My points all apply to the claim that corporations aren't in a vast conspiracy and effort to foist unwanted products onto us. They ARE in such a conspiracy and effort. They pay millions of dollars in lobbying fees toward the conspiracy and millions of dollars in advertising to the effort.
Whether consumers hold any responsibility in repelling this conspiracy and effort is irrelevant to the fact that it exists, in spades.
To demonstrate that they are not strictly after a market that already wants and only needs to decide on brand but rather are after people who did not even want prior to hearing from the advertising juggernaut, I point you to infant formula pushed in hospital maternity wards. ...
You are channeling the old criticism (informed by Veblen) known as "The Dependence Effect", proposed by economist J.K. Galbraith in his 1958 book "The Affluent Society". At one time this book was frequently included in the required readings for intro Economic students. Like many trendy ideas, the popularity of the dependence effect was a product of it's age; whereas prior criticisms of capitalism by the left had been on its failure to produce plenty for the average man, the undeniable post-war affluence and creation of a broad middle class spurred folks like Galbraith to attack capitalism from another direction, for it's providing and encouraging the masses to buy far more things than he thought people needed.
These days most folks don't feel all that "affluent". Outside of the occasional housing co-op or rural commune, folks today are far more concerned with an anemic economy, security, and a lack of wage growth than with the sin of over consumption. Hence, this complaint seems rather antiquated.
Anyway, in 1961 economist Friedrick Hayek wrote a reply,
The Non Sequitur of the "Dependence Effect" in the Southern Economic Journal that, to my mind, remains as the conclusive rejection of the Dependence Effect. Hayek pointed out many flaws, not the least of which was its meaningless conceptualization.
It is perfectly true that man has very few "innate" needs, perhaps as few as food, sheltering, and sex. And it is also true that most wants come from a desire (a want) to enjoy various objects and/or activities, such as music, reading, socializing with others (e.g. the Internet), theater, tasty food, drink, sports, recreation, etc. None of these things are essential to our basic existence...but they do make life far more pleasurable.
And none of these things would exist if we did not have culture ("learned and shared behavior") to both create and display folks enjoyment. Most of us would not have tried Jazz or Classical music, or read novels, or gone to a movie, or tried snow skiing, or gone to trendy restaurants if we had never been exposed to them by others (friends, fellow workers, media, news, etc.). "Learned and shared behavior" is the basis of all human culture and of civilization itself, and it requires no 'corporate conspiracy'.
Most wants for goods and services are not just for basic needs, nor are most on the extreme end due to purely a desire for "conspicuous consumption" (and to the extent they are, most are not created by advertising) - most wants exist because they are for something we find enjoyable and/or useful.
PS - Need more proof?
