Following in the footsteps of Functionalists like Davis and Moore (1945), some people argue that without a small group of super-rich folks at the top of society no one will be around to be the first adopters of new technology, like expensive electric cars that are good for the environment (think Telsa Motors) or the big brick cell phones of the 1980s that cost a fortune. By purchasing these early, very expensive technologies the rich pave the way for later, much cheaper technology that the rest of us can afford, they argue. How might a Conflict theorist respond to this argument?
Which side of this argument (conflict or functionalist) do you think makes the most sense and why?

The conflict theorist would argue from the point of view of the society being in perpetual competition as a result of inequality of distribution of resources and power. The rich would not pave the way for cheaper technology as a result of them purchasing early version of expensive technologies but rather, everyone would aspire to be the first to buy such early version of technology due to prestige associated with it.

On the long run, the conflict theorists makes more sense due to the fact that, as more people aspire to buy the early version of technologies, it creates extraordinary demand for the goods. this would force the manufacturers to employ more workers inorder to meet up with the demand thereby leading to fall in the prices of such goods. An example is the Toyota brand cars that is popular in some countries.

Explanation:

me no say