4 ms·

> If we psychologically manipulate people into spending more than they’re naturally comfortable with, we’re creating a society that’s worse off for the people i

by aianus 9y ago

> If we psychologically manipulate people into spending more than they’re naturally comfortable with, we’re creating a society that’s worse off for the people in it. If the average person didn't spend too much money on things they don't need, we'd have very high unemployment. The people with jobs might feel better and less stressed but a huge number of people would be extremely stressed and despondent.

vertex-four 9y ago
If psychological manipulation to the point of causing harm to people is necessary to make our system work, maybe it's a system that doesn't work. Anyway - advertising isn't along the same lines as literally making it more difficult for people to make the connection between spending money and, well, spending money.
bo1024 9y ago
I see your point, but I don't think we should be aiming at a solution of continuing to promote overconsumption. I think we should aim for a world where people are less manipulated into overconsumption, but everyone still has the means for a comfortable and happy life. It may sound obvious when I put it that way, but it seems to me that many times the political or economic proposals I hear fundamentally disagree with this goal.
stale2002 9y ago
Wrong. Even people like Keynes didnt believe that. Resources that are wasted on stuff that we don't need is directly taken from other better places that those resources could have been spent on. By not spending now, we are instead able to spend those resources on the future.
- aianus 9y ago
  > Resources that are wasted on stuff that we don't need is directly taken from other better places that those resources could have been spent on. The vast majority of people have skills and are employed in areas other than housing, food, transportation, healthcare, clothing, and education. What would they all do in a world where nobody bought massages or luxury vehicles or hair dye or designer clothes or airplanes or tasting menus? Would you have all the artists and marketers retrain as farmers and green energy researchers? Would people really be happier in this hypothetical ultra-efficient future of such limited career choices?

by aianus 9y ago

vertex-four 9y ago

If psychological manipulation to the point of causing harm to people is necessary to make our system work, maybe it's a system that doesn't work. Anyway - advertising isn't along the same lines as literally making it more difficult for people to make the connection between spending money and, well, spending money.

bo1024 9y ago

I see your point, but I don't think we should be aiming at a solution of continuing to promote overconsumption. I think we should aim for a world where people are less manipulated into overconsumption, but everyone still has the means for a comfortable and happy life. It may sound obvious when I put it that way, but it seems to me that many times the political or economic proposals I hear fundamentally disagree with this goal.

stale2002 9y ago

Wrong. Even people like Keynes didnt believe that. Resources that are wasted on stuff that we don't need is directly taken from other better places that those resources could have been spent on. By not spending now, we are instead able to spend those resources on the future.

aianus 9y ago
> Resources that are wasted on stuff that we don't need is directly taken from other better places that those resources could have been spent on. The vast majority of people have skills and are employed in areas other than housing, food, transportation, healthcare, clothing, and education. What would they all do in a world where nobody bought massages or luxury vehicles or hair dye or designer clothes or airplanes or tasting menus? Would you have all the artists and marketers retrain as farmers and green energy researchers? Would people really be happier in this hypothetical ultra-efficient future of such limited career choices?