[Sandy Sandfort]

Ray Dillinger wrote:

> What I was referring to [by the
> term, "capitalism"] is the
> science of marketing...

Well that's a new one.  First, I think referring to the "science" of
marketing is a bit of an overstatement.  Sort of what marketeers might like
you to think they do.  (Hmm, maybe it's working.)

Second, this soi-disant "science" doesn't seem to work of me or thee.  Of
course you could take the elitist position, that we are better than the
"average"...

Third, it doesn't explain why so many businesses fail (1 in 12 in the US).
If they are so good at selling us crap we don't need, why can't they stay in
business?

> Let's put it this way; why would
> a rational person or even a sane
> person purchase a furby?

Because their kid wants it?

> It is useless;...

Not if it entertains.

> it is annoying;...

To some people.  That's why there are horse races, differences of opinion.

> its expected lifespan is under
> five weeks;...

So are porterhouse steaks and orgasms.  I still like them both.

> your kids will be unhappy when (not
> if) it breaks;...

Then I guess we shouldn't let them have ANY toys?

> and its price exceeds that of two
> good meals at a nice restaurant...

See "horse race" comment above.

> I maintain that people buy furbys
> (and most other "fad" items)
> because of pressure and false
> expectations raised by carefully-
> designed advertising...

So why don't you have a furby?  I guess it didn't work, huh?  Assuming,
arguendo, that this pressure is all that great, think of it as evolution in
action.  We are breeding a more advertising-resistant human.  Or as you put
it:

> On the one hand, you can call it
> "survival pressure" and hope that
> the next generation will be smarter.
>
> ...This is why people feel exploited
> by "capitalism", giving rise to some
> of the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric
> that's come out of the protests.

Are you sure you aren't just projecting?  ;-D


 S a n d y