the capitalist non-paradox
June 7th, 2007 by Romeo AnghelacheSo, if the free, unregulated, market lets the prices balance, then why the fundamental need for marketing? If the market is free, why do you have to market it further?
This is not a paradox at all, market and marketing are wrapper names for monopoly and planning. The out-of-fashion socialist state planning, based on society statistics, is replaced with the pro-active planning by the biggest carnivores in it.
It sounds now reasonable to me that the administrative failure of classical (state planned) socialism was due to the lack of the appropriate computing power at the time.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Too bad you closed the comments for “the end of all the evils”. anyway…
Yes, the planned socialism failed because of lack of CPU time. However, the humankind is so idiot that even nowadays you can hardly get a proper planning for more than a small project, with out huge processing power and the plethora of software!
Yes, monopolies rule, and this is the meaning of the market. Why is this so? Why is marketing needed?
Elémentaire, mon cher Watson. The socialist way of thinking is (in theory) this one: “we can produce 2,000 tons of butter a year, let’s see how can we distribute it reasonably to the people, then we’ll see what’s the next priority need, maybe to build some more roads and houses”. The capitalist is (in practice) this one: “my factories can produce more and more butter, but these idiots currently only buy 3,000 tons a year; I have to pay for more commercials to persuade them to buy more, so that my profits would raise”.
After all, there is a lack of economic models, the only way “they know” to limit unemployment is to continually increase the production and the productivity and the profits. The capitalist economy is a chain-reaction perpetuum mobile, a train that will derail some day — when the pollution and the exhausting of the resources will kill us all.
On the other hand, this is why you can’t find an “end of all the evils”. People == idiots. People need “an incentive”, and this means “money, more money”. This is how Americans are told, and this is how most of them feel.
Homework: the hypocrisy of the ecologists, including Greenpeace.
Should anybody really care about that, they should have had acted by now in many other areas. Americans should remember Al Gore telling the people to replace the incandescent bulbs with energy-saving light bulbs (Fidel Castro has already done that in Cuba, most likely by making the incandescent bulbs unavailable on the state-controlled market.) Now just give a thought to the following: what is the effect of your new energy-saving bulb, when…
…you go to the supermarket and take your yogurt or butter or ham from an OPEN refrigerator that freezes all the Universe (most likely, >90% of the energy consumed is WASTED!)…
…and you do NOTHING. And Greenpeace does NOTHING. And the Gov’t does NOTHING, instead of imposing HUGE taxes for open refrigerators!
An economist might say: if those fridges were closed (with sliding doors), the lazy customers would have bought much less than this way. OK, so let’s put the supermarket to face this dilemma: lose some lazy and idiot customers, or pay high taxes to the Gov’t! (I mean: HIGH taxes!)
Another eco-tax should be imposed to buildings whose windows can’t be open (not buildings with 100 stories). In some countries, at least a few months a year, there is no need for the A/C system to neither heaten, nor chill the air: one could simply open the windows a few times a day, like in the “old times”. When windows can’t be open, the A/C system must work 24/7, otherwise the people inside couldn’t even breathe! (At least some fresh air should be circulated, and this takes energy.)
You are too optimistic, as a general rule.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I opened them, the comments, back ;). I left them closed when I didn’t have a good anti-spam solution. But it’s no longer the case.