10 ms·
I don't look at it as being antagonistic - it's a non-zero-sum game. If you accept as a starting point that there is consumption and production, then optimizing
by goldcd 8y ago
I don't look at it as being antagonistic - it's a non-zero-sum game.
If you accept as a starting point that there is consumption and production, then optimizing that provides efficiencies that enable both more production and consumption.
Both sides are better off.
I'm fully aware that writing at an abstract level and am personally a reluctant capitalist - but I detest waste.
To deep-dive into a really specific example. Today there is most likely a plane flying from your city with an empty seat, to a city you want to visit but can't afford, which has an empty hotel room.
Why would not offering you this itinerary for a price you could afford, not be a good thing to offer you before you watched your next youtube video?
Now the intrusive part of this is that it requires somebody to work out where you want to go, which airlines and hotels are hiding 'failure', and what "you can afford". Nobody really wants to share any of this - but as a theoretical, could make everybody a bit happier.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoIt's not zero-sum, it's ultimately negative-sum. Ever increasing amount of resources are spent fighting over relatively fixed pie, ruining many lives and countless days in the process. Advertising in practice does not converge to market efficiency; it overshoots and ultimately strip-mines people, by exploiting information asymmetry.
- nabla9 8y agoYou argue based only on the assumption that human is a consumer and dong targeting in mass has no negative externalities. At the end it's behavioral modification.