Time to stop being a consumer...

[DBT]

Many businesses appear to be built on a need for growth. If the demand for building new houses, for instance, grinds to a halt because the population figure is becoming stable, what happens to the building industry? The suppliers, manufactures, delivery companies, drivers, etc? Replacement alone may not be enough to keep it all going. We'd probably have to evolve a new economic system.

If the demand for horse buggies and whips ground to a halt, what happens to the horse buggy and whip industry?

The business goes bust and those with investements in the industry lose their money, employees lose their work and income, etc, etc. Sure most probably find alternative employment, some businesses restructure, some go under, some lose their homes and retirement savings, new opportunities for some....and life goes on. But what you say still misses the big picture of perpetual growth in a finite world where the shit is bound to hit the fan for all of us at some point.

 

[Rhea]

Big business isn't involved in a massive conspiracy to force consumers to borrow money, to buy too much, they are responding to consumers' demand.

The first thing that comes to mind on reading this is "advertising." I think corporations actually _are_ involved in a conspiracy to induce consumers to buy too much, borrow money and harm themselves for the sake of the corporation's profit.

I think about "Goldline" and cigarettes and timeshares and sugared children's cereals.

 

[SimpleDon]

Crawling from the Wreckage John Watkinson, in his latest instalment for El Reg, argues that consumerism, as it is practised today, is an invention that now does more harm than good both to quality of life and the environment. We are on a driverless train to nowhere and we need to jump off.

.

The problem is a real one. We are consuming resources that can't be replaced. We waste too much.

Who told you that? How did you conclude that, other than by consulting your "feelngs"?

...The mechanism of capitalism is businesses and consumers responding to incentives in the market, to make money, within the ground rules set up to govern the market. It is a feedback mechanism. It can't plan ahead to avoid obvious problems years ahead, there has to be adult supervision that can. This is the role that naturally falls to government and it is the point of failure in the current world economy. Especially in the Anglo American governments.

So you believe that consumers and producers are not "adults", meaning that are unable to form "mature" consumer needs/wants, and providers are unable and/or unwilling to predict and plan for those future needs/wants?

What "obvious problems years ahead" does Telsa or Apple fail to appreciate in their future product development planning? What gift of insight are federal bureaucrats gifted with, not available to millions of the private world of production, marketing, and distribution?

What progress we have had toward a more sustainable economy has been due to government action to change the rules, to require the more sustainable direction. Big business is especially myoptic in this regard, they oppose these changes because they don't want to change. All the more reason that we should ignore them.

If you are faithful to your prior logic, you are actually saying is that consumers, workers, and and the providers are myoptic, and they must be ignored. And if they opposed change, would not consumers and providers have stuck with their Pintos, vinyl records, and appliances?

Change is NOT what they oppose - what they seem to oppose is making a lifestyle or monetary sacrifice based on the suspect preferences of Washington's "adult" class of politicians and bureaucrats.

Changing and improving technology isn't the problem, it is the solution, if it is correctly directed.

These folks hate change? So the Washington DC "adults" need to direct improving technology, because without it we would still be driving stationwagons and 1975 Ford Pintos?

We have low fuel consumption in cars because government regulations forced the technology that provided them. Not because the manufacturers wanted to spend the money or that the customers wanted to spend the money but because the government required it. It is the same reason that we have long lasting light bulbs that produce the same amount of light with only one quarter of the energy.

That is partially true. Higher gas prices in the 1970s, rationing, and new CAFE standards forced the demise of some classes of vehicles (e.g. the station wagon), the later adoption of partially CAFE exempt minivans and true compact pickups, and the first generation of relentlessly crappy cars out of Detroit.

The 74 Corvette started with a laughable 195 HP, and the V-8 Mustang was power-choked with pollution controls. But hey, I think you could still floor it in your Rambler or Gremlin...

So yes we got lower fuel consumption, not because consumers wanted it but because the Washington adults decided that people should not have the freedom to provide and purchase what the American consumer wants. How is this "good"? Why is it any of Washington's business?

Externalities.

 

[SimpleDon]

Big business isn't involved in a massive conspiracy to force consumers to borrow money, to buy too much, they are responding to consumers' demand.

The first thing that comes to mind on reading this is "advertising." I think corporations actually _are_ involved in a conspiracy to induce consumers to buy too much, borrow money and harm themselves for the sake of the corporation's profit.

