Is this all an illusion?

[BigBallinStalin]

inb4: "but marketing makes people want stuff." Uh-huh. In a world without marketing, people would still prefer more instead of less.

Marketing and other forms of sales techniques (including designed obsolescence) don't make people want stuff. It makes them want more stuff, or stuff they might otherwise not want without further prompting.

That propensity to want more rather than less is an inherent feature of humans. That willingness is not something created by marketers, but it is coaxed out toward a particular product--just as other marketers, and word-of-mouth ordinary people, are coaxing people to buy other goods. (Given the competition and fixed budget constraints, what's the net effect of marketing? It's not like it can make people buy more unless people already have that willingness and capability to buy more. It seems that you're 'placing the cart before the horse').

So, marketing doesn't mean much unless people have that capability to buy, which comes from having more income. Given a competitive enough process, with sufficient liability and fraud protection, and with people being the direct spenders of their own purchasing decisions, the concern over marketing is overblown.

It's a grey scale, and I am not going to be so binary as saying all marketing/sales is evil. However I am a firm believer that one of the great weaknesses of a human free market is the ease with which we are manipulated.

So I agree with DYs premise that a lot of our economy is leveraging, in simple terms, our gullibility/stupidity (ie creating stuff that either won't improve our life, or will improve it less than the advertised amount).

Cognitive bias is a great weakness of humans, but it's at work in the political process as well. And there, liability and fraud protection is significantly less. People don't 'put their money where their mouth is', and the competitive process in politics differs in substance (weaker feedback mechanism, weaker revelation of demand, significantly weaker incentive to close down a bureau after incurring significant losses for years). I don't see how cognitive bias is a sufficient indictment of a free market when the alternative institutional arrangement is worse.

But before BBS goes all attack monkey on me, I don't assume the solution to the problem is regulating marketing or anything silly like that. I would however suggest a neutral, possibly centralized - but certainly doesn't have to be, entity be given the specific mandate to provide education that directly addresses the demonstrably negative aspects of "demand inflating" (for lack of a better word).

I don't see how a possibly centralized entity could remain neutral and actively pursue its goal. It depends on how its funded. However, we already have such entities: producers and distributors of self-help books on happiness, the popularization of Zen Buddhism, people talking about TV about the pitfalls of 'consumerism', etc. There's many people on YouTube even making fun of commercials for their absurd claims and rhetoric.

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone could best learn how to attain happiness with least-cost techniques, but I don't see how that can be 'centrally planned'--because we're thinking like Big Planners here. Already, there's many participants in markets fighting against consumerism, so perhaps we need to be more patient and less tempted toward seeking some 'possibly centralized entity'.

[tzor]

No, not scarce and thus requiring expenditure to acquire, but widely available and require collection.

Resources have to be in the right place at the right time. It is not enough that the resource is available *somewhere* if it is not available where and when it is needed. I would remind you that before advanced technology, wars were fought over a resource that is in every ocean in the world ... SALT. There is even a train of thought that suggests one of the problems that the CSA had in the war against the United States was that it depended on sea salt through evaporation and when the Union navy was able to effectively prevent any activity on the shoreline, food preservation became impossible and thus severe shortages followed because even meat can't be transported far (or stored for long) in the days before refrigeration without salt.

Fresh water is today what salt was back then. Too many places still lack enough fresh water. Technology could change that, but right now it doesn't.

Most energy systems suffer from the same problem (but at a larger scale) that Edison faced (and Tesla solved); points of generation need to be relatively close to the source. Large scale trans continental power transmission is still horribly inefficient. Technology will solve this, of course. (Mind you in the "little lands" where nations are smaller than the average "state" (or "provence") in North America, the distances are generally within current technology, but even then, not always.)

[Lootifer]

That propensity to want more rather than less is an inherent feature of humans. That willingness is not something created by marketers, but it is coaxed out toward a particular product--just as other marketers, and word-of-mouth ordinary people, are coaxing people to buy other goods. (Given the competition and fixed budget constraints, what's the net effect of marketing? It's not like it can make people buy more unless people already have that willingness and capability to buy more. It seems that you're 'placing the cart before the horse').

I disagree at a fairly fundamental level here, so there's little point arguing (and I doubt we'll be able to back up our arguments with research since it's a meta discussion).

Yes people have a propensity to always seek to improve their lot (grass is always greener etc.) and we are highly competitive (generally speaking), but I don't believe wanting more is something inherent. I reckon wanting more is something that is created based on the traits I suggested above (and others, one very good example is the relatively inability to say no by certain type of individuals - whom often get targeted) by marketing/sales.

