Message-ID: <32D16267.26D8@mind.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:36:55 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Why capitalism is NOT sustainable To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.--------------797C505068 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------kerry miller wrote:
>
> > Do you know any study that has used the 'tragedy of the commons' concept to
> > analyse the effectiveness of advertising? The usual rationale seems to be
> > a) if no-one else is advertising, one gains from the novelty, and
> > b) if everyone else is advertising, one has to keep up to avoid losing.
> > This sounds like a clear Hardin scenario to me.
>
> No, I'm not aware of any studies to that affect, but as a "recovering adverstising
> executive" I can assure you that companies that sell advertising will say and/or do
> just about anything to get your money. Of course the 20-30 billion dollars a year spent
> world-wide on advertising kind of flys in the face of the notion that we're deep down
> inside we all long to consume, if that were true, then why spend all of that money to
> convince us of what we supposedly already know? Perhaps Asian and eastern
> European women weren't aware of the incredible "sexiness" of smoking until R.J.
> Reynolds et al unveiled their multi-billion dollar ad campaign (to make up for their
> shrinking markets here in the U.S.)
>
> >
> > In any case, isn't it clear that the essence of Western lifestyle is that
> > we *like* that fresh, tingly feeling of being brainwashed (and set)? I
> > expect we could all have 19.5 ft cars if the PR budgets could be all
> > diverted to globally-relevant causes. (Do you suppose the FDA could rule
> > on the addictiveness of greed?)
>
> Sitting Bull once remarked that "their desire for "things" is like a disease among
> them," when referring to the (un)settlers. I'm beginning to think he was right....
>
> B. Diamond
--------------797C505068 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from BASA14037.usaid.gov (basa14037.usaid.gov [165.13.2.24]) by one.mind.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA0 652 for <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:32:09 -0800 Received: by BASA14037.usaid.gov; Mon, 6 Jan 97 22:31:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 22:27:52 -30000 Message-ID: <mailto:vines.NMY7+s8QomB@BASA14037.usaid.gov> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net> From: <mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@usaid.gov> Subject: Undeliverable Message X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
To: "Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L" <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU> Cc: Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: pushing development-]
Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes.
VNM3043: Madiou mailto:Yattara@YTH@BAMAKO
VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL
The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered.
The maximum message limit for a user's mailbox is 10,000. The default message limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set message limits using the Mailbox Settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER).
When a user's mailbox reaches the limit, the user must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages.
---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------kerry miller wrote:
> Do you know any study that has used the 'tragedy of the commons' concept to
> analyse the effectiveness of advertising? The usual rationale seems to be
> a) if no-one else is advertising, one gains from the novelty, and
> b) if everyone else is advertising, one has to keep up to avoid losing.
> This sounds like a clear Hardin scenario to me.
No, I'm not aware of any studies to that affect, but as a "recovering adverstising executive" I can assure you that companies that sell advertising will say and/or do just about anything to get your money. Of course the 20-30 billion dollars a year spent world-wide on advertising kind of flys in the face of the notion that we're deep down inside we all long to consume, if that were true, then why spend all of that money to convince us of what we supposedly already know? Perhaps Asian and eastern European women weren't aware of the incredible "sexiness" of smoking until R.J. Reynolds et al unveiled their multi-billion dollar ad campaign (to make up for their shrinking markets here in the U.S.)
>
> In any case, isn't it clear that the essence of Western lifestyle is that
> we *like* that fresh, tingly feeling of being brainwashed (and set)? I
> expect we could all have 19.5 ft cars if the PR budgets could be all
> diverted to globally-relevant causes. (Do you suppose the FDA could rule
> on the addictiveness of greed?)
Sitting Bull once remarked that "their desire for "things" is like a disease among them," when referring to the (un)settlers. I'm beginning to think he was right....
B. Diamond
--------------797C505068--