The OP right now is incredibly broad, and it would be easier if we had something to discuss in particular instead of skimming over a wide variety of things.
I agree, but we'll address whatever we can and work from there.
However I am quite alarmed by the amount of social manipulation that has gone on with advertising and its many, many facets.
It's easier to spot manipulation for a few reasons.
1. We have more access to information today than we ever have in history, making it much easier to spot examples of manipulation.
2. We interact with more people, businesses, programs, and organizations than we ever have before.
3. We are surrounded by more big names than ever in history, including names of people, businesses, organizations, and so on.
It's not so much because people/businesses/organizations are becoming more manipulative as much as there's just more sources of manipulation out there.
The fact that individuals within these organisations have lied repeatedly for personal gain and to the detriment of all should be enough to cause dissent.
Everyone works toward personal gain, so the motivation itself is not wrong. The means in which they gain is the issue. If they are gaining money through the cooperation of their workers and customers, then I see no reason to be against the company. If the company, however, forces people to work for them (illegal), or sues other corporations and people for trivial matters, or commits fraud, then there's a problem.
One reason so many people are against corporations is because they put small businesses out of business. Sometimes they do so by creating reliable goods that are cheap, and sometimes they do it through cooperation with the government to create regulations and tax increases that small businesses can not afford. The latter being the evil of the two.
Businesses do often resort to manipulation to gain customers, mostly through advertising. Sometimes these corporations use marketing techniques that we may look down upon, such as insurance companies using fear tactics. Cigarette companies used to advertise their products through cartoon characters, such as Fred Flintstone. Now, we live in an age where the government is being unfair by forcing cigarette companies to post disturbing pictures of what
may happen to you if you smoke. The government is telling cigarette companies to be honest to their customers by telling them that their cigarettes will ruin their lives. It's a shame how cigarette companies are not allowed to understate the dangers of cigarettes, but it's okay (and required) to greatly exaggerate them.
It's weird that I feel the cigarette companies are the victims, even though they are one of the most dirty legal markets out there. But hey, I believe people should be allowed to smoke without nasty pictures of blackened lungs on their packages. : /
Yet some people are richer than ever, the divide between rich and poor is greater
The gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with being in a recession or depression. Let's assume a company somehow manipulates 80 percent of the population to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their product. The companies become insanely rich and 80 percent of the population loses hundreds of thousands of dollars and they all of a sudden become poorer. Other companies will sell their products for a cheaper price to gain business, and eventually the value of the dollar will go up.
The gap between rich and poor means nothing, it's the lifestyle the majority of people, both blue collar and working class, can afford.
inflation has gone out of control and good food gets more and more expensive
I'll talk about the cause of inflation later, because I really need to get more facts straight before I foolishly open my mouth (as I often tend to do).
Does one person's gain cause another's loss?
Person A and Person B are stranded on an island. They can each only catch one fish per day, and they both eat only one fish a day. So every day, both people spend their day catching their food.
One day, Person A decides to go a day without food to make a net. Person B does not wish to make such a sacrifice and fishes instead. Person A, after creating his net, realizes he can catch 3 fish a day.
Person A now fishes one day, and takes a break the next two days enjoying himself. Person B asks Person A if he could borrow the net, and they make an agreement. Every day Person B fishes, he must give one of his fish to Person A.
Person B now only has to fish every other day, and Person A only has to fish, I believe, only once every 8 days (I may have miscalculated).
Both Person A and Person B end up better off. Even though Person B is doing more work, Person A was the one who went a day without food to produce the net.
Some observers would say that reducing FDA restrictions would reduce the price of drugs consumers face. I do not believe this to be the case. After the R&D is spent, firms price their drug to maximize profits subject to consumer demand. Reducing R&D costs will reduce the sunk costs, but not the marginal costs for pharmaceutical producers. What reducing FDA restrictions will do is increase a firmâs incentive to invest in drug development, because the revenue threshold to make an adequate return on capital will be reduced with a lower cost of gaining approval.
- Cost to bring drug to market: $802m article
With less money AND time being consumed by the FDA, these companies will be able to make cheaper drugs. After this statement, the author forgets to consider competition. With more money being made off the drugs with less regulations, companies can sell the drugs cheaper as a means of competing with their competitors. This would lower the prices of the drugs.
Let's assume, that the author is in fact correct, and that the drug companies decide that they won't further compete with each other, but will instead invest all the money they saved into more research. The customers STILL win. More research means better drugs or a larger variety of drugs.
As for illegal drugs, marijuana has been proven to be a great stress reliever, which makes it a nice social drug (better than alcohol), while remaining one of the best drugs when it comes to therapy for cancer. Yet, despite all the evidence backing marijuana, many politicians aren't budging.