Using your own analogy you are trying to put the apple that is luring the horse forward in the cart he is towing.

Cognitive bias is a great weakness of humans, but it's at work in the political process as well. And there, liability and fraud protection is significantly less. People don't 'put their money where their mouth is', and the competitive process in politics differs in substance (weaker feedback mechanism, weaker revelation of demand, significantly weaker incentive to close down a bureau after incurring significant losses for years). I don't see how cognitive bias is a sufficient indictment of a free market when the alternative institutional arrangement is worse.

Sure. (not quite sure where this fits in our discussion though, I think we are on the same page as far as the practical failings of government are concerned)

I don't see how a possibly centralized entity could remain neutral and actively pursue its goal. It depends on how its funded. However, we already have such entities: producers and distributors of self-help books on happiness, the popularization of Zen Buddhism, people talking about TV about the pitfalls of 'consumerism', etc. There's many people on YouTube even making fun of commercials for their absurd claims and rhetoric.

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone could best learn how to attain happiness with least-cost techniques, but I don't see how that can be 'centrally planned'--because we're thinking like Big Planners here. Already, there's many participants in markets fighting against consumerism, so perhaps we need to be more patient and less tempted toward seeking some 'possibly centralized entity'.

I am not suggesting central planning, simply information disclosure. Generally entities with no market pressure tend to be ok (and in least useless) at research and information disclosure.

[shickingbrits]

Sorry Tzor, your example highlights my point. Salt is widely available and yet becomes a limited resource when controlled by one sector.

Jayz says: I'm still spending money from 88.

Cecil Rhodes is still selling diamonds from 1888. Diamonds aren't rare, they're rare on the market, because the market is controlled.

I'm not saying we went into Iraq just to limit the oil they were exporting, the DoD said that. I agree it is one of the reasons.

I was told that the great depression was caused by products being made too well. We sure don't have that problem anymore. But if such an idea is valid, that making things too well causes people not to buy them anymore, what implications does that have? Not that we don't have the technology to solve the issues that we face but that the structure doesn't incentivize solving problems.

You brought up Tesla. Again, I don't know if you are trying to agree with me or not. Your words say no, but your examples all say yes.

If we wanted to solve the drinking water problems of the world, we could. We spend far more on "aid" and through charity than the problems require and then that money is used to buy fancy planes and pack them full of camera crews and expensive equipment to highlight that these people are still without drinking water. Maybe if they paid some locally qualified people to actually put systems in for drinking water, then they'd have it.

They want you hustling and hustling after what they want you hustling after. If technology is available, they want it in the hands of those who will maximize the profit out of it. And sometimes people get mad enough to fight wars over it.

Who wants to compete? Not the casino. They keep you gambling and throwing away money on frivolous nonsense and they will eventually have all your chips.

What does Apple have to do to maintain profit?

Update technology. Sell technology.

Why does my screen always break? Why aren't switchable component parts available? Why do repairs cost so much? Because they need to sell more phones. It's not a question of limitation, but limiting.

Incentives drive technology. Absolutely right. What are the right incentives? What are the pitfalls?

The biggest threat the government faces is people with the ability to fend for themselves. The government is no longer needed. If I can understand why Apple will withhold technology, be disinclined to make a phone that isn't obsolete in a few years, then why can we not look at the incentives the government has and make similar claims.

Unfortunately, whether you will every say it or not, the government is incentivized to limit your ability to function without them. They have an incentive to keep you scared and under threat. They have an incentive to prevent technology from being available.

[saxitoxin]

The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

Your post is alluding to your previous point about marketing and creating demand for goods. You can address that, or play your song-and-dance rubbish.

My only contribution to this thread was four syllables ("because of this") followed by a short except from a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ah, the song-and-dance. Good job.

Hmmmm, okay. Well, if it's any solace, I personally doubt the NBER is involved in a "conspiracy" to steal your ideas, if that's the concern you're trying to express.

[Metsfanmax]

inb4: "but marketing makes people want stuff." Uh-huh. In a world without marketing, people would still prefer more instead of less.

Marketing and other forms of sales techniques (including designed obsolescence) don't make people want stuff. It makes them want more stuff, or stuff they might otherwise not want without further prompting.

That propensity to want more rather than less is an inherent feature of humans. That willingness is not something created by marketers, but it is coaxed out toward a particular product--just as other marketers, and word-of-mouth ordinary people, are coaxing people to buy other goods. (Given the competition and fixed budget constraints, what's the net effect of marketing? It's not like it can make people buy more unless people already have that willingness and capability to buy more. It seems that you're 'placing the cart before the horse').

