Dean Forster wrote:
> I don't follow what point either of you is trying to
> make here. What I said is fundamentally correct, you
> can't cloud the issue with somantics.
do you mean semantics? the point is that what companies sell is what
people are willing to buy and that this is not intrinsically the same
thing as 'what people want'. you may want to buy fine quality coffee
- but if no business in the area perceives a market for it they won't
be selling it to you. that they don't comprehend that you want to buy
fine coffee doesn't mean that you don't want fine coffee. that you go
ahead and buy the crappy coffee they sell doesn't mean that you want
to buy that coffee - only that you are willing to buy it given the
lack of 'better alternatives'.
> If you can
> propose an alternative that will work better, let fly.
> I don't think you can- restricting free enterprise
> only reduces their efficiency.
if you look back over Mr. Arnett's and my posts and you will notice
no mention of 'restricting free enterprise'.
> I can't imagine what
> you could propose that would replace free enterprise
> for the better.
perhaps a broadening of the factors that are considered when looking
for a profit? in particular a lengthening of the time period that a
business considers reasonable for a product to return a profit?
> Now, if we could figure out a way to
> encourage smarter consumers, then we'd have something
> to work with.
that would be a significant improvement - and might go a long way
towards making the production of things people will buy more closely
resemble manufacturing what people want.
regards,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