I think about "Goldline" and cigarettes and timeshares and sugared children's cereals.

I don't know what Goldline refers to. I search for it and it brings up a gold bug. Is that what you are referring to?

So has advertising ever convinced you to buy something that you didn't want? Did it convince you to smoke? That you needed gold or a timeshare?

Perhaps I am wrong, that there are people whose life is dictated by advertising. Certainly advertising works, companies wouldn't do it if it didn't. But to me it seems that the main thrust of advertising is to not to convince the reluctant to commit but to capture customers among the already committed. I am ready to be convinced. [/small joke on my part]

 

[SimpleDon]

maxparrish, I have been accused, properly, of writing a book in response. I am trying to cut back. I think that I succeeded, don't you?

 

[bilby]

Maxparrish has hit the nail on the head - although he is drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from his premises.

People like to think that they make 'adult' descisions, calm, rational, well thought out.

Furthermore, people will not usually admit - even to themselves, let alone to maxparrish and his internet ideological brethren - that they make stupid and self destructive choices, and that they are easily led to do so.

The existence of the massive advertising industry demonstrates just how wrong we are.

We all make childish and foolish choices. We are all readily influenced by marketing, and we all collude with the advertisers efforts to delude us.

Big corporations are almost exclusively marketing entities; their apparent raison d'être is just a hook for the market to swallow. In large corporations, salesmen are experts at sales, rarely are they also experts in whatever the corporation's customers actually buy.

Consumers are not 'adults'; and corporations don't give a rats arse about our wants or needs, except as handles by which we can be manipulated. And they, like maxparrish, know that we will jump through hoops to avoid admitting the number and scope of our errors.

If people were mostly rational, we wouldn't have religion or advertising. We have both.

 

[SimpleDon]

Maxparrish has hit the nail on the head - although he is drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from his premises.

People like to think that they make 'adult' descisions, calm, rational, well thought out.

Furthermore, people will not usually admit - even to themselves, let alone to maxparrish and his internet ideological brethren - that they make stupid and self destructive choices, and that they are easily led to do so.

The existence of the massive advertising industry demonstrates just how wrong we are.

We all make childish and foolish choices. We are all readily influenced by marketing, and we all collude with the advertisers efforts to delude us.

Big corporations are almost exclusively marketing entities; their apparent raison d'être is just a hook for the market to swallow. In large corporations, salesmen are experts at sales, rarely are they also experts in whatever the corporation's customers actually buy.

Consumers are not 'adults'; and corporations don't give a rats arse about our wants or needs, except as handles by which we can be manipulated. And they, like maxparrish, know that we will jump through hoops to avoid admitting the number and scope of our errors.

If people were mostly rational, we wouldn't have religion or advertising. We have both.

I liken advertising and promotion as the corporation's successful attempts to escape the discipline of their beloved free market. That this is the reason for so much of the hostility. The existence of the free market and its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge.

Not that you needed any help...

 

[Axulus]

Maxparrish has hit the nail on the head - although he is drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from his premises.

People like to think that they make 'adult' descisions, calm, rational, well thought out.

Furthermore, people will not usually admit - even to themselves, let alone to maxparrish and his internet ideological brethren - that they make stupid and self destructive choices, and that they are easily led to do so.

The existence of the massive advertising industry demonstrates just how wrong we are.

We all make childish and foolish choices. We are all readily influenced by marketing, and we all collude with the advertisers efforts to delude us.

Big corporations are almost exclusively marketing entities; their apparent raison d'être is just a hook for the market to swallow. In large corporations, salesmen are experts at sales, rarely are they also experts in whatever the corporation's customers actually buy.

Consumers are not 'adults'; and corporations don't give a rats arse about our wants or needs, except as handles by which we can be manipulated. And they, like maxparrish, know that we will jump through hoops to avoid admitting the number and scope of our errors.

If people were mostly rational, we wouldn't have religion or advertising. We have both.

But even still, we have competition. Which purchasing decision do we make if hundreds of companies are all actively trying to delude us using the most sophisticated techniques available? We will still gravitate towards the cheaper product that claims to fulfill our desires because the cheaper guy can utilize the same advertising techniques, effectively washing out the effect. Additionally, the product must actually deliver because, if it doesn't, we won't make a repeat purchase and instead try the competitor the next round. If the advertising was really deceitful we'll feel screwed and alert everyone about it and probably demand a refund (and often receive it), damaging their reputation and profit which is never good for business.

