"Right" is alas undefined and undefinable, not least as "consumers" idon't make economic decisions wrt to some a priori set of N weighted dimensions within whi

"Right" is alas undefined and undefinable, not least as "consumers" idon't make economic decisions wrt to some a priori set of N weighted dimensions within which a gradient of desirability is defined, or in fact by any set of such dimensions. They mostly make discretionary decisions wrt to a set of influences triggers habits and cues most of which are not about information or rational processes. A hobby horse is that an increasing number of these are manipulated by those in a market with the resources to identify exploit them. This is not uniquely the case for those making discretionary spending decisions... but it for those of us, that dissatisfaction—or dis-satiation—seems to perpetually "find its level." (I.e. the post-orgasmic clarify of the satisfaction of the craving, soon evaporates like the dew.) The phenomenon of perpetual unsatisfiable desire for the Next Thing is so ubiquitous and accepted we don't even attend to it any longer; and so baked in that 2500 year old Greek myth gives us well-known parables (c.f. the myth of Tantalus). Related: so, GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic have had discernible macroscopic impacts on "consumption" across many economic categories, enough so that the Economist magazine had a story IIRC on unease in industries most obviously based on addictive behavior. I am curious whether there has been a partiuclarly-discernible impact in "expensive hobbies" defined by constant pursuit of the Next Better Thing e.g. audiophiles, collectors, constant-tinker hobbies like mechanical keyboards, modular synthesizers, etc.. The battle in the heavens of our psyches may be waged for the next period between GLP-1 agents on the one hand, and exploitation of ML on the other, uniquely powerful tool as it is for identifying and tuning efficacious triggers for addictive behavior.