Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies
by oska on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:11PM
(#25463765)
The existence of a mutli-trillion dollar advertising industry means you shouldn't be puzzled. The grandparent comment is talking about pushed consumption, i.e. that our economies are based on constantly pushing up consumption, not having it simply be based upon natural, unforced demand. Not to mention things like built-in obsolescence, designed to be thrown away, etc, etc.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies
by tw25460241 on Thursday December 17, 2020 @11:54PM
(#25464006)
> our economies are based on constantly pushing up consumption, not having it simply be based upon natural, unforced demand.
Setting aside the appeal to nature fallacy, there's nothing special about the market process in "our economies". Of course suppliers want to increase profits, and one way is to increase the quantity supplied -- but that takes willing consumers.
If consumers prefer a cheaper thing now with a shorter life span, or to pay for something with their attention instead of their money, is the "problem" that the market process gives people what they want, or that their preferences should be substituted with your own?
Re:Advanced Persistent Threat Compromise of Government Agencies
by oska on Friday December 18, 2020 @08:15AM
(#25466712)
> the market process gives people what they want
It doesn't. Advertising heavily manipulates and subverts people's 'desires'. That was my point.
And just as an aside, discounting points by citing various dubious 'fallacies' is poor discursive etiquette.