The tipping-point in a free-enterprise system turning gold into lead

There is a tipping point in a “free enterprise” system, that is a bit like alchemy’s turning lead into gold, except in this case it is like turning gold into lead.

It is the point where a business makes a subtle change in its guiding principle. It is when the dominant business motive changes from making a fine product or service and expect to receive appropriate reward for the value added by the business, into the primary goal being to make the most profit, and the provided goods or services is mere leverage to get that money.

It is when the R&D department comes up with a variety of potential new products, and management decides which to pursue. There is a choice between a product that is better for the customer and a better value for the money, VS a product that will maximize the company’s profit but provides the customer with a lesser value product. When management has to choose the inferior product that makes the company more profit, that was the tipping point.

More broadly, when you have a nation peppered with such businesses, all choosing the inferior product so as to make more money, and they have business territory control so competition cannot do anything, then you have a nation of customers stuck with the inferior products and services, and less money in the bank. That means the people of that nation have to cope and accomplish life stuck with the poorer resources of what the nation built and services provided. It is a weaker nation, due to lesser capability of resources provided by their goods and services.

It is possible that sometimes this tipping point happens when the company’s investors make demands for more dividends, applying pressure on the management. Or it might happen when a company is making good money and products and is bought at a price that cannot be refused; then new management comes in, trained only to maximize profit and invest in business territory control rather than base sales on better products for the customer.

When the larger business system collaborates to prevent customers any options other than what provides the aggregate business system with the highest profits, the tipping point has locked itself into place.

Does Advertising Rule

I'm still struggling to figure out what makes things happen the way they do. So this blog post is related to that.

Does Advertising Rule? The many appeals during elections such as the ones going on now, constantly ask for money for spending on advertising, saying the good guys won't get voted for unless they get advertising money spent on them. And lots of advertising money, in the millions of dollars each. It seems to be in the belief system of America that whoever advertises most wins the right to control the country for the next umpteen years. The advertising can include the forms of bashing the rivals, proclaiming the greatness of the candidate, and/or just yelling "vote for candidate x."

Insofar as this is accurate, then the folks who put the most money into the advertising, tend to be those who have plenty of money, and thus tend to specify who rules the country for the next go-around, Senators and Representatives this time. People with the most money to spend on such things tend to know how to play the system so as to gain wealth, and thus tend to spend on advertising to get those elected who will tilt the system such as to enable the wealthy to gain more wealth.

Somewhere in it all supposedly are the vast majority of Americans. Who are casting the majority of the votes. Yet the way they choose who to vote for apparently is only partially influenced by their belief in the competency of each candidate, and far more by the impact of the advertising blitz that has impacted them. Since the more wealthy folks tend to be the ones who own and run the businesses that provide jobs for the vast majority of Americans, the need to keep one's job at a place which easily determines the political leanings of each employee - and probably shares in in a political database in some instances - this also can influence the majority of Americans' vote. Since the wealthy in recent decade or so have been hiring the workers offshore to replace American workers - who require much higher pay because their housing costs vastly more than does housing of workers offshore - so as to maximize the business people's coffers, they can scare their remaining workers even more, pressuring them to vote for a particular political party.

Advertising also leans heavily on the tribalism type motivation, so-and-so candidate is a member of the Republican tribe or a member of the Democrat tribe, or some religious designation tribe, or even the tribe of one's home town. for the most part. Some people are heavily influenced by this kind of belongingness membership factor, vote for one-of-us. Nevermind if he/she can do the job best; and after all, how do we know if a candidate can do a job well? That he/she has a record of voting the party line, means that he/she is a reliable parrot for - whom?

The ultra powerful impact of advertising - including the low-key advertising utilized by one of the political parties all year long - is also displayed in the ability to get Americans to forget what was done to the country by the previous administration's eight year rule, taking a surplus down into the biggest deficit in recent history (whose pockets did those missing trillions go into, I wonder), from where the current administration is struggling to get the country going again. All this is apparently forgotten in the hubub of advertising's calls. We all make mistakes, of course, and we can forgive and move on. And we are conditioned to let the other team get up to bat in turn. But to do so ought to be based on a clear demonstration of having learned from mistakes and figured out a much better approach for next time. By a political party waving the American flag and declaring they are Americans thereby, but then sitting on their hands and not helping the elected folks get the country running again, is puzzling to me. It is like saying "We won't play unless we rule." Does this eventually wear America down so much they give in and let them rule again?

This is all quite a complex mixture of causes and effects. But per the above, at least to me, a few of the factors seems to be appearing out of the chaos. And the implications are not all that comfortable or provide optimism for the future. Yet is loudly said that it is the best system possible, and it prevents tyranny. I wonder. Tyranny takes many forms, and often involves lots of deception and trickery beside occasional physical arm-twisting. The loudest voice - advertising - seems to rule.