Skeptic Project

There has been lots of stuff on CTs, and maybe this is the wrong board to ask - but I'm curious which of the points PJ makes in the orientation video are true, half-true or plain ol' wrong.

I think the basic tenets were something like these:
- "Cyclical consumption" creates the need to keep people consuming stuff they wouldn't otherwise have wanted, or keep them from getting stuff that cures their need completely. For instance, selling medication every month is more profitable than curing a disease, selling new shiny objects in information markets every month is more profitable than getting people to understand the basics, and so on. This creates a motivator for corruption, as businesses try to maintain a state of dependence/need, instead of creating the best solution possible.

- "Artificial Scarcity" is a tactic employed by business owners to keep prices from falling, by creating the illusion that products are more scarce than they actually are, or by simply destroying existing product to let the supply fall under demand.
I think Ricardo described this strategy quite well when talking about positions of power in trade - when five people sell the same product, but only four want one, they'll even sell for a loss to prevent them from being the one who doesn't sell anything. When they can team up, or drive the other guys out of the market, so that there are only three products, but four people, they have the position of power and can raise prices, as one prospect will end up w/o one and - if the need is stong enough - nobody will want to be that person.

Then there's some combinations of the two, like industry creating new problems to create new markets to then profit from, strategic conquest as the commonly accepted modus operandi, environmental concerns, psychological concerns, and the pretty common question whether profit is a suitable "goal" for an economy or not.

After skimming the text, there's some stuff I agree with (although I wouldn't see it as sinister as PJ does), while I disagree with some of the other points.

If you haven't been interested in this stuff so far, it's probably not the best idea to discuss it now, but if somebody has - I'd appreciate your opinion.

I bet he made that up to sound skillful. The only way to make money daytrading w/o a huge amount of experience is selling books on how to make money with trading.

How many TZM members could afford a $2,730 a month apartment?

Why didn't Family Merola just use the flawless "never report to the IRS" logic that he explains in Zeitgeist 1.

- "Cyclical consumption" creates the need to keep people consuming stuff they wouldn't otherwise have wanted,

I agree that creating a desire in someone, for profit, is morally questionable. But on the other hand, people are adults and they can make their own decisions about what to buy and what not to buy.

or keep them from getting stuff that cures their need completely. For instance, selling medication every month is more profitable than curing a disease,

Maybe, but more people will buy a full cure rather than a temporary fix. So it depends on how competitive the market is. If you're a monopoly, yes, selling a temporary fix over and over again would be more profitable than a cure (assuming they cost the same to make), but if you have competition, the best strategy would be to sell the cure.

selling new shiny objects in information markets every month is more profitable than getting people to understand the basics, and so on. This creates a motivator for corruption, as businesses try to maintain a state of dependence/need, instead of creating the best solution possible.

I'm not sure what you're describing, but it sounds like a similar situation. It just depends on how much competition there is in the market. Also, it depends on how much knowledge the consumer has. Consumers kept in the dark may be more easily exploited since they may not know their options.

- "Artificial Scarcity" is a tactic employed by business owners to keep prices from falling, by creating the illusion that products are more scarce than they actually are, or by simply destroying existing product to let the supply fall under demand.

Destroying products is wasteful, but I guess they would have to do it anyway since supply exceeds demand. I know artificial scarcities exist, but I'm not sure when it makes sense to have them, since, for example, Starbucks sure doesn't try to make itself scarce.

I think Ricardo described this strategy quite well when talking about positions of power in trade - when five people sell the same product, but only four want one, they'll even sell for a loss to prevent them from being the one who doesn't sell anything. When they can team up, or drive the other guys out of the market, so that there are only three products, but four people, they have the position of power and can raise prices, as one prospect will end up w/o one and - if the need is stong enough - nobody will want to be that person.

So again, this seems to be a problem of monopolies/antitrust. It sounds like you've described companies teaming up to put other companies out of business. I'm pretty sure there are antitrust laws in the US that are supposed to prevent that kinda of behavior.

"In Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore states that in the 20s (or something) the US used to tax the rich 90%. Can anyone verify this? Personally, I'd like to see this reimplemented :) "

I bet Moore wouldn't.

I bet Moore wouldn't.

He's biased, but I wouldn't call him a hypocrite.

