5 ms·

It's more akin to evolution operating on culture rather than genes. Corporations are trying various things to differentiate themselves and be profitable. The on

It's more akin to evolution operating on culture rather than genes. Corporations are trying various things to differentiate themselves and be profitable. The ones that consumers like either due to real interest or due to marketing keep getting made/refined, the rest die off. And the process repeats from there.

bordercases 5y ago
Markets are distorted by subsidies, lobbying, credit lines and old-boy networks to (a) remain solvent beyond their actual consumer revenue, and (b) act on information or distort the flow of information in a way that's independent from consumer choice, and in fact frames consumer choices. Large corporations also act anti-competitively through acquisitions without market development, which in the evolutionary metaphor is like an invasive species suffocating the diversity of ecosystem by digesting other species only for what they need and excreting nothing valuable back into the whole. So you're articulating an idealization that's only true in free markets, and we are not, and almost never, in a free market.
ruined 5y ago
That's the ideal conception of it, but practically, power also plays a very large role. Firms don't get to "try things" without lots of resources already, any novel startups may simply be acquired and assimilated or even shut down, large existing organizations are capable of sustaining failures despite market conditions, extra-market rules may be implemented by firms with political access, and if enough of the supply enforces a choice, consumer interest doesn't matter and may even adapt to what is available.
- postoak 5y ago
  I agree with you, but in evolution there are also power differentials due to organism size/features or population leading to some organisms/species having an advantage at a certain point in time. I think this could be considered analagous (not exact mapping) to corporation power at a given time.
  - bordercases 5y ago
    These appeals to power are disconnected from the selection pressure given in the original proposition though, which was based solely on consumer choice, and which would have been more relevant to the original idea of lifestyles being designed vs spontaneous.
  - ruined 5y ago
    sure, but if you're going to admit that classical evolutionary pressure is not present, and the market is designed by the players, you've conceded it's a planned economy.
coldtea 5y ago
>It's more akin to evolution operating on culture rather than genes. Only there's no evolution. It's just "buy this" and "now buy that", because if you continued to buy the previous (or a perennial) model, they'd be out of sales. That's not some cultural evolution. Before 19th-20th century marketing and mass advertising societies could do decades without changing fashions.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  Maybe among peasants, but the upper classes were very fashion conscious and things changed, maybe not quite as rapidly as today, but still. For example, in America we picture our founding fathers as wearing powdered wigs, as that was the style around the time of the Revolution. But that was a comparatively brief fad, and a decade later had fallen out of fashion.

bordercases 5y ago

Markets are distorted by subsidies, lobbying, credit lines and old-boy networks to (a) remain solvent beyond their actual consumer revenue, and (b) act on information or distort the flow of information in a way that's independent from consumer choice, and in fact frames consumer choices. Large corporations also act anti-competitively through acquisitions without market development, which in the evolutionary metaphor is like an invasive species suffocating the diversity of ecosystem by digesting other species only for what they need and excreting nothing valuable back into the whole. So you're articulating an idealization that's only true in free markets, and we are not, and almost never, in a free market.

ruined 5y ago

That's the ideal conception of it, but practically, power also plays a very large role. Firms don't get to "try things" without lots of resources already, any novel startups may simply be acquired and assimilated or even shut down, large existing organizations are capable of sustaining failures despite market conditions, extra-market rules may be implemented by firms with political access, and if enough of the supply enforces a choice, consumer interest doesn't matter and may even adapt to what is available.

postoak 5y ago
I agree with you, but in evolution there are also power differentials due to organism size/features or population leading to some organisms/species having an advantage at a certain point in time. I think this could be considered analagous (not exact mapping) to corporation power at a given time.
- bordercases 5y ago
  These appeals to power are disconnected from the selection pressure given in the original proposition though, which was based solely on consumer choice, and which would have been more relevant to the original idea of lifestyles being designed vs spontaneous.
- ruined 5y ago
  sure, but if you're going to admit that classical evolutionary pressure is not present, and the market is designed by the players, you've conceded it's a planned economy.

coldtea 5y ago

>It's more akin to evolution operating on culture rather than genes. Only there's no evolution. It's just "buy this" and "now buy that", because if you continued to buy the previous (or a perennial) model, they'd be out of sales. That's not some cultural evolution. Before 19th-20th century marketing and mass advertising societies could do decades without changing fashions.

jhbadger 5y ago
Maybe among peasants, but the upper classes were very fashion conscious and things changed, maybe not quite as rapidly as today, but still. For example, in America we picture our founding fathers as wearing powdered wigs, as that was the style around the time of the Revolution. But that was a comparatively brief fad, and a decade later had fallen out of fashion.