Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed? » Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?
Quality of Life v Capitalism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is our economic system fundamentally flawed?

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/18/07 - 12:40 PM:	#101
perseus wrote: I assume most of these answers are intended to be either humorous, or not taken seriously, so I will deal with these two issues that are most relevant to the issue I first raised in this thread. Incidentally, I am not a standard Environmentalist, advocating nuclear power, sequestration, economic criteria, and am very suspicious of the value or usefulness of many renewable technologies. My questions were intended as serious rhetorical devices to show the absurdity of the reasoning you implied with your questions when carried to its logical ends. I am also an environmentalist of a different stripe. I believe it is the consumers who have the highest accountability. If we value resource preservation and environmental protection more than the satisfaction of our immediate material desires, then the market affords us a path to realize our goals: consume less, but don't blame energy companies for giving to you what you demand. How are they supposed to know that even though you use their products, you think you shouldn't. Have some responsibility. Also, I don't think it's any more possible to assign objective value to the natural environment than it is to assign it to anything else. Whether or not the natural state of the environment is worth protecting is based on personal aesthetic. It is completely reasonable for someone to value their new ski lodge over the stand of fir which it replaced. However, neighborhood effects are a real concern and present an area where the government has a legitimate role in making sure the costs of such things as pollution are borne by those who produce it. The definition of the word 'cheap' is interesting. To illustrate this consider you are a business who manufactures and sells shoelaces and your market share is relatively large. You discover a method of making shoelaces last indefinitely, or at least far longer than present designs. So lets say they cost $10 rather than $1 but last 100 times as long, so the cost per shoelace per unit time is 1/10 the cost of the $1 version. Does your company market this product? what interest is there for the management and shareholders to market this product? Actually none, because our economy isn't tied to need but profits and turnover. Similarly energy companies are in the business of selling more energy, not helping you to use less. Same problem. The interest of the larger company in marketing the new product is proportional to the market share it stands to gain. The market may be large enough for the company to turn a higher profit even if it sells proportionally fewer to individual consumers. If it has such a large share of the market that this does not occur, it had no incentive to innovate in the first place. However, it is the behavior of the companies with a smaller share of the market that should concern you. It is very much in their interest to sell this new shoelace (or new energy technology, as the case may be). Ultimately, the government does not know what is "needed" better than the consumers themselves. And ultimately by serving the "need" of one special interest over another, government impositions on the market exacerbate the condition you fear: lack of competition.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 10/18/07 - 02:53 PM:	#102
Moosashi wrote: I believe it is the consumers who have the highest accountability. If we value resource preservation and environmental protection more than the satisfaction of our immediate material desires, then the market affords us a path to realise our goals: consume less, but don't blame energy companies for giving to you what you demand. How are they supposed to know that even though you use their products, you think you shouldn't. Have some responsibility. This view may have some merit if consumers were all intelligent rational people. However, consumers, shareholders and voters can easily be manipulated by clever psychological ploys exploited by the marketers and spin gurus, as well as their own greed. If not then why spend so much advertising? Consumers, shareholders and voters all have short term gaols and are easily influence by style over content. They will believe what suits them to catch up with the neighbours. I often feel exactly the same urges, however it is because I do take the responsibility it is necessary to point out the shortcomings of a pure free market approach. Based on your system it would be OK for tobacco companies and drug pushers to offer free samples on street corners in the full knowledge people will get addicted so as to profit in the long run leaving the health services to clean up the mess. Moosashi wrote: Also, I don't think it's any more possible to assign objective value to the natural environment than it is to assign it to anything else. Whether or not the natural state of the environment is worth protecting is based on personal aesthetic. It is completely reasonable for someone to value their new ski lodge over the stand of fir which it replaced. However, neighbourhood effects are a real concern and present an area where the government has a legitimate role in making sure the costs of such things as pollution are borne by those who produce it.. Unfortunately it is not as simple as that, pollution and the natural environment are inextricably linked. Pollution is difficult to price as well. Moosashi wrote: The interest of the larger company in marketing the new product is proportional to the market share it stands to gain Absolutely, therefore it is not in the interest of the company to market something that is useful and will last. Only large companies will be able to plough enough funds into research to discover such products and even if they do, they can patent it and restrict others from exploiting it. Moosashi wrote: Ultimately, the government does not know what is "needed" better than the consumers themselves. And ultimately by serving the "need" of one special interest over another, government impositions on the market exacerbate the condition you fear: lack of competition. It is the responsibility of governments to take a long term view, and place stick and carrot measures to encourage the rest of us to do the same. Unfortunately our political system doesn't encourage them to do this.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 10/19/07 - 03:30 PM:	#103
Well, we are at an impasse. You are a paternalist and I am a Libertarian. Our differences go deeper than logic and facts. I respect your consistency and acknowledge that you have good intentions, but I believe your government walks a dark path.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 10/19/07 - 06:10 PM:	#104
In these days of viral marketing and the next "new thing" every twenty minutes and the clever ad campaign a far better indicator of sales than any inherent quality or actual need, how can any person be capable of making an informed choice about anything? It is only the corporations that are capable of chosing and they do so on criteria far different from the need of the consumer. These days, even the government is just another manipulated consumer.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/10/08 - 03:31 AM:	#105
perseus wrote: Consumers, shareholders and voters all have short term goals and are easily influenced by style over content. Two questions: 1) Why are consumers/shareholders/voters wrong for having shorter term goals than you think they should have? 2) What basis is there for a distinction between style and content?

