Marketing, what you need to know.

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

Now while I am not a Wall Street expert, the evidence is there that the middle class and poor are drowning at the expense of big money buying off law makers.

I am old enough to have witnessed our manufacturing evaporate to be replaced with cookie cutter formats producing lower paying jobs and increasing profits while wages stagnate and cost of living sky rockets.

WHY is this happening. It is partially the buyer's fault. We are so desperate in our fast paced society for quick solutions, we allow marketing to constantly convince us to buy things we may not need. Marketing is the art of emotional appeal to convince you to part with your money.

That is not to say I am against marketing, or the free market, quite the reverse. My problem with our system isn't business by itself. It is our short sightedness in allowing ourselves to be convinced that we need something. If we were not so fooled by the quick fix marketing is so good at, we would have more buying power and the big businesses would have to listen to us.

But to blame it all on the middle class and poor is absurd. Our market is not based on pragmatism or selling things that help people, it is based on maximizing profits "Whatever you can get away with".

When you have a lizard peddling car insurance, that says nothing pragmatically in the real world what you will get as a policy holder if you have an accident. It is merely a way to get you in the door.

Business has a right to market, but it lacks the ethics today to know long term what it is doing to society.

I see big business frothing at the mouth to compete with the same slave wages India and China have.

Our country is better than that. I do not think the rightful free market, which we should have, should continue down the road of the huge gap in cost of living which, long term will kill us.

Business has a responsibility to it's employees to foster an environment where they can pay their bills, be at home with the kids, have the time off to be involved in their education, be able to afford health care, and provide it to them.

If they do not do this, the middle and poor will go down further and do what these fat cats say they don't want happening, they will turn to government more.

But it is also up to the middle class and poor to stand up to these people at the top and say ENOUGH. We are tired of you calling us lazy while at the same time having no problem picking our pockets and demanding tax cuts so you can sell us things we don't need.

I am tired of the right claiming that people who use unemployment, or medicare or medicade are mooches. YOU pay taxes out of every paycheck, so you are not mooching when you ask for the money you put into it.

Yet it is ok for GE and Exxon to pay nothing and it is ok for NFL owners to ask us to pay for their projects. It is ok for us to bail out car companies and banks. It is ok for Wal Mart to pump unlimited money into a campaign like an individual.

ENOUGH!

Stop the lies, stop the legalized pick pocketing. No one in America who values freedom wants an end of the free market or competition. We want an end to the "free for all market" where only the few with the money pay off law makers to avoid anti-trust laws and pay off congress to set up the laws that benefit them.

No one who loves this country would say, "I hate having the choice of having a pizza or burger". No one would say, "I hate having the choice between a Chevy or Ford"

What we hate is stagnant wages. Low wages, high health care costs, big business avoiding taxes, Jobs being shipped overseas.

Wall Street has been turned into a huge Vagas casino and big business has learned to use congress to scare the shit out of you with words like "socialism" "communism" when all the middle class and poor want is to stop being squeezed by the pay gap and cost of living.

WE love America too. We do not begrudge someone for "making it", but far to much of the top is more concerned about profit margins than creating a building environment that maximizes the safety net.

If you look at what life was like before WW2 before the age of regulation and the idea of the social safety net, life was much harsher for more people. We are going back in that direction.

And this backslide has been going on since Reagan and NO president, democrat or republican since has done anything big enough to stop it.

We will end up looking like India and China if big business doesn't stop it's slash and burn policies. We will end up looking like India and China if the middle and poor classes don't stand up to the corporate bullies.

It is NOT either or. It is not "no rules" vs "government run economy". It is our fault as the middle class an poor for falling for the quick fix, and big business fault for not caring how much they take from us.

I love my country. I love our free market. I just cant stand the "free for all" market it has been for far too long.

It is way past time that the middle and poor demand that the top stop falsely accusing us of wanting to rob them. It is way past time that they stop taking their freedom as a right to do what they want without regards to how they affect the rest of us.

WE are all Americans, every class, and most people are NOT lazy and we are all needed, even big business.

But what those at the top that sell the fear of "commie" dont seem to understand is that the First Amendment is a check and balance against ALL forms of abuse of power, and they falsely try to exempt the private sector from the First Amendment.

The truth is that ANYTHING, including a class of people, can gain a monopoly, just like a religion or a political party. ANYTHING left to it's own devices can go off the rails.

No one values absolute power and I don't think that we should value "money equals power". That does not equate to "you must be poor" or the stupid notion of a "nanny state". It just means we can value your right to make money, without giving money a monopoly, just like we can value your right to a religion without wanting that religion to have a monopoly.

