A post from elucidator spurred this thought. An excerpt:
It caught my eye because the BBQ Pit thread on “manufactured demand” was still fresh in my mind.
So here’s the question: to what extent should we only make what people “need”? To what extent should “want” play in it? Does it depend on environmental impact, or whatever other factors you want to think of? Do you believe in “manufactured demand”? If so/not, how does that affect your position?
I like my comic collections and video games, thanks.
I agree with the quote, unless there are justifying details about the example that I don’t know about.
What we “should” do depends on a lot of things, like what system of values you use to rate our options. That there should even be property rights and private possessions, for instance, isn’t obvious. We’ve evolved the present customs, seen flaws in them, seen other customs fall by the wayside, and hope there will be better future customs that fix some of these flaws.
But I think it’s pretty obnoxious the way we push automobiles as extensions of personality, or as means to show one person’s prowess and power over others. They are appliances that move the planet around under us to bring a different part of it to us, nothing more; they all move the same planet.
Ah…a perennial 'dope favorite.
Who defines ‘need’? Who decides ‘need’? Based on what metrics?
Coupled with ‘can afford’ I’d say…100%. People will define for themselves (I know…it’s a radical concept) what they ‘want’ and what they (individually) ‘need’…and then they will figure out ways to get both, if they can. Or not, if they can’t.
It depends on how each individual looks at their needs and wants, and determines what they can and can’t afford, and what they want to afford. And what factors they individually place on their decision loops to make their decisions.
No, I think it’s a load of bullshit that people who don’t understand economics use in order to explain consumerism. People buy what they can want and need, limited by factors such as what they can afford (as well as a host of other factors). Companies don’t manufacture demand…they fulfill demand. Or they go out of business, if their products aren’t in demand. Pretty simple, really.
-XT
All anybody needs is food and water and air. That’s it. Everything else is a want. In other words, I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained by trying to determine the difference between a “need” and a “want.”
Let’s say you think you have come up with the perfect formula that accurately differentiates between needs and wants. What do you do then? Forbid the manufacture or import of anything that is a want?
We shouldn’t.
It’s no ones place to tell me what I can, or can’t, make because I don’t “need” it.
Devil’s advocate: so if the new hot thing that everyone wants (made of spontaneous demand) requires a hundred square miles of rainforest, a million gallons of water, and a hundred live kittens each to produce, that shouldn’t matter? That is what 100% seems to mean, after all. 
I can endorse the second part of the quote in the OP-- we shouldn’t be passing legislation to encourage people to buy particular things.
Other than that, I really can’t see the justification for limiting the manufacture of things just because that thing is beyond what anyone “needs”.
Do you ‘need’ energy? Well, that requires a non-zero impact on the environment, and probably several thousand HUMAN deaths a year as well. Basically, it’s up to individuals to define what their wants and needs are, and to put them in terms of what they are willing to tolerate, kittens wise. Personally, since I don’t like cats particularly, the kittens aspect would be a bonus (I’m joking, for the humor impaired cat loves).
The thing is, that new products coming on the market can either be losers or winners. The winners are those that make ‘spontaneous demand’ where said demand didn’t exist before. Sort of like how the car created ‘spontaneous demand’ that didn’t exist prior to it’s invention and the ability for it to penetrate a mass market, or like personal computers doing the same things created ‘spontaneous demand’, while jet powered cars never did catch on.
Totally agree. Passing legislature that purposely creates an artificial demand is on par with passing legislature that purposely stifles demand based on some 'crats opinions on what people need or don’t need. It’s really the flip side of the same coin.
-XT
I want one - hell, I need one. Sounds a trifle out of my price range, though.
The market for that wonderful thing will be vanishingly small since the price will be vanishingly high. Except for the live kittens. They’re a dime a dozen, so into the kitten killing machine they go!
Here’s a thought for you. Poor people are limited to buying what they need because they can’t afford to buy much more than that. But by creating all these government entitlements, it allows them to buy more stuff they don’t need (and helps to create unsustainable levels of national debt).
Most of the major spending programs in the US are devoted to health care, pensions for the elderly and education. Its not cash subsidies to buy luxury items.
Either way, manufactured demand is real. I don’t see why that’d be controversial. The ad agency is designed to encourage emotional insecurity and brand loyalty.
Western europe has taken a different (and preferable) route than the US. They devote more income to making sure needs are secure (housing, health care), have lower income inequality and have more leisure time. I think housing is smaller, and the cars are smaller while the taxes are higher.
No surprise, I believe manufactured demand exists. Rather than limiting what gets manufactured, how about eliminating advertising? Instead of being inundated with carefully targeted and crafted advertisements everywhere, all the time, I’d be interested in letting a free market actually play out in stores, with people going to a store and purchasing things there that they need or want without advertising/marketing interference.
Say I’m a coal miner. If I already have everything I “need,” and am prevented from getting anything I “want” . . . then what’s motivating me to continue going down into that mine every day, risking my life to fulfill the “needs” of over 6 billion people? Is touchy-feely altruism enough to motivate me?
Best point of this thread.
Without incentives to motivate people (bigger house, nicer car, newer iPod, well funded 401k plan, that next vacation, the nice dinner in the city, toys for my kids, etc. etc.) who would do the jobs that no one else wanted to. Or better yet, who would want to create anything new to make our lives better (new virus vaccine, new antihistamine, more fuel effecient car, better running shoes, faster computers, next wireless technology, etc. etc.
That speaks to my point, too - instead of rapacious consumption guided by manufactured demand, take advertising out of the picture and slow down the rate of consumption (and invention) to something manageable. I don’t see this question as completely black or white - either we consume everything, or we consume nothing.
You can’t take advertising out of the picture, for many, many reasons. It’s unrealistic, and not even an action that would benefit anyone anyway.
On top of that, it would hijack the hell out of this thread.
Violation of free speech. And what’s the point of making a product if you’re not allowed to tell people about it?
“Manageable”? Managed by whom? And how exactly do you slow down the rate of invention???
That’s the problem. Folks are always wanting to ‘manage’ everything, as if they know what’s best (what is or isn’t ‘rapacious consumption’ for instance).
I’d say it is pretty black or white. Either you let people decide for themselves what they need/want, or you decide for them to one degree or another. My question would be…why do you think you (or some government 'crat) knows best what my needs and wants are? Even leaving aside the potential for abuse, why people think they know what’s best for others always puzzles me.
-XT