X-Message-Number: 28084
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:24:32 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re: economics
References: <>

> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: economics
> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:27:28 +0100
>
> there are more corporations than governments. Corporations get
> where they are by offering something that people want.

It should be clear that just because someone buys something, it does
not mean they need it - or even want it. But need is what is
important, not desires created to sell a product or service.

> Governments get there
> by offering people a choice often from only two alternatives, and often the
> choice is made on the basis of which one will take less.

This is a problem of democracy mostly due to lack of citizenry with a
good political education & also due to corporate interests in (aka
bribary of) political parties.

> Maybe the best way to improve the world is not to confiscate and concentrate
> wealth into government hands, but to educate people to spend wisely.

Indeed. Education, education, education, as some "world leader" once said.

> > , and are statistically more prone to
> > depression and other forms of psychopathology.
>
> but the wealth enables them to be miserable in comfort and get dignified and
> responsive medical help in complete privacy.

I never said being rich didn't bring huge benefits.

> > "Western marketing's most important principle is to encourage the
> > consumer to buy with as little reflection as possible
>
> it may be true in general, but I don't behave like this.

What matters is that it is true in general, as you agree. In agreeing
to this, many of my other points follow (i.e. super-rich aren't
necessarily doing us any favours, markets often create unnecessary
&/or harmful desires)

> But the answer surely is education and not the force of law and government.

Right on.
Of course, such education would need to be democratically regulated if
it is to fairly reach large numbers of people.

> As I said in an earlier post, if the undevweloped nations want to
> get back into software and they really have the talent, then Microsoft's
> business methods could be removed by replacing their product.

Current politics won't allow it.

> With nanotechnology and
> replicators, it will approach zero therefore that in part may produce the
> world you seek.

We don't have this kind of nanotech and we might not. Indeed, the
problems that impede progress now may well impede nanotech and the
levelling that it could bring (e.g. witness the counter-productive
effects of Digital Rights Management).

> Employing people as compliance enforcers, inspectors, wardens or
> whatever, funded by fines, is a good way to massage unemployment figures.

You mean we don't need compliance enforcers? I guess industries like
O&G will go back to being responsible waste-disposers who don't need
regulation to keep their polluting profiteering in check.

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28084