 

[Axulus]

Maxparrish has hit the nail on the head - although he is drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from his premises.

People like to think that they make 'adult' descisions, calm, rational, well thought out.

Furthermore, people will not usually admit - even to themselves, let alone to maxparrish and his internet ideological brethren - that they make stupid and self destructive choices, and that they are easily led to do so.

The existence of the massive advertising industry demonstrates just how wrong we are.

We all make childish and foolish choices. We are all readily influenced by marketing, and we all collude with the advertisers efforts to delude us.

Big corporations are almost exclusively marketing entities; their apparent raison d'être is just a hook for the market to swallow. In large corporations, salesmen are experts at sales, rarely are they also experts in whatever the corporation's customers actually buy.

Consumers are not 'adults'; and corporations don't give a rats arse about our wants or needs, except as handles by which we can be manipulated. And they, like maxparrish, know that we will jump through hoops to avoid admitting the number and scope of our errors.

If people were mostly rational, we wouldn't have religion or advertising. We have both.

I liken advertising and promotion as the corporation's successful attempts to escape the discipline of their beloved free market. That this is the reason for so much of the hostility. The existence of the free market and its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge.

Not that you needed any help...

Perfect knowledge isn't necessary for items where someone engages in repeat purchases. If you screw over the customer they won't buy from you again and they'll tell all their friends about it, severely damaging profits. They may also demand a refund and, more often than not, receive the refund.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have argued that economic growth is not an absolute necessity, but is just a symptom of excessive borrowing

So true. I never understood why developed counties must always have economic growth, even when no new and revolutionary products are being offered. Why is it every god damn business must grow and grow?

Economic growth is necessary if the population is growing. If there are 1 million more asses this year than last year, we either produce more pants or someone is walking around naked.

 

[bilby]

So true. I never understood why developed counties must always have economic growth, even when no new and revolutionary products are being offered. Why is it every god damn business must grow and grow?

Economic growth is necessary if the population is growing. If there are 1 million more asses this year than last year, we either produce more pants or someone is walking around naked.

I'm walking around naked.

In the sub-tropics, pants are superfluous.

 

[Axulus]

People want more stuff, they want better stuff, and they want new and trendy stuff. They are also willing to supply labor and save or invest to obtain these things. Those who do best at fulfilling these wants for the lowest cost tend to be the most successful in a free market. Economic growth results because humans have not yet discovered the most perfect and cheapest ways possible of supplying these things, and they have not yet discovered all the new and trendy stuff that is possible to create that people want. Why make it out to be any more complicated than that?

 

[SimpleDon]

I liken advertising and promotion as the corporation's successful attempts to escape the discipline of their beloved free market. That this is the reason for so much of the hostility. The existence of the free market and its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge.

Not that you needed any help...

Perfect knowledge isn't necessary for items where someone engages in repeat purchases. If you screw over the customer they won't buy from you again and they'll tell all their friends about it, severely damaging profits. They may also demand a refund and, more often than not, receive the refund.

So you escape having to have perfect knowledge by redefining it? You can have imperfect knowledge as long as you can and do ask for a refund? Do you have some reference for this 'irrationally is okay if you can ask for a refund' theory? Is it Hayek? or von Mises?

 

[Axulus]

Perfect knowledge isn't necessary for items where someone engages in repeat purchases. If you screw over the customer they won't buy from you again and they'll tell all their friends about it, severely damaging profits. They may also demand a refund and, more often than not, receive the refund.

So you escape having to have perfect knowledge by redefining it? You can have imperfect knowledge as long as you can and do ask for a refund? Do you have some reference for this 'irrationally is okay if you can ask for a refund' theory? Is it Hayek? or von Mises?

Do you have a source to the bizzare claim that "its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge."? You made the claim, so it is your job to defend it. It's not my job to prove a negative.

I provided a plausible mechanism why it needn't be so (in many but not necessarily all cases). Your turn to back up your own claim.

 

[DBT]

Big business isn't involved in a massive conspiracy to force consumers to borrow money, to buy too much, they are responding to consumers' demand.

The first thing that comes to mind on reading this is "advertising." I think corporations actually _are_ involved in a conspiracy to induce consumers to buy too much, borrow money and harm themselves for the sake of the corporation's profit.

I think about "Goldline" and cigarettes and timeshares and sugared children's cereals.