Do either of you have actual research to back up your claims?

[Lootifer]

Do either of you have actual research to back up your claims?

(and I doubt we'll be able to back up our arguments with research since it's a meta discussion).

[BigBallinStalin]

inb4: "but marketing makes people want stuff." Uh-huh. In a world without marketing, people would still prefer more instead of less.

Marketing and other forms of sales techniques (including designed obsolescence) don't make people want stuff. It makes them want more stuff, or stuff they might otherwise not want without further prompting.

That propensity to want more rather than less is an inherent feature of humans. That willingness is not something created by marketers, but it is coaxed out toward a particular product--just as other marketers, and word-of-mouth ordinary people, are coaxing people to buy other goods. (Given the competition and fixed budget constraints, what's the net effect of marketing? It's not like it can make people buy more unless people already have that willingness and capability to buy more. It seems that you're 'placing the cart before the horse').

Do either of you have actual research to back up your claims?

Well, think of it this way. Which seems more sensible? People tend to want less, or tend to want more? As income rises, do people tend to want more or tend to want less? E.g. as real income increases, should we expect expenditures on consumer goods to increase or decrease?

Then economists categorize goods by inferiority or superiority/normal. Quantities demanded can change by prices and/or income. Do you really want to delve into basic economics? (I'm fine with it; just wondering if that's where you're going with this).

The basic principles seem pretty obvious. This is why economists tend not to burn resources on seeing if demand curves slope downward. The elasticity of the curve for good x during time Y might be worth estimating, but testing basic principles is usually a waste (unless some alternative theory becomes more useful). Behavioral economists have some interesting points which suffer from that lab-real world dichotomy, but even their stuff doesn't challenge basic principles. E.g. their work on refuting the transitivity of preferences doesn't touch basic principles (the transitivity assumption is a math. econ. assumption to make the math. proofs easier).

[BigBallinStalin]

The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

Your post is alluding to your previous point about marketing and creating demand for goods. You can address that, or play your song-and-dance rubbish.

My only contribution to this thread was four syllables ("because of this") followed by a short except from a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ah, the song-and-dance. Good job.

Hmmmm, okay. Well, if it's any solace, I personally doubt the NBER is involved in a "conspiracy" to steal your ideas, if that's the concern you're trying to express.

Haha, here are my options: (1) dig into your posts and find your rant about this 1929 article confirming your hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive, but then I risk of triggering the inherent sax syndrome where no amount of reason can sway sax from his strongly held opinions. (2) Be amused at sax's long held grudge against a person on a gaming site because sax was exposed for delving into more insane positions about the Israel-Palestine issue.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, think of it this way. Which seems more sensible? People tend to want less, or tend to want more?

I think people in general tend to want more, but the crucial point is, I only know people who live in cultures with advanced markets, and that is what my opinion is based on, so it doesn't answer the underlying question.

As income rises, do people tend to want more or tend to want less? E.g. as real income increases, should we expect expenditures on consumer goods to increase or decrease?

Or, said another way, does demand depend on availability of these consumer goods in the first place? If I never knew that electronics existed, I probably would not want an iPod because it wouldn't even occur to me to want one.

[mrswdk]

Well, think of it this way. Which seems more sensible? People tend to want less, or tend to want more?

I think people in general tend to want more, but the crucial point is, I only know people who live in cultures with advanced markets, and that is what my opinion is based on, so it doesn't answer the underlying question.

Migrant laborers pouring from their undeveloped backwaters into the big cities* would suggest that the same urge is present in all societies, not just advanced ones.

*e.g. rural>urban China, rural>urban Vietnam, Indonesia/Malaysia>Hong Kong etc.

[DoomYoshi]

Wanting more nothing is the same as wanting less.

[mrswdk]

You never answered: if you consider a job to be a useless way of earning money to pay for things you don't need, why do you do yours?

[DoomYoshi]

You never answered: if you consider a job to be a useless way of earning money to pay for things you don't need, why do you do yours?

It's not like I'm holding an absolute position here. It may have been stated that way. I'm speaking in terms of majority. The majority of money that people make will go towards useless things. I am a perfect example of that, as a majority of my income for the next few years will go towards paying off my student debt.

[saxitoxin]

The NBER is part of a conspiracy? What are they conspiring to do?

Your post is alluding to your previous point about marketing and creating demand for goods. You can address that, or play your song-and-dance rubbish.

My only contribution to this thread was four syllables ("because of this") followed by a short except from a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ah, the song-and-dance. Good job.