But that is exactly what we have increasingly. The top percent monopolizing lawmaking. To me that is no different than Communism monopolizing China, which ironically, is kicking America's ass in SELLING exports.

Monopolies are the problem. Ethics are the problem, not the free market by itself. And the very destruction of our economy is being caused by the top whom don't understand that you can only burn through so much fuel before you run out. They are cutting their noses off to spite their face.

You cannot keep demanding that the middle and poor take less and less and work more and more. You will get wealthy doing such, but you will only create more poverty.

It is time we the buyer stand up to them. It is time we stay home and spend less until they learn that we outnumber them. It is time that they learn that without us they wouldn't have the wealth they do. It is way past time that they start caring again.

America IS great because you can end up in a mansion. But it is also great because of it's workers. Addressing monopolies and addressing the pay gap and cost of living IS not a call for socialism or communism. And I do not think our great nation has to sink to the slave wages of India and China to pull ourselves out of the ditch we are in.

ENOUGH of the either or, us vs them crap. America is only as good as it's workers and our workers do not have to be indentured slaves to line the pockets of shareholders and CEOs.

Big money needs to start listening to the middle and poor classes otherwise the thing they fear most will happen. I don't want that to happen either. I do not want to see us become a third world country.

America is great, not because of one political party, or one class, or one religion. It is great because it has a Constitution that bans monopolies and absolute power. It takes all of us, and that is what makes us great.

Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 9:14 pm

Wow... I could comment on every paragraph here... good stuff

Brian wrote:

America IS great because you can end up in a mansion.

But when people begin to realize not EVERYONE, or better yet, almost none of us can "end up in a mansion", you'll begin to understand how unrealistic the "American Dream" actually is. It's a pipe dream, not a real dream. The "mansion" part reminds me of, "The invention of lying" movie Very Happy

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

For most, no they will not end up in a mansion.

But that doesn't mean that it is always a "pipe dream", it just means people should be realistic about life.

EVERYONE is capable of doing the best they can, no matter what station in life or if they stay in the same station in life.

I do hate it when pro sports players, musicians, and actors say "you can do it too".

You can try to do it, yes, but it is rare to get to the top like those we see on tv.

That is not to say you cant make a living, although it is getting tougher for the middle class and poor.

Again, all classes are needed, even those at the top. BUT I am tired of the abuse that is squeezing the middle class and poor.

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 7:22 pm

Well said Brian.

Quote:

Again, all classes are needed, even those at the top.

Really? Why do we need classes?

Forum Master Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 10155

[quote="MockingGods"]Well said Brian.

Quote:

Again, all classes are needed, even those at the top.

Really? Why do we need classes?[/quote

Name me one aspect of any species that does not have variety?

You cant have all poor or all rich. You can only end up with oppression of of a majority using the utopia the virtue of the "oppressed" as propaganda to maintain their power.

Once the abused becomes the abuser.

Economics isn't about "to prove your loyalty to me you must be poor". It isn't "To prove your loyalty to me you must chase wealth".

Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 11:19 pm

Brian wrote:

Name me one aspect of any species that does not have variety?

Certainly we have biological diversity, but we're basically the only species with economic classes. Still, I don't find this a reasonable bit of argumentation to express the need for economic classes.

Quote:

You cant have all poor or all rich.

No, but you could certainly have a homogenous society in which there were no rich or poor. This simplistic idea isn't really a stretch with simple population control, it even seems to be the primary goal of the "American Dream" which at one time was represented by the middle class. Why couldn't we have a society in which everyone was middle class? Most of the obscenely rich certainly don't "need" their riches, and most of the obscenely poor do "need" these riches.

Quote:

Economics isn't about "to prove your loyalty to me you must be poor". It isn't "To prove your loyalty to me you must chase wealth".

What is it about then? And who is represented by the "me"... not sure I get that.

The Learned Joined: Jan 11, 2008 Posts: 109

MockingGods wrote:

No, but you could certainly have a homogenous society in which there were no rich or poor. This simplistic idea isn't really a stretch with simple population control, it even seems to be the primary goal of the "American Dream" which at one time was represented by the middle class. Why couldn't we have a society in which everyone was middle class? Most of the obscenely rich certainly don't "need" their riches, and most of the obscenely poor do "need" these riches.

Since need itself seems like it has a positive supply elasticity i don't believe any amount of forced wealth transfer would sate "need" as the needy would alter their behavior and become more needy. Ultimately i think need can come int multiple categories. Some need being the result of immediate circumstances and genuine(Japan) and other need being the result of a person living on the margins trying to optimize their time expenditures. By increasing aid these individuals can effectively become more needy because the cost of not being autonomous is offloaded to unwilling 3rd parties.