I agree. The comments on youtube about him sound really bad though, and stupid, and I hear his approval rating is down. It's a shame, considering how much good he's done so far

I agree that creating a desire in someone, for profit, is morally questionable. But on the other hand, people are adults and they can make their own decisions about what to buy and what not to buy.

I think it's quite questionable to even create a motivator to manipulate people that way. Consumption has risen extremely since the 50's, where the first "real" advertising strategies were developed and used, like linking cigarettes to coolness and cars to manhood.
Do I want to go back to a frugal society? No.
But do I think that - given the limited resources we have - we should be more concerned with sustainability and let people buy what they really want, not what advertising tells them? Yeah.
I mean - is producing a lot of stuff and consuming a lot of stuff really what we want our civilisation to be about? Personally, I find technology, health, culture and education much more attractive, but areas like these only get developed when people can make profit out of it, or by using tax money.

Maybe, but more people will buy a full cure rather than a temporary fix. So it depends on how competitive the market is. If you're a monopoly, yes, selling a temporary fix over and over again would be more profitable than a cure (assuming they cost the same to make), but if you have competition, the best strategy would be to sell the cure.

It also depends on the cost for advertising and the overhead of the company - Guthy-Renker sells 1,8B worth of health stuff, and some Tony Robbins, on a continuity basis. There is no way to sell a basic "how to keep your face clean" product w/o continuity for the same profit. They don't have a monopoly, but they can spend 3M on one infomercial when other companies can't - and if they could, they'd have to get the 3M back. It's really hard to do this w/o cyclical consumption.

Destroying products is wasteful, but I guess they would have to do it anyway since supply exceeds demand. I know artificial scarcities exist, but I'm not sure when it makes sense to have them, since, for example, Starbucks sure doesn't try to make itself scarce.

Starbucks doesn't compete with Starbucks, they get their prices and that's it (that's also why getting in the franchise business is stupid). They don't have the ability to adjust their prices, that's what the example is about.

One example: In the 90's Europe (esp. Germany) had too much food, so the EU bought a lot of it up and destroyed it.....while people are starving. That's just retarded.
Now some farmers get paid for letting their fields empty, other's produce bio-fuels. I just can't accept that this is the best method we can come up with.

So again, this seems to be a problem of monopolies/antitrust. It sounds like you've described companies teaming up to put other companies out of business. I'm pretty sure there are antitrust laws in the US that are supposed to prevent that kinda of behavior.

It depends. You have organisations like OPEC that are basically just a cartel, but you also have a national interest for companies within the national border to stay profitable. If the government doesn't act on huge supply>demand-scenarios like in Europe, these farmers would be put out of business, and nobody really wants that (except some poor farmers in Africa, but who cares what they want).

Not sure I see anything wrong with this, unless a company does something illegal.

I think it's weird that we still think it's normal for people to "own" the world. Billionaires could buy entire cities...that makes me wonder if we're really that far beyond feudalism. But there has been no time in history where conquest has not been the common method of choice, so it's kinda stupid to make a moral judgment out of it.

I think this can be solved through a combination of regulation and increased consumer awareness of corporate environmental practices, which I think is happening naturally as companies try to go green and people become more environmentally aware.

It's easy to manipulate consumer perception...and I don't really trust regulations, based on what I've seen so far. But I'm around "Government is stupid"-people every day, so I might be a bit biased. :)

Yes, this has been a concern of mine as well, although the topic is pretty broad. Did you have any specific concerns in mind?

I do, but I think they are actually almost completely solvable in capitalism, it's just incredibly inefficient (using regulations en masse, and so on). There is Richard Wilkinson linking income inequality to mental disorders, including stress, so we might come to the conclusion that we get happier, if we have less people above us who have more than we do.
It's just next to impossible to build a more equal society w/o losing a lot of industry. The OECD has problems getting rid of tax havens now, and taxes aren't really that high, what would they do if poor folks started voting for maximum wages and regulations for investors? :)

> This creates a motivator for corruption, as businesses
> try to maintain a state of dependence/need, instead of
> creating the best solution possible.

I see that in some products yes.

(My hope is to try and develop products that buck that trend, whilst not very profitable, as long as the costs are covered, I think its a good stratagy to bring to the consumer what they truely need. (Which is generally a quality product with good customer support..))

> ask Merola how he made money playing the market.

Maybe he lost money :-)

And doesn't want to talk about it..