Even more accurately: society is benefited by constantly exploring (and exercising) multiple different survival strategies (capitalism, collectivism, religion…) at the same time. These various strategies are inevitably in tension, producing tons of overall unhappiness.
Like an octopus spreading its tentacles, trying to explore every crevice of its environment, but sometimes accidentally bumping two or more tentacles together. Sure, the tentacles won’t destroy each other but that’s not the point: In this metaphor, we are merely the cells on the surface. Our suffering is just part of the whole organism trying to balance exploration with self-preservation.
Society does not benefit from advertising. Vast numbers of people hate it and try to block it as much as they can. Others fall victim to it and get manipulated into buying shit they don’t need.
But overall, if 2 competitors are advertising against each other then it can turn into a destructive arms race. They each spend more and more on advertising just to keep taking consumers back and forth from each other! That’s a net negative for society!
If there are only two competitors for a product, then it is either a niche product or there is room for more competition, usually, who can use disruptive marketing.
The problem is, for very large markets, companies will abuse their position to prevent competition from forming. Coke and Pepsi should not be allowed to simply buy every new drink that comes to market.
Anyway, I digress. The government doesn’t have the balls to bust monopolies anymore.
That was an example that doesn’t really depend on there being exactly 2 competitors. If there are 20 competitors and they’re all spending a lot of money on advertising then they’re all producing a net negative
I mean there’s probably some small amount of money they could spend on advertising that would be a net positive because it would inform the public of the existence of their product. But beyond that, they’ve moved from informing the public into trying to convince the public to buy their product. There’s simply no limit to the amount of money you can spend trying to convince somebody to buy something and no limit your competitors can spend to convince them not to!
Of course it does. The majority of advertising works this way.
They are making the point that society is actually harmed by self-doubting individuals, as corporations ≠ society.
Even more accurately: society is benefited by constantly exploring (and exercising) multiple different survival strategies (capitalism, collectivism, religion…) at the same time. These various strategies are inevitably in tension, producing tons of overall unhappiness.
Like an octopus spreading its tentacles, trying to explore every crevice of its environment, but sometimes accidentally bumping two or more tentacles together. Sure, the tentacles won’t destroy each other but that’s not the point: In this metaphor, we are merely the cells on the surface. Our suffering is just part of the whole organism trying to balance exploration with self-preservation.
Is there a drug we can give billionaires so they can think that we are all connected like that?
No, but you could achieve similar effect by giving me a few billion $.
Society does not benefit from advertising. Vast numbers of people hate it and try to block it as much as they can. Others fall victim to it and get manipulated into buying shit they don’t need.
But overall, if 2 competitors are advertising against each other then it can turn into a destructive arms race. They each spend more and more on advertising just to keep taking consumers back and forth from each other! That’s a net negative for society!
If there are only two competitors for a product, then it is either a niche product or there is room for more competition, usually, who can use disruptive marketing.
The problem is, for very large markets, companies will abuse their position to prevent competition from forming. Coke and Pepsi should not be allowed to simply buy every new drink that comes to market.
Anyway, I digress. The government doesn’t have the balls to bust monopolies anymore.
That was an example that doesn’t really depend on there being exactly 2 competitors. If there are 20 competitors and they’re all spending a lot of money on advertising then they’re all producing a net negative
I mean there’s probably some small amount of money they could spend on advertising that would be a net positive because it would inform the public of the existence of their product. But beyond that, they’ve moved from informing the public into trying to convince the public to buy their product. There’s simply no limit to the amount of money you can spend trying to convince somebody to buy something and no limit your competitors can spend to convince them not to!