Norms got the cart before the horse. People are irrational. thus business in order to sale their product must appeal to the irrational --> OuR emotions.
@nadadreamer You CAN blame business for directly trying to manipulate people into buying the useless crap they make. I went to business school, and we had an entire course (sales) devoted to researching how one could best dupe a consumer into buying a product that wasn't fully thought through. Hell, one could take a f***ing PhD in how to lie about one's product and still avoid prosecution for misleading the public.
@TommyLongstockings The consumer searches until his marginal benefit equals his marginal cost. In other words, searches for the right product until he's satisfied.That's the most laymen description I have. Also, what's obvious is that if a business outright lies to a consumer, that consumer and others would not do business with that company. It's not in their interest to outright lie. That's something an ivory tower professor like Chomsky to understand
@GoingGoingGalt You don't have to give me a layman description - I know my economics. But Chomsky's argument still stands: A precondition for search theory to hold up in real life is that people make rational decisions, which they can't be expected to do if they are mislead by a company. "The man in charge drives the new Opel Vectra" - so...do I sue this company because I didn't get a promotion even though I bought their car? A company does not have to lie outright, just mislead.
People make rational decisions because it is costly for them to be wrong. Of all the things economists worry about (externalities, information assymetry), lying businesses doesn't come up on the list. I would only be concerned with complete fabrications, which would be considered fraud. But your example is laughable. If we censure businessess for "misleading" (btw please define), let's censure writing that contains rhetorical devices.
@GoingGoingGalt When the f*** did I at any point mention censorship of any kind? Don't make assumption about my opinions. I agree that people want to make rational decisions, what I'm saying is that businesses do not try to make that easy. I went to business school, and what we learned was how to present our product in a way that was most likely to get a consumer to buy them. We did NOT learn how to adequately inform the consumer so that she/he might make the most rational choice.
@TommyLongstockings Look, either youre demanding a normative solution, or youre giving a "That's a lot of fish" kind of statement. As if Chomsky. In which case I don't see your point
It's not a matter of wanting to be rational. It's a matter of NEEDING to be rational. So much for not making assumptions. I love how you shifted the argument from lying to simply misleading the consumer, as if there's no difference between falsley overstating a car's MPG to saying that "Trick's are for kids".
@GoingGoingGalt The point I want to make is that in a truly FREE market, consumers are given the correct information up front. Have you ever heard about The Berry Company? They make juice. They have a variant called goji-berry which has a picture of nice and juicy goji-berry on the front + some fancy text about how the goji berry contains tons of anti-oxidants and other good stuff. They're certainly not lying. But it turns out that actual goji-berry makes up only 1% of the carton content.
@GoingGoingGalt Yeah, that's what I meant by it being nice if one had the correct information up front. It would make the whole rational-decision-process a lot easier.
@TommyLongstockings Yea, I know, its so aggravating when we have to go all the way to the back of a product to find information. That's a tough journey to make.
I would also like to point out how nice it would be if we could give every lone individual out there a soul mate. That doesn't mean its going to happen, even if you pass a governmental measure about it.
@TommyLongstockings Governmental measure was just an example. The point is that just because there is a problem, doesn't mean collective action will bring about a solution
@GoingGoingGalt Neither Chomsky nor I speak of collective action of any sort. And regarding the whole information-is-on-the-back-of-the-carton thing, it seems very dodgy moral logic to me so say: "It is okay that I lie to your face, as long as I keep the truth hidden in a place, where it is YOUR responsibility to discover it." Imagine a politician ever using that excuse after lying to the public.
@TommyLongstockings I guess you aren't familiar with sarcasm. My point is that the information is there. What seems like dodgy logic to me are people who say that "I couldnt find the truth because it wasn't written in big bold and red letters." If youre too lazy to turn the product 180 degrees and read the back, which isn't even really skillful hiding, then that's your problem.
