tw25460241

> 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?

The market process and diseconomies of scale tend to constrain the size of firms, so much so that "bigness" is a strong indicator that a firm is instead being propped up by the political process, e.g., bailouts, regulatory capture.

The underwriting of business ventures goes back at least three centuries, and the market process aligns incentives pretty well. But if you think you can price over/under-preparedness better, that sounds like a profit opportunity for you.

> our entire global economy appears to depend on consumption

I'm puzzled by this statement. For there to be consumption there must be production, i.e., supply and demand, which is the economy, not some separate dependent thing.