Moreover, they create demand through new models/planned obsolescence, introducing ever more desirable features and so on, within an atmosphere of; 'I need to buy this new model or I won't be happy, I shall be left behind.''

 

[bilby]

People want more stuff, they want better stuff, and they want new and trendy stuff. They are also willing to supply labor and save or invest to obtain these things.

How could we possibly know this? Advertising is telling people they are weird losers with no mates if they don't want these things; How much is native desire, and how much is advertising?

Religious people believe that their prayers are answered; people exposed to advertising believe that they want more, new, and better stuff. The results of brainwashing is difficult to distinguish from native desire.

Those who do best at fulfilling these wants for the lowest cost tend to be the most successful in a free market. Economic growth results because humans have not yet discovered the most perfect and cheapest ways possible of supplying these things, and they have not yet discovered all the new and trendy stuff that is possible to create. Why make it out to be any more complicated than that?

There is no free market. Those who are most successful in our real markets are the best marketeers. How often do we see a good idea go nowhere until it is massively promoted?

How does native desire account for Britney Spears, Justin Beiber, or Kim Kardashian?

People buy what they are told they need to make them envied and sexually successful; and they won't admit even to themselves - indeed they are not even consciously aware - that they are being misled.

 

[SimpleDon]

People want more stuff, they want better stuff, and they want new and trendy stuff. They are also willing to supply labor and save or invest to obtain these things. Those who do best at fulfilling these wants for the lowest cost tend to be the most successful in a free market. Economic growth results because humans have not yet discovered the most perfect and cheapest ways possible of supplying these things, and they have not yet discovered all the new and trendy stuff that is possible to create that people want. Why make it out to be any more complicated than that?

Because we don't have a free market. We have never had a free market. The free market is impossible.

Externalities, there are costs that aren't satisfied by the immediate transaction.

And most of the employees of a modern corporation work daily to free themselves from the discipline of the market. And they succeed, even considering the awesome power of being able to return a purchase.

Do you think that we have the free market now? Or is it just a desirable goal to work towards? I can never tell, it sure sounds like you believe that it is here now. But when we talk about regulations it is some distant goal.

 

[SimpleDon]

So you escape having to have perfect knowledge by redefining it? You can have imperfect knowledge as long as you can and do ask for a refund? Do you have some reference for this 'irrationally is okay if you can ask for a refund' theory? Is it Hayek? or von Mises?

Do you have a source to the bizzare claim that "its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge."? You made the claim, so it is your job to defend it. It's not my job to prove a negative.

I provided a plausible mechanism why it needn't be so (in many but not necessarily all cases). Your turn to back up your own claim.

Google rational expectations. Google perfect information. Google perfect competition. All are required for the market to self-regulate. According to the theory.

I do agree that it is an idiotic claim though. But that is the point that I am trying to make. The idea that there is such a thing as the possibly of a self-regulating free market is idiotic. But a lot of people believe it.

When I google 'refund theory' I get nothing, not even your name.

 

[Axulus]

Do you have a source to the bizzare claim that "its ability to self-regulate depends on consumers having complete information about all products and acting rationally based on that complete, perfect knowledge."? You made the claim, so it is your job to defend it. It's not my job to prove a negative.

I provided a plausible mechanism why it needn't be so (in many but not necessarily all cases). Your turn to back up your own claim.

Google rational expectations. Google perfect information. Google perfect competition. All are required for the market to self-regulate. According to the theory.

I do agree that it is an idiotic claim though. But that is the point that I am trying to make. The idea that there is such a thing as the possibly of a self-regulating free market is idiotic. But a lot of people believe it.

When I google 'refund theory' I get nothing, not even your name.

Please provide the definition of "self-regulation" - as the way you are using the term is foreign to me.

 

[SimpleDon]

Google rational expectations. Google perfect information. Google perfect competition. All are required for the market to self-regulate. According to the theory.

I do agree that it is an idiotic claim though. But that is the point that I am trying to make. The idea that there is such a thing as the possibly of a self-regulating free market is idiotic. But a lot of people believe it.

When I google 'refund theory' I get nothing, not even your name.

Please provide the definition of "self-regulation" - as the way you are using the term is foreign to me.

That the so-called free market can operate without external regulation, specifically from a government. I know, it is a silly idea, but once again, a lot of people seem to believe it. Kind of like an invisible, all powerful sky pilot who can see into our deepest being. Logically insane, but a lot of people believe in it.