@GoingGoingGalt Politician: "I know I said on national television that I was absolutely going to cut taxes, but had you bothered to go read the policy agenda online, you would know that I am going to do exactly the opposite. If you can't be bothered to go online and check the facts - even if I assured you that I was telling the truth (but actually lying) - then it is your problem and you must live with the consequences of having elected me." Something about that is not morally sound, I'm sorry.
@TommyLongstockings I hope I don't have to insult your intelligence by explaining to you that a simple twist of a wrist that brings you to the opposite end of a can, box, etc. is not the same thing as reading through a several hundred or thousand page document. Really two different things, and to confuse the two is an act of self-deception. I'm sure you would have made Chomsky proud
@GoingGoingGalt Okay, so rather than a 500 page policy agenda, let's make it a declaration on the said politican's website - it doesn't matter. What I am asking is: Is lying to someone's face okay as long as you keep the true piece of information in an easily accessible location and it doesn't take too long to read?
@TommyLongstockings Ask yourself that question again. When was the last time a business flat out lied to you. I mean actually lying, not simply giving a commercial where a man using old spice is looking buff (which you label as misleading), but giving information that was dead wrong and completely the opposite of what was written on the label?
At the end of the day, practically this makes no difference
@GoingGoingGalt Eh, when goji-berry juice turned out to be apple juice... And what's the point of showing a buff guy next to an Old Spice when what you're actual trying to sell is a scent of musk and bergamot? And could you answer my question please. A flat yes or no will do.
@TommyLongstockings Asking for a yes or no answer without any explanation is a common cheap tactic used. I hope you resist resorting to that. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe your goji berry story. I looked up "goji berry juice", and one of the first links was selling an item claiming to be "100% goji berry", and sure enough, the nutritional facts say that "goji berry" is the only ingredient.
Now, why have the Old Spice man in the commercial? Entertainment. They don't need to explain to people who aren't interested, and quite frankly many of us find it at least somewhat humorous.
But if you want a direct answer to your question, it would be no, but keep in mind that doesn't necessitate third party action. That is solely an issue between consumer and producer.
@GoingGoingGalt The main fault of commercials which deviate from informative content for the sake of amusement is their ability to brainwash children into expecting entertainment over content. The concept of the childhood was fought for, mainly in 19th century Britain, for long and hard years; the original literature advertised it as an age of freedom and yet today we see it as the most controlled, directed and stereotyped group of any.
@owenhunt Tell me, do you consider yourself brainwashed? Or is it just everyone else? More specifically, how many full grown mature adults do you know who believe EVERYTHING commercials tell them?
@GoingGoingGalt Certainly not everything. But are you saying that no commercial ever got people to buy useless junk? This happens all the time, so really, whether or not people BELIEVE in commercials is irrelevant (I'd suspect that most don't believe in 99% of them) to the actual EFFECT that commercials have on consumers. And if commercials did not have the desired effect, then why on earth do so many companies spend so much money producing them?
@TommyLongstockings Tell me, where did I make the claim that people never buy "useless junk"? In fact, why dont you save us the trouble and define us those two terms. Who determines what is useless and what is junk?
@GoingGoingGalt I never said that you said that people buy useless junk. I am asking you a question: Do commercials make people buy stuff they do not need? If they do, then whether or not people believe in commercials is irrelevant.
@TommyLongstockings You just asked me if I was saying that no commercial ever got people to buy useless junk.
And no, that wasn't the question you were asking, but I was indeed asking you who decides what is considered useless, what someone needs, and what is junk. Care to answer?
@TommyLongstockings I did indeed ask you a question before you ever asked a question. Your hypocrisy is sickening. So, let me play your incredibly immature game and answer your question- Since people choose to buy that stuff voluntarily, it means they believe they would be better off with it. So no, they never buy stuff they don't need. But I'm asking you who defines whether a product is useless or not if not the consumer?
@GoingGoingGalt "Sickening" is kinda strong; no need to get personal. Of course people have different opinions on what is useful and what is not, but I will reserve the right to disagree with what people find useful. A yacht, for example, I would argue, is not useful at all, but an extreme luxury that everyone can do without. That being said, there is not a "who", that decides these things. It seems to me that for YOU, morality is either state controlled or completely relative...