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/10/08 - 09:07 AM:	#106
Fried Egg wrote: Two questions: 1) Why are consumers/shareholders/voters wrong for having shorter term goals than you think they should have? The same reason why any short term goal is often inferior to looking at the long term picture, is it worth listing them? In economics I would guess a good example is the continued mismanagement of personal finances with people using loans and credit cards with a high APR. Fried Egg wrote: 2) What basis is there for a distinction between style and content? Isn't this obvious?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/10/08 - 12:15 PM:	#107
persus The same reason why any short term goal is often inferior to looking at the long term picture, is it worth listing them? In economics I would guess a good example is the continued mismanagement of personal finances with people using loans and credit cards with a high APR. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. There's nothing inherently inferior about short term goals as opposed to long term goals. Everyone makes many choices on a day to day basis balancing long and short term goals. Sometimes short term ends are so urgently felt that it is considered worthwhile sacrificing long term well being in order to attain them. There is nothing irrational about this (economically speaking). 2) What basis is there for a distinction between style and content? Isn't this obvious? Not attall. Infact I'm suggesting that the distinction is purely arbitary. Some people value style quite heavily, some don't. Because other people make different value judgements than you, because they appear to value things that you regard as trivial, it does not mean they are being misled or irrational. It does not mean that they need their choices curtailed by others who think they know better.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/10/08 - 12:41 PM:	#108
Fried Egg wrote: Some people value style quite heavily, some don't. Because other people make different value judgements than you, because they appear to value things that you regard as trivial, it does not mean they are being misled or irrational. It does not mean that they need their choices curtailed by others who think they know better. Lets take an example here then Advertising. They usually give you very little factual information so what is the point if it isn't to mislead, can people not make decisions for themselves instead of being bombarded with a brand name? Is it acceptable to glorify the image of smoking tobacco using a Cowboy or similar butch image? Take a well known personality with the image of intelligence selling some crappy finance deal which will simply get irresponsible people into further debt. A lot of people are manipulated easily by such tosh and whilst business drives the political cart they will continue to drain more money from the poor to the rich.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/10/08 - 01:02 PM:	#109
Advertising serves a perfectly legitimate function. They serve to make consumers aware of their existence, to keep themselves in the mind of the consumer when he comes to make his purchasing choices. They cannot be expected to convey all important information about their product/service in the short space/time of an advertisement. The time for that will come later when the consumer comes to seriously consider a purchase. It is too easy to assume consumers are simply mislead and manipulated by advertising. Especially when they make choices you do not agree with or think are irrational.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 01/10/08 - 05:05 PM:	#110
Fried Egg wrote: Advertising serves a perfectly legitimate function. They serve to make consumers aware of their existence, to keep themselves in the mind of the consumer when he comes to make his purchasing choices. They cannot be expected to convey all important information about their product/service in the short space/time of an advertisement. The time for that will come later when the consumer comes to seriously consider a purchase. It is too easy to assume consumers are simply mislead and manipulated by advertising. Especially when they make choices you do not agree with or think are irrational. You really need to watch "Century of the Self" if that is what you believe. You can find it on google video.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/11/08 - 01:32 AM:	#111
Any one who believes that advertising can make people buy anything is sorely mistaken. How much advertising would it have taken in order to make candles outsell lightbulbs? Or horses outsell cars? Or quills outsell pens? Ultimately, when all is said and done, consumers won't continue to purchase a product that is inferior to another no matter how well it is advertised.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 01/11/08 - 07:58 PM:	#112
Fried Egg wrote: Any one who believes that advertising can make people buy anything is sorely mistaken. How much advertising would it have taken in order to make candles outsell lightbulbs? Or horses outsell cars? Or quills outsell pens? Ultimately, when all is said and done, consumers won't continue to purchase a product that is inferior to another no matter how well it is advertised. That is not the issue. It is certain that in the past technological leaps caused consumers to chose an obviously better technology and abandon the old wholesale but this is not really the case today. The issue is why would people be compelled to buy more than what they need or abandon perfectly functional appliances for something functionally no different? This year millions of consumers will purchase new cars even though the ones they own are in prefect working condition and are functionally no different or inferior than the ones they own now. Why do they do that? Your position that completely discounts the power of marketing and consumerism in general is pretty astounding.