Hmmmm, okay. Well, if it's any solace, I personally doubt the NBER is involved in a "conspiracy" to steal your ideas, if that's the concern you're trying to express.

Haha, here are my options: (1) dig into your posts and find your rant about this 1929 article confirming your hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive, but then I risk of triggering the inherent sax syndrome where no amount of reason can sway sax from his strongly held opinions. (2) Be amused at sax's long held grudge against a person on a gaming site because sax was exposed for delving into more insane positions about the Israel-Palestine issue.

Huh? Are you talking about that thing you were telling us you heard on Glenn Beck again, or something? Again, the only thing I said was "because of this." I don't know how you got, out of those four syllables, that I have a "hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive ... [and] insane positions about the Israel-Palestine issue" and that the NBER is engaged in some far-reaching conspiracy.

Your ranting is unusually incoherent today. Maybe take a multivitamin or something. Your potassium levels might be off.

[BigBallinStalin]

You never answered: if you consider a job to be a useless way of earning money to pay for things you don't need, why do you do yours?

It's not like I'm holding an absolute position here. It may have been stated that way. I'm speaking in terms of majority. The majority of money that people make will go towards useless things. I am a perfect example of that, as a majority of my income for the next few years will go towards paying off my student debt.

So... debt is useless? Or has your debt-fueled investment in education yielded a negative return?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, here are my options: (1) dig into your posts and find your rant about this 1929 article confirming your hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive, but then I risk of triggering the inherent sax syndrome where no amount of reason can sway sax from his strongly held opinions. (2) Be amused at sax's long held grudge against a person on a gaming site because sax was exposed for delving into more insane positions about the Israel-Palestine issue.

Huh? Are you talking about that thing you were telling us you heard on Glenn Beck again, or something? Again, the only thing I said was "because of this." I don't know how you got, out of those four syllables, that I have a "hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive" and that the NBER is engaged in some far-reaching conspiracy.

Your ranting is unusually incoherent today. Maybe take a multivitamin or something. Your potassium levels might be off.

lol. I loved it when Mets was asking you reasonable questions, but you became a stupid ideologue in order to ramble about Mets' moral character. That's a classic Glenn Beck move. You've been studying rhetoric (but not logic) very well. Congrats, sax!

[mrswdk]

Sorry that hear that your education was useless, DY.

[DoomYoshi]

Sorry that hear that your education was useless, DY.

I live in a country where 75% of people have post-secondary education (univ. and college). I should've done the stats before I went. I learned lots of cool stuff, but I can do that on my own.

[saxitoxin]

Haha, here are my options: (1) dig into your posts and find your rant about this 1929 article confirming your hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive, but then I risk of triggering the inherent sax syndrome where no amount of reason can sway sax from his strongly held opinions. (2) Be amused at sax's long held grudge against a person on a gaming site because sax was exposed for delving into more insane positions about the Israel-Palestine issue.

Huh? Are you talking about that thing you were telling us you heard on Glenn Beck again, or something? Again, the only thing I said was "because of this." I don't know how you got, out of those four syllables, that I have a "hypothesis that marketing drives demand and that consumers are passive" and that the NBER is engaged in some far-reaching conspiracy.

Your ranting is unusually incoherent today. Maybe take a multivitamin or something. Your potassium levels might be off.

lol. I loved it when Mets was asking you reasonable questions, but you became a stupid ideologue in order to ramble about Mets' moral character. That's a classic Glenn Beck move. You've been studying rhetoric (but not logic) very well. Congrats, sax!

Hmmm. Mets has only made two posts in this thread and neither of them were in regard to my comment that set you off, "because of this."

It seems there are posts in this thread that only you can see. Again, I strongly encourage you to take a multivitamin.

[mrswdk]

Sorry that hear that your education was useless, DY.

I live in a country where 75% of people have post-secondary education (univ. and college). I should've done the stats before I went. I learned lots of cool stuff, but I can do that on my own.

Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

[Lootifer]

Sorry that hear that your education was useless, DY.

I live in a country where 75% of people have post-secondary education (univ. and college). I should've done the stats before I went. I learned lots of cool stuff, but I can do that on my own.

What'd you study?

It does suck, but I tend to be a bit short on sympathy for people who needlessly go to university.

[DoomYoshi]

Sorry that hear that your education was useless, DY.

I live in a country where 75% of people have post-secondary education (univ. and college). I should've done the stats before I went. I learned lots of cool stuff, but I can do that on my own.

What'd you study?

It does suck, but I tend to be a bit short on sympathy for people who needlessly go to university.

Genetics.