@TommyLongstockings Go ahead, but none of us really care what you consider to be useless or not, or at least not when it comes to deciding policy, and especially so when it comes to listening to you tell us that commercials get people to buy "useless junk". In fact, what would be the point of this then?
@GoingGoingGalt I like how you refer to "us" as if you and your fellow free-marketeers are by default the embodiment of human reason and the rest of us do not know what we are talking about. I am done here. The fact that you don't care what I think not only makes discussion futile; it also gives witness to your view of the world as consisting of nothing but self - a point on which we so thoroughly disagree that I see no point in continuing this "discussion". Good night.
@TommyLongstockings I like how you have to include that random piece of ad hominem at the beginning, as if it is somehow relevant.
And no, I don't care what you think, just like how you probably don't care what I think- all that matters is what you and I can prove. Your opinion means nothing to me, especially when you declare something to be "useless", but backpedal when asked for specificities. Very telling
From the big corporation's flashy star's to the home town coffee house's leather couches and pretty hostess....no shit....they want to sell you something. Of course it takes a sales men to know one.
Right Noam!? Sorry but most people know what they want In a product and said company will tell them about It. If your to stupid to read the car manual then don't buy a car the dealer Is not there to read it for you.
The point is that they are intentionally trying to undermine properly functioning markets, you would probably be right to argue that in addition to this it is people stupidity which makes them susceptible to such tactics, I don't think Chomsky would disagree.
Point remains they are intentionally trying to manipulate people's stupidity, and so it follows have a vested interest in making people as stupid as they can in regards to markets and finance.
Two words refute Chomsky-Search Theory
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt How on earth does search theory stop businesses from lying to consumers?
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
Norms got the cart before the horse. People are irrational. thus business in order to sale their product must appeal to the irrational --> OuR emotions.
You cannot blame business for how people operate
nadadreamer 1 year ago
@nadadreamer You CAN blame business for directly trying to manipulate people into buying the useless crap they make. I went to business school, and we had an entire course (sales) devoted to researching how one could best dupe a consumer into buying a product that wasn't fully thought through. Hell, one could take a f***ing PhD in how to lie about one's product and still avoid prosecution for misleading the public.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings The consumer searches until his marginal benefit equals his marginal cost. In other words, searches for the right product until he's satisfied.That's the most laymen description I have. Also, what's obvious is that if a business outright lies to a consumer, that consumer and others would not do business with that company. It's not in their interest to outright lie. That's something an ivory tower professor like Chomsky to understand
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt You don't have to give me a layman description - I know my economics. But Chomsky's argument still stands: A precondition for search theory to hold up in real life is that people make rational decisions, which they can't be expected to do if they are mislead by a company. "The man in charge drives the new Opel Vectra" - so...do I sue this company because I didn't get a promotion even though I bought their car? A company does not have to lie outright, just mislead.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Sure you do. Whatever you say.
People make rational decisions because it is costly for them to be wrong. Of all the things economists worry about (externalities, information assymetry), lying businesses doesn't come up on the list. I would only be concerned with complete fabrications, which would be considered fraud. But your example is laughable. If we censure businessess for "misleading" (btw please define), let's censure writing that contains rhetorical devices.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt When the f*** did I at any point mention censorship of any kind? Don't make assumption about my opinions. I agree that people want to make rational decisions, what I'm saying is that businesses do not try to make that easy. I went to business school, and what we learned was how to present our product in a way that was most likely to get a consumer to buy them. We did NOT learn how to adequately inform the consumer so that she/he might make the most rational choice.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Look, either youre demanding a normative solution, or youre giving a "That's a lot of fish" kind of statement. As if Chomsky. In which case I don't see your point
It's not a matter of wanting to be rational. It's a matter of NEEDING to be rational. So much for not making assumptions. I love how you shifted the argument from lying to simply misleading the consumer, as if there's no difference between falsley overstating a car's MPG to saying that "Trick's are for kids".
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The point I want to make is that in a truly FREE market, consumers are given the correct information up front. Have you ever heard about The Berry Company? They make juice. They have a variant called goji-berry which has a picture of nice and juicy goji-berry on the front + some fancy text about how the goji berry contains tons of anti-oxidants and other good stuff. They're certainly not lying. But it turns out that actual goji-berry makes up only 1% of the carton content.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Indeed, thankfully they put the ingredients and nutritional facts on the back
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Yeah, that's what I meant by it being nice if one had the correct information up front. It would make the whole rational-decision-process a lot easier.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Yea, I know, its so aggravating when we have to go all the way to the back of a product to find information. That's a tough journey to make.
I would also like to point out how nice it would be if we could give every lone individual out there a soul mate. That doesn't mean its going to happen, even if you pass a governmental measure about it.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Who's talking about governmental measure? Certainly not I.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Governmental measure was just an example. The point is that just because there is a problem, doesn't mean collective action will bring about a solution
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Neither Chomsky nor I speak of collective action of any sort. And regarding the whole information-is-on-the-back-of-the-carton thing, it seems very dodgy moral logic to me so say: "It is okay that I lie to your face, as long as I keep the truth hidden in a place, where it is YOUR responsibility to discover it." Imagine a politician ever using that excuse after lying to the public.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings I guess you aren't familiar with sarcasm. My point is that the information is there. What seems like dodgy logic to me are people who say that "I couldnt find the truth because it wasn't written in big bold and red letters." If youre too lazy to turn the product 180 degrees and read the back, which isn't even really skillful hiding, then that's your problem.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Politician: "I know I said on national television that I was absolutely going to cut taxes, but had you bothered to go read the policy agenda online, you would know that I am going to do exactly the opposite. If you can't be bothered to go online and check the facts - even if I assured you that I was telling the truth (but actually lying) - then it is your problem and you must live with the consequences of having elected me." Something about that is not morally sound, I'm sorry.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings I hope I don't have to insult your intelligence by explaining to you that a simple twist of a wrist that brings you to the opposite end of a can, box, etc. is not the same thing as reading through a several hundred or thousand page document. Really two different things, and to confuse the two is an act of self-deception. I'm sure you would have made Chomsky proud
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Okay, so rather than a 500 page policy agenda, let's make it a declaration on the said politican's website - it doesn't matter. What I am asking is: Is lying to someone's face okay as long as you keep the true piece of information in an easily accessible location and it doesn't take too long to read?
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Ask yourself that question again. When was the last time a business flat out lied to you. I mean actually lying, not simply giving a commercial where a man using old spice is looking buff (which you label as misleading), but giving information that was dead wrong and completely the opposite of what was written on the label?
At the end of the day, practically this makes no difference
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Eh, when goji-berry juice turned out to be apple juice... And what's the point of showing a buff guy next to an Old Spice when what you're actual trying to sell is a scent of musk and bergamot? And could you answer my question please. A flat yes or no will do.
TommyLongstockings 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Asking for a yes or no answer without any explanation is a common cheap tactic used. I hope you resist resorting to that. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe your goji berry story. I looked up "goji berry juice", and one of the first links was selling an item claiming to be "100% goji berry", and sure enough, the nutritional facts say that "goji berry" is the only ingredient.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Here is the link if you are interested:
(dot)vitacost(dot)com(slash)Genesis-Today-GOJI-100-Goji-Berry-Juice/?csrc=GPF-183448000563&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=183448000563
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@TommyLongstockings Quick reminder, add three Ws at the beginning.
Now, why have the Old Spice man in the commercial? Entertainment. They don't need to explain to people who aren't interested, and quite frankly many of us find it at least somewhat humorous.