Hype
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2007
Location: South Africa, Cape Town
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 01/11/08 - 09:03 PM:	#113
When people think of a system to use, they should not consider happiness before well being, and well being is to have food and shelter, not to have money for fun things. If you are suggesting that people worry about the income of their neighbour, that is where corruption comes from, with trust. If you are speaking about people not using money, then there can be no corruption by the banks, as people own what they have in front of them and with them. What is wrong with consumer delusion that they need you product - that is advertising, and planning to not have aadvertising will mess up the system further as people won't be lured to part from their stuff for whatever it is that seems like such a good idea because of advertising, so consumer delusion is a good thing. People suffer all the time though, planning their budget poorly and not being able to afford the things they need because of getting what they want. That can be remedied by being paid daily - that would be good for people who overspend on unnecessary things like you say, and they will probably be able to afford those things they want and are deluded to wanting, as is said. It is in our nature to seek these things, having wealth and wasting it. To suggest an alternative method would be met with some harsh resistance I think, as people will still want to be wealthy at another's expense if necessary. If you think that people care about each other, look at charity - you will find that only the most successful people give to the poor. How many people do you see letting homeless people into their home for a break from the reality? If we cared about each other you would see more charity work instead of sports coverage and cruises on liners - in fact the things that were suggested were going to see the end of the travel industry and sports. Competitive economic development needs people to try to outdo each other as they try to meet break even point then push for a bonus. Do you think that people will just lie back and be dominated by someone that gives them little back, just enough for that matter? People will bind together and create their own army to rise up against the communist system that will likely replace it. And if it was such a hot concept then why did people not copy Russia? Remeber all the corruption therein too, with secrets and stuff like that.
Poison for the system!

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/12/08 - 05:34 AM:	#114
Hype wrote: When people think of a system to use, they should not consider happiness before well being, and well being is to have food and shelter, not to have money for fun things. I am sure that most definitions of happiness includes well being, contentment etc. In contrast mental or physical discomfort or pain has to be thought of as negative happiness Hype wrote: People suffer all the time though, planning their budget poorly and not being able to afford the things they need because of getting what they want. That can be remedied by being paid daily - that would be good for people who overspend on unnecessary things like you say, and they will probably be able to afford those things they want and are deluded to wanting, as is said. It is in our nature to seek these things, having wealth and wasting it. This wouldn't work, you would have to get rid of the loan sharks, including those in the banking industry! Even then you would get loans between household members and friends leading to turmoil when it isn't given back! I Hype wrote: f you think that people care about each other, look at charity - you will find that only the most successful people give to the poor.. If by successful you mean rich i don't think this is true People earning less than $25,000 contribute an average of 4.2 percent of their household income to charitable groups, while those making $100,000 or more shell out an average of 2.7 percent of earnings. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_11_24/ai_95309979
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/12/08 - 11:10 PM:	#115
Unrealist42 That is not the issue. It is certain that in the past technological leaps caused consumers to chose an obviously better technology and abandon the old wholesale but this is not really the case today. The issue is why would people be compelled to buy more than what they need or abandon perfectly functional appliances for something functionally no different? This year millions of consumers will purchase new cars even though the ones they own are in prefect working condition and are functionally no different or inferior than the ones they own now. Why do they do that? Does it matter? One could speculate as to people's reasons for purchasing new cars but it is only that; speculation. But we need not look for objective differences. All we can say is that they subjectively find value in doing so. Maybe it's for as shallow reasons as vanity or prestige? Such things are important to some people. It does not mean they have been "compelled" against their better judgement by advertising. hype wrote: When people think of a system to use, they should not consider happiness before well being, and well being is to have food and shelter, not to have money for fun things. The clarion call of the socialist who seeks to take away individual freedom and impose their vision on to everyone else.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/13/08 - 01:45 AM:	#116
Well this is what people say are the reasons for buying new cars, but these are only the respectable reasons. More like it makes me feel a better person, or to keep up appearances in my opinion. Incidentally there are some good environmental reasons for buying new cars, this doesn't feature in the list. http://www.roadandtravel.com/automotive/newsviews/2005/whypeoplebuycars.aspx Here is a somewhat satirical look at the wisdom of buying new, which seriously questions the motives. http://www.gatherlittlebylittle.com/2007/11/13/5-reasons-you-should-buy-a-new-car/ Edited by perseus on 01/13/08 - 01:49 AM
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 264

