4 ms·

I'm a passionate under-consumer. I've recently made an attempt to better understand economics and I'm trying to tackle supply-side theory right now. I underst

I'm a passionate under-consumer. I've recently made an attempt to better understand economics and I'm trying to tackle supply-side theory right now. I understand the Laffer Curve at a basic level, but one thing that seems to leap out at me is the idea that encouraging the supply of goods through subsidies that were not sufficiently encouraged by demand for those goods would lead to a situation necessitating "demand creation" (aka, marketing). It would seem healthier and more sustainable to me to focus on allowing people to determine their own demands more directly and let supply innovate on price and quality according to those demands, letting niche remain niche and letting expensive lifestyle wants remain as such. But this is all new to me. I've been poking around for a counter-argument to this, so I'd welcome any input.

Retric 18y ago
The problem with focusing on actual needs is they are cheep to satisfy. Food is a good example of this as there is little nutritional benefit to spending more than ~10$ / person / day at a grocery store. So to increase profits you to convince people to buy food with little nutritional value which produces over consumption (soda). Or you charge high prices for organic food which might provide some benefit. Or you go for the convenience of a microwave dinner. Finally, people buy apples based on what they can see not on how they taste so there is a disconnect between actual value and preceved value. Which is where advertising comes in you can't make a better tasting soda but you can convince people to pay extra for your brand of soda. PS: Notice how none of these have anything to do with the basic function of food.