But if you want a direct answer to your question, it would be no, but keep in mind that doesn't necessitate third party action. That is solely an issue between consumer and producer.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt The main fault of commercials which deviate from informative content for the sake of amusement is their ability to brainwash children into expecting entertainment over content. The concept of the childhood was fought for, mainly in 19th century Britain, for long and hard years; the original literature advertised it as an age of freedom and yet today we see it as the most controlled, directed and stereotyped group of any.
owenhunt 11 months ago
@owenhunt Tell me, do you consider yourself brainwashed? Or is it just everyone else? More specifically, how many full grown mature adults do you know who believe EVERYTHING commercials tell them?
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt Certainly not everything. But are you saying that no commercial ever got people to buy useless junk? This happens all the time, so really, whether or not people BELIEVE in commercials is irrelevant (I'd suspect that most don't believe in 99% of them) to the actual EFFECT that commercials have on consumers. And if commercials did not have the desired effect, then why on earth do so many companies spend so much money producing them?
TommyLongstockings 11 months ago
@TommyLongstockings Tell me, where did I make the claim that people never buy "useless junk"? In fact, why dont you save us the trouble and define us those two terms. Who determines what is useless and what is junk?
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt I never said that you said that people buy useless junk. I am asking you a question: Do commercials make people buy stuff they do not need? If they do, then whether or not people believe in commercials is irrelevant.
TommyLongstockings 11 months ago
@TommyLongstockings You just asked me if I was saying that no commercial ever got people to buy useless junk.
And no, that wasn't the question you were asking, but I was indeed asking you who decides what is considered useless, what someone needs, and what is junk. Care to answer?
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt If you wanna split hairs instead of answering questions then I don't want to answer yours. Simple.
TommyLongstockings 11 months ago
@TommyLongstockings I did indeed ask you a question before you ever asked a question. Your hypocrisy is sickening. So, let me play your incredibly immature game and answer your question- Since people choose to buy that stuff voluntarily, it means they believe they would be better off with it. So no, they never buy stuff they don't need. But I'm asking you who defines whether a product is useless or not if not the consumer?
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt "Sickening" is kinda strong; no need to get personal. Of course people have different opinions on what is useful and what is not, but I will reserve the right to disagree with what people find useful. A yacht, for example, I would argue, is not useful at all, but an extreme luxury that everyone can do without. That being said, there is not a "who", that decides these things. It seems to me that for YOU, morality is either state controlled or completely relative...
TommyLongstockings 11 months ago
@TommyLongstockings Go ahead, but none of us really care what you consider to be useless or not, or at least not when it comes to deciding policy, and especially so when it comes to listening to you tell us that commercials get people to buy "useless junk". In fact, what would be the point of this then?
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
@GoingGoingGalt I like how you refer to "us" as if you and your fellow free-marketeers are by default the embodiment of human reason and the rest of us do not know what we are talking about. I am done here. The fact that you don't care what I think not only makes discussion futile; it also gives witness to your view of the world as consisting of nothing but self - a point on which we so thoroughly disagree that I see no point in continuing this "discussion". Good night.
TommyLongstockings 11 months ago
@TommyLongstockings I like how you have to include that random piece of ad hominem at the beginning, as if it is somehow relevant.
And no, I don't care what you think, just like how you probably don't care what I think- all that matters is what you and I can prove. Your opinion means nothing to me, especially when you declare something to be "useless", but backpedal when asked for specificities. Very telling
GoingGoingGalt 11 months ago
What the hell Is he trying to get at!?
From the big corporation's flashy star's to the home town coffee house's leather couches and pretty hostess....no shit....they want to sell you something. Of course it takes a sales men to know one.
Right Noam!? Sorry but most people know what they want In a product and said company will tell them about It. If your to stupid to read the car manual then don't buy a car the dealer Is not there to read it for you.
codexbiohazard 2 years ago
@codexbiohazard
The point is that they are intentionally trying to undermine properly functioning markets, you would probably be right to argue that in addition to this it is people stupidity which makes them susceptible to such tactics, I don't think Chomsky would disagree.
Point remains they are intentionally trying to manipulate people's stupidity, and so it follows have a vested interest in making people as stupid as they can in regards to markets and finance.
That's kinda the problem.
pilatech 1 year ago