Posted 01/13/08 - 01:59 AM:	#117
The thing is, advertising has no ability to compel people to do things they are not already likely to do. If a person finds prestige important, then a business will, and has every right to, captialize on that person's desire and help them fulfill it. Capitalism is founded on the ability of people to fulfill their own desires. However, if a person, such as yourself, has no desire for prestige, then an advertisement focusing on prestige will do little to convince you to buy that product. For example, do you honestly think that car commercials advertising the safety of a product actually convince people that safety is important? Don't be ridiculous. There is already a DEMAND for safety amongst a population, which advertisers simply tap in to. If someone did not think that safety was important then the car commercial would have no effect on that person. Just as commercials that focus on the prestige points a new car will offer have little effect on someone who does not care about prestige. You see, the people who think that there is no self-responsibility in consumer purchases, and that "evil corporations" have compelled people into buying things that they would, otherwise, "never, ever" buy; are the same people who think that government intervention is necessary to stop people from fulfilling their desires, simply because the statist has a personal dislike for that individual's desire. Leave people alone and things will take care of themselves. No one forces you to buy anything, or to take a loan from a bank and put yourself into debt. The only monopolies that really last and threaten individual freedom are monopolies supported by the government - such as the Federal Reserve's monopoly over the money supply. We would not even have the problem of credit and debt-based purchasing if the people were able to exercise their free market check on banks and participate in bank runs. The government backed monopoly of banking eliminates competition in the market place. Let banks loan if they wish, and then let people panic and demand their money back. Then let the banks go bankrupt and let other banks learn that they need to be careful with what they loan. This would have solved the problem of living on debt at the very root; but instead, government got involved and created the Federal Reserve; exonerating the commercial banks from the risk of fractional-reserve banking. The problem you see with capitalism is only the problem that the government has created in it. Fried Egg wrote: The clarion call of the socialist who seeks to take away individual freedom and impose their vision on to everyone else. Haha. I like this guy. Edited by JAC on 01/13/08 - 02:11 AM
"A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/13/08 - 02:01 AM:	#118
A biy lefty for you Fried Egg but this sums it all up Study after study shows that the effect of advertising is to get a name known by constant repetition http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr244/heffernan.htm
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 01/13/08 - 11:12 AM:	#119
Fried Egg wrote: But we need not look for objective differences. All we can say is that they subjectively find value in doing so. Maybe it's for as shallow reasons as vanity or prestige? Such things are important to some people. It does not mean they have been "compelled" against their better judgement by advertising. Yes it does. Most people are not even aware of the subconcious manipulation of emotions carried on by marketers in their campaigns. All they know is the remorse they feel for many of their purchases that seemed to be such a good idea when they bought them. In other words, marketers are able to suspend the better judgement of many consumers with appeals to their subconcious emotions.

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 612

Posted 01/13/08 - 11:30 AM:	#120
JAC wrote: The thing is, advertising has no ability to compel people to do things they are not already likely to do. If a person finds prestige important, then a business will, and has every right to, captialize on that person's desire and help them fulfill it. Capitalism is founded on the ability of people to fulfill their own desires. However, if a person, such as yourself, has no desire for prestige, then an advertisement focusing on prestige will do little to convince you to buy that product. You raise some interesting points. Majority Influence also plays a part in this as well. Many people's desires are not even their own. In a way when someone tries to fulfil their desire they also fulfil the desires of others as well in this case the company benefits as well as individuals.
over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/14/08 - 01:07 AM:	#121
perseus wrote: A biy lefty for you Fried Egg but this sums it all up Study after study shows that the effect of advertising is to get a name known by constant repetition http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr244/heffernan.htm And what is wrong with getting your name known? This is a perfectly legitimate and ehtical advertising practice. Getting your name known is one thing, compelling people to purchase your product against their own interests is another.

Fried Egg
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 14, 2003
Location: Exeter, England
Total Topics: 89
Total Posts: 2697

Posted 01/14/08 - 01:09 AM:	#122
unrealist42 wrote: Yes it does. Most people are not even aware of the subconcious manipulation of emotions carried on by marketers in their campaigns. All they know is the remorse they feel for many of their purchases that seemed to be such a good idea when they bought them. In other words, marketers are able to suspend the better judgement of many consumers with appeals to their subconcious emotions. You're seriously suggesting that post purchase regret is evidence of psycological manipulation by advertisers? I've experienced post purchase regret after buying a bunch of books in a second hand book store because I should have been saving my money. One could hardly attribute that to advertising though.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 537

Posted 01/14/08 - 08:46 AM:	#123
compelling people to purchase your product against their own interests is another Fried Egg, you are thoroughly misrepresenting the position of advertising critics. Advertising doesn't make anybody do anything no more than a short cut through a shop does, but it will make purchasing items that are unnecessary or of limited use more likely by working on our perceived inadequacies, boredom and greed. This has negative long term value for the individual, society and also has disastrous consequences for the environment. People don't like to accept that they are influenced by trivial advertising techniques. However, we all have 'sheep' genes, we see one person of perceived stature doing something and most want to follow, its called fashion. If it didn't work why do companies pay to advertise, surely not to supply useful information?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1180

Posted 01/14/08 - 08:53 AM:	#124
perseus wrote: compelling people to purchase your product against their own interests is another Fried Egg, you are thoroughly misrepresenting the position of advertising critics. Advertising doesn't make anybody do anything no more than a short cut through a shop does, but it will make purchasing items that are unnecessary or of limited use more likely by working on our perceived inadequacies, boredom and greed. This has negative long term value for the individual, society and also has disastrous consequences for the environment. People don't like to accept that they are influenced by trivial advertising techniques. However, we all have 'sheep' genes, we see one person of perceived stature doing something and most want to follow, its called fashion. If it didn't work why do companies pay to advertise, surely not to supply useful information? In addition to this, that I agree with, it is interesting to note that one of the primary target of advertising is children, hardly the most critically minded group of population one can think of...
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Moosashi
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2007
Location: Arizona
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 102

Posted 01/14/08 - 10:27 AM:	#125
hypothesis wrote: You raise some interesting points. Majority Influence also plays a part in this as well. Many people's desires are not even their own. In a way when someone tries to fulfil their desire they also fulfil the desires of others as well in this case the company benefits as well as individuals. This is entirely rational. Given the limited information about a particular product, people will trust that if a large number of other people are satisfied, then they too will be satisfied as well. perseus wrote: Fried Egg, you are thoroughly misrepresenting the position of advertising critics. Advertising doesn't make anybody do anything no more than a short cut through a shop does, but it will make purchasing items that are unnecessary or of limited use more likely by working on our perceived inadequacies, boredom and greed. Of course, by "perceived inadequacies" you mean "the choices and feelings of others that I, in my omniscience, know to be trivial and thus not worth expending resources upon". Isn't boredom an undesirable circumstance conceivably worth the expenditure of resources to rectify? Are you saying that people shouldn't buy things for enjoyment (unless your omniscience dictates that that item is 'worth it')? "Greed" is a loaded word and it biases the debate. The wants and needs of others are beyond your judgment. They are subjective in every sense of the word. You are epistemologically incapable of knowing when another person has 'enough'. This has negative long term value for the individual, society and also has disastrous consequences for the environment. People don't like to accept that they are influenced by trivial advertising techniques. However, we all have 'sheep' genes, we see one person of perceived stature doing something and most want to follow, its called fashion. If it didn't work why do companies pay to advertise, surely not to supply useful information? Only the individual who makes the purchase can determine whether the purchase will have net negative value. Value cannot be assessed objectively. Of course, it's easy for you to say something will have negative value in the long run, and wonder of wonders: you didn't buy it! Why do you believe you are so unique and enlightened? Also, I wouldn't hold out much hope for us if we were forced (by opponents of free trade and advertising) to make decisions that were contrary to the survival and reproduction of our genes.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.