Principia Discordia > Think for Yourself, Schmuck!

Had an Idea on the Way Home But Probably Regurgitated Shit I Read Somewhere Else

(1/5) > >>

POFP:
The US economy, especially during the start of Industrialization, was formatted/reformatted based on the assumption that we would need to increase efficiency of Production to meet an ever-growing domestic and foreign Demand (Supply-side economics). It's no accident that this unsustainable ideology is almost identical to the basis of the relationship between drugs and addiction.

The cycle of addiction is based on the idea that Demand is equal to Supply. In other words, you use whatever you have access to.

However, in most cases, due to the fundamental nature of our brain's Reward System, people reach a point where their Supply can't feed their Demand. So, the Suppliers use cheaper substances to make more out of less and meet the growing Demand. Sometimes, that means they use other substances as filler that are less pure because they're easier to find or cheaper to buy. Almost like how most of our food nowadays is rarely pure or untainted by cheap and/or toxic fillers. It's fairly obvious at this point, to anyone paying attention, that we've seriously over-shot our goal of allowing Supply to meet Demand, meaning we've reached, and far surpassed the point of addiction.

In hindsight, it seems like it was inevitable. But why?

Because it was intentional:

It's not that surprising that the US economy's Supply/Demand dynamics run parallel to the fundamental nature of addiction. It was designed before addiction science and treatment was invented, and during a time when drugs were traded openly without any level of regulation or constraint (And were often the most popular trade commodities). It was also during a time when the wealthy were allowed to grow their wealth unrestricted using the profit that came from being the Suppliers (Or the "Suppliers of Suppliers," and so on. I'll explain this concept more a bit later.).

So, what happens when Suppliers become dependent on their excess wealth? They become addicted to it, and so become addicted to the Demand that creates it.

The Demand becomes their Supply.

So, the Suppliers, in need of Demand, began studying and taking advantage of man's vulnerability to desire. Thus, Toxic Marketing and Advertising was born, which has now fully integrated itself into literally every single aspect of our lives. And when Supplying cheap, worthless shit became too personal and real, the wealthiest Suppliers decided to add layers of abstraction between them and their customers to avoid their discomfort. And thus Corporatism was born to integrate Beaurocracy into Supplier organizations and make Supplier markets more complex. It added processes between the Suppliers and the Consumers to blur the lines and fuel plausible deniability and willful ignorance.

How did we get to this point? We were already there. The system was designed based on:

Supply = Demand

It's really that simple. The system assumes Supply is equal to (or infinitely approaching) Demand. Mathematically, and logically, they are one in the same - Two sides of the same coin: An unsustainable system of trade in which neither side is capable of winning because the point of satisfaction for either side is an infinitely moving target. The goal of those with Demand is to be a Supplier. And the goal of the Supplier is to create (not feed, because that's more expensive) Demand and be Demanded.

But if they're the same thing, and we obviously need some things to survive, meaning someone has to Supply the basics for life to meet a basic Demand, does that mean we were doomed to become unsustainable?

Not at all. We've only ever entertained this equation in one direction: Up.

We've been ignoring the fact that the equation can be read the other way:

(-1)Demand = (-1)Supply

More to come some other time.

Feel free to rip apart and put back together again, or add to it. Part of me is very certain that someone's come up with this analogy before, but I have no idea where I would have read it other than here.

rong:
a tremendous supply of bullshit does not create a tremendous demand for bullshit.

but if there was a bullshit shortage, there would be a run on bullshit

but lets be serious - there's a never ending supply of bullshit.

even though it's bullshit, it's a bear market.

better short the bullshit market.

The Wizard Joseph:
For fucksake do finish this thought PoFP. I have nothing to add because I want to see where you go with it, but I am listening closely.

The Johnny:

People like Ian Curtis ("The Century of the Self") have argued that rather Demand was manipulated to stay on the level of the new capacity for massive Supply and production.

Demand =/= Supply in its natural state, it has to be pushed in that direction so that people don't build up savings or investments.

Bad quality of Supply is not dictated by insatiable Demand... it's dictated by Profit and its maximization and how good they can manipulate people to buy garbage.

So i mean, you do eventually speak of the marketing and manipulation of desire, but I just think it came into play way earlier than the chronology you are basing your argument on.

chaotic neutral observer:
Supply isn't equal to demand, though, and a business can't survive if it makes that assumption.  Produce too much, and you end up with excess inventory, and the prices drop, and cut away your profit margin.  Produce too little, and there's a shortage, which leaves money on the table, and can create an opportunity for potential competitors.  Sometimes, supply is even intentionally reduced to attempt to drive up prices (I think this was the case with oil in the 1980s).


--- Quote from: PoFP on February 05, 2020, 04:59:24 am ---We've been ignoring the fact that the equation can be read the other way:

(-1)Demand = (-1)Supply

--- End quote ---

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean; it doesn't give me any new information.  Being in a position of negative demand means I have stuff I don't want (and want to sell) which means I'm a supplier.  One could just as easily say:

Supply - Demand = 0 (not that I think this is necessarily correct, either).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version