise. So what? They still eat and that still results in economic activity. 2. You aren't getting the food in bulk anyway...they are. And if it costs you MORE to eat at home, then not cruising is actually causing an INCREASE in economic activity (when it comes to meals) not a decrease/loss as the OP originally posted.
  11. Those are some interesting calculations, but you seem to have missed a rather important point. If people don't eat those 85,050,000 meals on the cruise ship they will just eat them elsewhere...whether at home or at a local restaurant. The economy would only be losing if those people didn't eat. Instead of getting those meals from Carnival they will just get them somewhere else.
  12. It comes from the fact that it is easier to label it "deceptive business practices" rather than admit that you either don't understand, or that you need to be told, that if you want to buy something extra that you need to pay for it. Of course, it is important to use ALL CAPS when you label it...that is what makes it true.
  13. More than enough evidence here that it is far easier to point the finger of blame at the cruise line while exclaiming "nickel & diming" than it is to come to terms with the fact that people can't always afford the optional extras that they want...
  14. Yes..."nickel & diming" is overused on this forum. Not only that, but it is often used incorrectly as well. The phrase "nickel & diming", when used correctly, refers to small mandatory charges that a consumer MUST pay that aren't presented as part of the cost of an item. On this forum, "nickel & diming" is often used to refer to charges that must be paid for OPTIONAL items that are available on the cruise. It isn't "nickel & diming" if you don't have to pay it (that is why we don't accuse Target of "nickel & diming" simply because everything in their store has a cost...the choice to purchase is our option). You have to look at what really drives these complaints. IMHO, what is typically behind this is that people go onboard and WANT $$$$$$$$$$$$, but they only have a budget that can afford $$$$. The complaints are really about the difference between their wants and their means.
  15. So...one more time...you are referring to something ON THE PLANE not in the terminal which is specifically what I was talking about, right?
  • Create New...