Paradoxically the political class benefit tremendously from this symbiosis as they extract the political capital from this arrangement(typically left wing politicians). Considering how valuable it can be to be perceived as compassionate creating a positive feedback system where more and more people lose autonomy to generate a growing reservoir of political power is very troubling.

The Learned Joined: May 09, 2003 Posts: 142 Location: USA

What bugs me about most marketing is how disingenuous it is. The key word there is disingenuous . Businesses technically aren't lying. That's how they keep getting away with it. But to me it's just as bad.

Another thing that bugs me: mission statements. What bs. They couldn't care less about living up to these pie-in-the-sky platitudes. They're just empty words.

Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 7:10 am

FMJ wrote:

Since need itself seems like it has a positive supply elasticity i don't believe any amount of forced wealth transfer would sate "need" as the needy would alter their behavior and become more needy.

Well, there's more then a billion people on this planet that don't even have clean water to drink and probably close to 1.5 billion that are basically starving to death. If those two things don't fit the basic criteria of need, I'm not sure what does. So once enough resources were set aside to simply feed and water them, I guess they might want things like housing, schooling, clothing and anything thing else that's normally considered a basic "need".

Oh... I'm not exactly for "forced" wealth transfer. But I am for working toward a society where everyone has at least the bare minimum to survive. I find it unlikely current systems will ever even come close to this goal. Firstly, we'd need to set limits on the amount of consumers, and that is counterintuitive to any of the current systems, which rely on growth.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:23 am

I resisted entering this conversation, because while I agree with much of the angry rant that began it, I think that the title of the thread misdirects it, and many of the facts are skewed by the anger. Nonetheless, one responder dropped this gem that I would like to hear more about:

FullMentalJackpot wrote:

By increasing aid these individuals can effectively become more needy because the cost of not being autonomous is offloaded to unwilling 3rd parties.

FMJ, this is interesting, and I would like for you to briefly expound on it for the benefit of one who is less versed in economics. I'm especially interested in the second part of the sentence. Thanking you in advance.

Confident Learner Joined: Jul 28, 2009 Posts: 98

FMJ wrote:

Since need itself seems like it has a positive supply elasticity i don't believe any amount of forced wealth transfer would sate "need" as the needy would alter their behavior and become more needy. Ultimately i think need can come int multiple categories. Some need being the result of immediate circumstances and genuine(Japan) and other need being the result of a person living on the margins trying to optimize their time expenditures. By increasing aid these individuals can effectively become more needy because the cost of not being autonomous is offloaded to unwilling 3rd parties.

Paradoxically the political class benefit tremendously from this symbiosis as they extract the political capital from this arrangement(typically left wing politicians). Considering how valuable it can be to be perceived as compassionate creating a positive feedback system where more and more people lose autonomy to generate a growing reservoir of political power is very troubling.

Still, though, a civilized society ought to address the needs of those who are most destitute. And a society that provides opportunities for people to work to improve their lot would most likely be better off in the long run. But these are all valid concerns you raise here. There does not seem to be a perfect system available to us. It seems to me we ultimately have to rely on the vigilance of a thoughtful electorate and I'm wondering if such a thing can really exist. There is much to suggest that even highly intelligent people do a rather poor job thinking about complex, emotionally fraught issues.

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:40 pm

That is very well said invixxtus Cool

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:36 am

knglerxt wrote:

What bugs me about most marketing is how disingenuous it is. The key word there is disingenuous . Businesses technically aren't lying. That's how they keep getting away with it. But to me it's just as bad.

Another thing that bugs me: mission statements. What bs. They couldn't care less about living up to these pie-in-the-sky platitudes. They're just empty words.

Yup, I agree. The "pie-in-the-sky" platitudes do serve a purpose however. They are there to make the consumer believe the manufacturer cares about them, when in essence what the really care about is the profit gained by selling their product, and actual care for the consumer rarely enters the equation. It's why we have a multitude of companies producing products that are actually harmful or unable to fulfill the advertised purpose.

We've come to a point in our market based world where success is measure in your ability to make the consumer believe the product is good for them and manufacture desire for it. It doesn't really matter if the product is good or can fill said desire; it only matters if the product can be sold at a profit. I often wonder how much of the stuff we produce is nothing more then hyped fluff... or worse. This type of activity is wasteful and probably very harmful to a world where resources are becoming more and more stretched. We need to cease this silly behavior, but I seriously doubt our current economic systems will ever do so, especially when they actually seem to encourage it.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile