The anti-utilitarian nature of economic equality.

[Buffalo Tom]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice.

When a group corners a market and kills all competition to their products and services, then people have nothing but the illusion of choice. A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly, whether it is possessed by a totalitarian regime like Stalin's Soviet Union or a multinational corporation like Microsoft. I'll wager that if you ask any capitalist, he/she would festishistically tell you of his/her fantasy to control his/her company's target market.

You are the worst kind of pedant. You make grand pronouncements as if you are Archimedes leaping from his bathtub. At least he had formulated something important to merit his rash actions. You, on the other hand, are intellectually naked, and, let me tell you, I'm laughing hysterically at the meanness of your cerebral member.

I hereby dub thee the Cliff Clavin of I-Mockery.

[Zhukov]

Monopolies don't happen with Libertarianism. Remember?

[theapportioner]

I like his ambition, but his sloppy thought suggests to me that his ambition far outdistances his abilities.

[The_Rorschach]

Why is it stringent Capitalists and Communists alike try to reduce all human endeavour to economics?

[theapportioner]

The One and Only writes:

However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.

You assume that the 'amount' of pleasure one can have towards something is unbounded, like wealth. But you haven't shown me that this is a valid assumption. To a degree it makes sense to say that a person's pleasure (or time etc.) could be exchanged for money but only to a limit. Does it make sense to say that a billionaire like Warren Buffett has 1000000000 more pleasure 'units' than say, me? Or that he would be 100000000x unhappier if he had a middle class salary, compared to me, who would be 1000x happier? Not to mention, there are many more people who would love to make 100 grand a year, than people who make over 1 million. If you can't back up your assumption, then all talk of 'net losses of happiness', in an utilitarian sense, become nonsense. People can't 'contain' unlimited repositories of 'pleasure units'.

More generally, you model capitalism in this particular case as a static tool that simply sorts out 'pleasure units' in a more efficient way. But capitalism is much more than a 'static tool'. It is generative, socially transformative, dynamic. It not only sorts out needs and wants, it creates them. It's not like some of us had a latent desire in our minds for a DVD player or a Britney album that was satisfied when they were invented and introduced to us. Hardly. New wants, new needs, new dependencies. It upheaves social institutions that have been satisfactory for many years and creates new ones. Our notions of vacation time etc. are -created- by a capitalist system. It creates and reinforces a culture of materialism. For the better? Regardless of the answer, that was not your point - you said it makes people happier. And you haven't demonstrated this.

[The One and Only...]

Tom, a monopoly only exists when people choose to go to the business. If they become unsatisfied, there demands will either be met or a new business will form. Not only that, but people do not have to purchase whatever has been monopolized.

Furthermore, I was speaking about the freedom to work as one sees fit.

Originally Posted by theapportioner

The One and Only writes:

You assume that the 'amount' of pleasure one can have towards something is unbounded, like wealth. But you haven't shown me that this is a valid assumption. To a degree it makes sense to say that a person's pleasure (or time etc.) could be exchanged for money but only to a limit. Does it make sense to say that a billionaire like Warren Buffett has 1000000000 more pleasure 'units' than say, me? Or that he would be 100000000x unhappier if he had a middle class salary, compared to me, who would be 1000x happier? Not to mention, there are many more people who would love to make 100 grand a year, than people who make over 1 million. If you can't back up your assumption, then all talk of 'net losses of happiness', in an utilitarian sense, become nonsense. People can't 'contain' unlimited repositories of 'pleasure units'.

If Warren Buffett does not derive pleasure from his wealth, why does he maintain it?

Furthermore, I already pointed out that capitalism modifies pleasure rates by merit within the market system. That, in turn, will lead to higher pleasure over time.

I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units. Is not life more pleasureable now compared to then?

More generally, you model capitalism in this particular case as a static tool that simply sorts out 'pleasure units' in a more efficient way. But capitalism is much more than a 'static tool'. It is generative, socially transformative, dynamic. It not only sorts out needs and wants, it creates them. It's not like some of us had a latent desire in our minds for a DVD player or a Britney album that was satisfied when they were invented and introduced to us. Hardly. New wants, new needs, new dependencies. It upheaves social institutions that have been satisfactory for many years and creates new ones. Our notions of vacation time etc. are -created- by a capitalist system. It creates and reinforces a culture of materialism. For the better? Regardless of the answer, that was not your point - you said it makes people happier. And you haven't demonstrated this.

I disagree. Human nature cannot be changed. The creation of the DVD player did not ignite your desire - your desire laid latent. I'm sure you have wanted something that does not exist?

In any case, you assume that the creation of desire is bad. It is not; pleasure is superior to contempt.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units.

You're going to have to do better than that. Prove it. Show me a neuroscientific correlate to 'unlimited desire', that's one approach. Otherwise you are full of hot air.

I disagree. Human nature cannot be changed. The creation of the DVD player did not ignite your desire - your desire laid latent. I'm sure you have wanted something that does not exist?

In any case, you assume that the creation of desire is bad. It is not; pleasure is superior to contempt.

So, from my birth, I had a little inactive nugget in my brain that corresponded to my 'DVD pleasure' thoughts. It activated with the invention of the DVD player. Yes, that makes complete sense now!!!!

Heroin addicts desire heroin. Nuff said.

[theapportioner]

According to Lacan, desire is constituted as lack - one desires what one does not have. Creating more objects of desire would more likely make people less happy, non?

[Brandon]

If we've all agreed that pleasure is tied to instincts, and exists independent of an economic system...

...then why are we still insisting that people can't be happy until their economic system is "just so"?

People aren't interested in the products themselves. They're interested in what the products promise in instinctual terms. A guy buys a nice car to impress women so they'll fuck him. A woman buys a sexy outfit to either look good compared to other women or attract men. People buy DVD players not because they want a DVD player, but because they want to be better entertained.

I see no reason why people can't pursue their instinctual drives in a system where the economy is controlled.

[mburbank]

There is no such thing as a pleasure unit. You have no way of knowing if Warren Buffet feels any pleasure at all, let alone how much. You cannot measure the misery of the man who flipped your burger, either. Emotions are entirely subjective. They are not heat or light or money. That you can't see this distinction is testament to dleayed developement.

Nor can you say 'if he doesn't like it, why does he do it?' Peoples motivations are not torque or horsepower.

There are differences between hard science and soft, soft science and conjecture.

If you care to play this sort of game you'd do well to shut up and actually listen to what Appotioner is telling you, since he knows how to do it as opposed to gluing buzzwords and regurgitated book jacket copy together with wads of arrogance.

Case in point. "Tom, a monopoly only exists when people choose to go to the business." That might be true if it were a monopoly on gumballs. The closer to something the business comes to things people actually need, the less merit your statement has. People have all sorts of freedoms of choice. You can choose to freeze in the winter, choose to starve, choose to die. Maybe you think big Pharma isn't a monopoly. And maybe a sprightly chicken like you doesn't need medicine.

"Furthermore, I already pointed out that capitalism modifies pleasure rates by merit within the market system."

Great. Let me 'point out' to you that we can feed the hungry of the world on the meat of the monkeys flying out of your ass. Now we have both pointed out something and hopefully see the difference between pointing things out and substantiating them.

"I find no reason to assume that people do not contain unlimited amounts of pleasure units."

Let me give you one. There are no such things as pleasure units.

[The One and Only...]

You're going to have to do better than that. Prove it. Show me a neuroscientific correlate to 'unlimited desire', that's one approach. Otherwise you are full of hot air.

Consider this. Throughout all of human history, man has always desired for more than what he has.

Even if desire were not infinite, can you concieve of it ending anytime soon? And what, pray tell, if you are like me and believe that desires are latent in the mind from birth, sort of system will lead to the end of desire the quickest?

So, from my birth, I had a little inactive nugget in my brain that corresponded to my 'DVD pleasure' thoughts. It activated with the invention of the DVD player. Yes, that makes complete sense now!!!!

Think of it this way. Capitalism, as a system, can only correspond to already existing desires to make a profit. In order to find out if a good is desired, it uses quantitative analysis in the form of polls, recent trends, and sometimes even common sense. If the data shows a high possible profit, it creates the item.

The only thing you have left in your defense is that ideas create desire. If so, what, pray tell, is your solution? To end all ideas? Have fun with that. I don't think humanity would find it very enjoyable.

Futhermore, I again ask: why is the creation of desire a bad thing? I desire much, but I do not lose any pleasure because of it. Yet I know that if those desires were filled, I would be much happier.

You are so far into dialetical materialism that you have become blind to reality.

Brandon, I do not think that pleasure comes from the fulfillment of instincts alone. It has become obvious to me that you are a devotee of Nietzche before any other.

Max, there is such a thing as a pleasure unit, it is just difficult to quantify.

Point in case: I step on your toe. You lose pleasure because of this. Therefore, the utility of my stepping on your toe was negative. I give you a million dollars. You gain pleasure because of this. Therefore, the utility of a million dollars is positive.

So long as you can admit that pleasure varies among different circumstances - which, I assume, you all do - then units of pleasure can be assumed to exist. They just cannot be calculated at the current time. The subjectivity of pleasure is irrelevant: what is pleasureable to one is pleasureable to him; what is not, is not. The subject nature is, after all, my point.

Your analogy with the burger flipper is flawed; I already pointed out how capitalism modifies pleasure ratios. You have not yet truly refuted this.

Monopolies, in a market, can only sustain themselves as long as they provide services at reasonable prices - if not, they subject themselves to competition. In any case, I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that monopolies have a high probability of ever forming in laissez-faire, except in the most bizarre of cases.

You should know enough by now to see that even if competition were, somehow, knocked out the picture forever, monopolies would still make the most money at an optimal interaction between supply and demand. This is why monopolies do not endlessly jack-up costs.

The choice of death is still a choice. After all, the "freedom to starve" is a key line of rhetoric for libertarians in bashing the Welfare State.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Brandon, I do not think that pleasure comes from the fulfillment of instincts alone. It has become obvious to me that you are a devotee of Nietzche before any other.

Desire is an instinct too, isn't it?

And what the hell is wrong with being a devotee of Nietzsche?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Desire is an instinct too, isn't it?

Yes, but I think you have a very narrow view of what is an instinct. And I like to mess with your head.

What if I told you that reason is an instinct?

And what the hell is wrong with being a devotee of Nietzsche?

Nothing, but what else have you looked at? Don't forsake everything just to read more of the same arguments by different people.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Nothing, but what else have you looked at? Don't forsake everything just to read more of the same arguments by different people.

I've read a great deal of philosophy in the last few years and my personal views changed quite frequently as I read more and more. Nietzsche, though, has made the biggest impact on me.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

What if I told you that reason is an instinct?

Explain. I know that was an idea of Hume's, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Explain. I know that was an idea of Hume's, but I'd like to hear your rationale.

Actually, I did not know that this idea had been thought of before. That said, considering who Hume was, he probably had different reasoning for it than mine.

First, consider what is meant by instinct. We shall define it precisely as this: "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli."

Now, it becomes relevant here to remember my principle of induction - that when we are born, we do not know anything (although I don't disagree with the belief that certain things are inborn, I don't think that they constitute knowledge) and that all so-called "assumed" axioms are really the results of a vast inductive argument.

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.

I realize that I have opened up a can of worms that I need to deal with when I admit this - such as how can I possibly maintain that correct logic is objective, and that I have allowed a very large room for intuition as subconscious reasoning - but I will address this when it becomes more relevant and less tangent from the point.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Actually, I did not know that this idea had been thought of before. That said, considering who Hume was, he probably had different reasoning for it than mine.

First, consider what is meant by instinct. We shall define it precisely as this: "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli."

Now, it becomes relevant here to remember my principle of induction - that when we are born, we do not know anything (although I don't disagree with the belief that certain things are inborn, I don't think that they constitute knowledge) and that all so-called "assumed" axioms are really the results of a vast inductive argument.

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.

I realize that I have opened up a can of worms that I need to deal with when I admit this - such as how can I possibly maintain that correct logic is objective, and that I have allowed a very large room for intuition as subconscious reasoning - but I will address this when it becomes more relevant and less tangent from the point.

I agree, actually. Granted, we aren't born with perfect reasoning (the logic of children is crude and prone to fallacies), but it does seem to be a characteristic, natural ability of ours.

In the evolutionary scheme, it would make sense as well, considering exceptional intellectual ability was the primary factor in human survival and, later on, dominance.

EDIT: On second thought.. no, that's absolute garbage. We only learn to reason after either experiencing the world or being taught how to do it by others. If we were born with the instinct of reason, children wouldn't need to be taught mathematics.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Consider this. Throughout all of human history, man has always desired for more than what he has.

Even if desire were not infinite, can you concieve of it ending anytime soon? And what, pray tell, if you are like me and believe that desires are latent in the mind from birth, sort of system will lead to the end of desire the quickest?

Utterly ridiculous on all counts. First, you skirt my question. And once you have something, you no longer desire it. Desire is not additive in the way you have proposed. And you proposed that DESIRE FOR CERTAIN OBJECTS are innate. This idea is so goddamn laughable, it needs no more explication. Your concept of 'human nature' is totally, utterly confused. Short of physical modification of human brains, desire won't end - we will always desire what we LACK. It does not follow that creating more objects of desire (capitalism does this) leads to more happiness. On the contrary, capitalism works as people have new wants and needs. Neverending chain of desire production. For capitalism to grow, desire for new things has to be created. If everyone were content, capitalism would be dead.

Think of it this way. Capitalism, as a system, can only correspond to already existing desires to make a profit. In order to find out if a good is desired, it uses quantitative analysis in the form of polls, recent trends, and sometimes even common sense. If the data shows a high possible profit, it creates the item.

Bullshit. Total crap. First of all, the latter part of this quote doesn't follow from the former. And again, there is no 'preexisting desire' for a new product, say the newest fashion. We are introduced to it via advertisements and such. Advertisements implant the idea, the desire in one's head (one could use the word 'meme' here). These new products are desired because they fall into existing social conventions - a need to 'look cool' or 'be up with the latest fads', and so on. The ads tell us that this is the way to do it. Once again, your concept of 'human nature' is ridiculous (I don't even understand why you call it this). Desire for something is CREATED.

The only thing you have left in your defense is that ideas create desire. If so, what, pray tell, is your solution? To end all ideas? Have fun with that. I don't think humanity would find it very enjoyable.

Futhermore, I again ask: why is the creation of desire a bad thing? I desire much, but I do not lose any pleasure because of it. Yet I know that if those desires were filled, I would be much happier.

You are so far into dialetical materialism that you have become blind to reality.

Creation of desire itself isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism, however, is a neverending source of desire production. Though I do not deny that capitalism has its valuable points, always desiring cannot be good for human mental health. Capitalism thrives as long as peoples' desires are NEVER filled. NEVER.

[theapportioner]

And what the fuck does this have to do with the dialectic? I certainly do not subscribe to it, nor have I suggested that. Stop dropping terms just to impress the readers. It's childish.

[Brandon]

See, I tend to believe that it's the nature of conscious lifeforms in general to constantly desire more and more--to feel incomplete. An existentialist like Sartre would claim that consciousness itself implies incompleteness, since something wholly complete would not need to think, act, or make choices.

The Buddhists recognized the role of desire in human nature very early. The entire philosophy is based upon the idea of learning to expect and want progressively less until you care nothing for anything worldly. If you ask me, though, any attempts to transcend or eliminate desire are unlikely to succeed.

Besides: if you don't believe in reincarnation, why waste the opportunity to partake of this lovely world of ours?

I think there is an "acceptance paradox" when it comes to desire. If you accept that you're never going to feel fully complete, regardless of what you do, it can give you some measure of peace.

So while capitalism certainly feeds off of desire, I don't think it's wholly responsible for creating it.

[theapportioner]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

But arguments, and, indeed, the principle of induction itself, stem from logic. What this means is, regardless of whether or not we are conscious of it, we do reason subconsciously since the beginning of our life. Reasoning is, then, an instinct through which we derive various conclusions about our surroundings and later, more often through conscious thought (instinct can be conscious, after all) about abstractions.

Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').

Good point.

[mburbank]

I think someone should slam OAO's 'pleasure unit' in a car door.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Utterly ridiculous on all counts. First, you skirt my question. And once you have something, you no longer desire it. Desire is not additive in the way you have proposed. And you proposed that DESIRE FOR CERTAIN OBJECTS are innate. This idea is so goddamn laughable, it needs no more explication. Your concept of 'human nature' is totally, utterly confused. Short of physical modification of human brains, desire won't end - we will always desire what we LACK. It does not follow that creating more objects of desire (capitalism does this) leads to more happiness. On the contrary, capitalism works as people have new wants and needs. Neverending chain of desire production. For capitalism to grow, desire for new things has to be created. If everyone were content, capitalism would be dead.

I used empirical fact to support my argument. At least one member in society has always seeked for more, or else no change would ever occur.

I did not say that desire is additive, I said that our desires can not be fulfilled. Humanity will always desire what it lacks. Capitalism just develops what we desire. Again, you have not proven that desire is inherently bad - in fact, I would refuse to live in a world without desire.

It is far from "rediculous" to assume that certain objects are desired innately. You provide nothing to back up such a statement. After all, is not food an object which is innately desired?

The reasons objects are desired is because of what objects can do. Food can stop hunger, and glasses can correct vision impairment. Both of these ends - the end of hunger and vision impairment - are desired, and objects can supply them. The form of the object is all but irrelevant; suffice to say they want the most efficient form for the object as possible.

I find the neverending chain a beautiful creation that allows us to continually progress. How could you ever want to end it?

Bullshit. Total crap. First of all, the latter part of this quote doesn't follow from the former. And again, there is no 'preexisting desire' for a new product, say the newest fashion. We are introduced to it via advertisements and such. Advertisements implant the idea, the desire in one's head (one could use the word 'meme' here). These new products are desired because they fall into existing social conventions - a need to 'look cool' or 'be up with the latest fads', and so on. The ads tell us that this is the way to do it. Once again, your concept of 'human nature' is ridiculous (I don't even understand why you call it this). Desire for something is CREATED.

Bullshit. Total crap. The need to 'look cool' is still a desire that was not created and was inherent. Again, the form of the object is irrelevant - it still remains that the object was desired, though perhaps not comprehended.

According to your theory, there would be no way to quantify desire. Everything would be desired equally. But clearly this is not the case, because people desire things in different intensities and amounts. Sometimes, they do not desire things AT ALL. Clearly, certain objects can fulfill desires better than others, which makes them more profitable.

Futhermore, all that I said about the actions companies take is true - people within corporations do not just spontaneously come up with ideas, they recieve customer feedback and assign human resources appropriately.

You also have not provided anything through reason or fact to support your argument.

Creation of desire itself isn't necessarily bad. Capitalism, however, is a neverending source of desire production. Though I do not deny that capitalism has its valuable points, always desiring cannot be good for human mental health. Capitalism thrives as long as peoples' desires are NEVER filled. NEVER.

So, you admit that ideas create desires? While I disagree with that, let us assume that is correct. Ideas are not going to end, so desire will not either. In that light, capitalism seeks to make everyone as happy as possible by keeping up the production of desire.

Disagree. Reasoning is a product of language learning. Reacting to an attacking bear is not 'reasoning' - it is an instinctual response of course, but not reasoning in any conventional sense. Nor is finding food or water, or flying back to the nest, or taking a shit. Just about any animal can do this. Unless you want to say that fish 'reason' too, but then the term becomes diluted and practically meaningless. Furthermore, per Wittgenstein's private language argument, there can be no language that is exclusively one's own - one would not be able to assign meaning to these private signs. Reasoning, because of its necessary association to language, is therefore not instinctual and not present in the subconscious at birth (or at all - there is no subconscious 'language').

Define reasoning, and then I'll dig in. We may be functioning under different operators. After all, doesn't that completely eliminate spatial reasoning?

[mburbank]

Shut your pleasure unit

[theapportioner]

I used empirical fact to support my argument. At least one member in society has always seeked for more, or else no change would ever occur.

You wanted capitalism to -solve- the problem of desire, to reduce it in an efficient manner. You wanted people to be -happier-. Now you have 180'ed on your original points.

I did not say that desire is additive, I said that our desires can not be fulfilled. Humanity will always desire what it lacks. Capitalism just develops what we desire. Again, you have not proven that desire is inherently bad - in fact, I would refuse to live in a world without desire.

Dude. Stop shooting from the hip and -read- what I have to say. I already said that creation of isn't necessarily bad. Where are we now, 15 posts back in time???? Besides now you are conceding some of my points without due credit. Gimme what is my due, bitch.

It is far from "rediculous" to assume that certain objects are desired innately. You provide nothing to back up such a statement. After all, is not food an object which is innately desired?

Hunting for food and picking berries started before capitalism did. It is "rediculous" to say that we innately desire reality TV, or mobile phones with cameras, or Prada shoes, or titanium golf clubs, or 100 foot yachts. You pick the least relevant examples in your defense of capitalism's relation to 'innate desire'. There is no gene in my DNA that corresponds to "Prada shoe desire".

I find the neverending chain a beautiful creation that allows us to continually progress. How could you ever want to end it?

Yes, we have reached a summit with "Joe Millionaire". Thank you, Adam Smith.

Bullshit. Total crap. The need to 'look cool' is still a desire that was not created and was inherent. Again, the form of the object is irrelevant - it still remains that the object was desired, though perhaps not comprehended.

You can stick your pleasure unit in your inherent crap. OF COURSE the form is relevant; reality TV is a new "form", as is the automobile. These have only been recently desired (and sometimes, fetishized). Capitalism exploits and manipulates psychological drives by creating new objects and "forms" that are to be desired. But humans create objects of desire independently of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm arguing here not to totally dump capitalism, but to challenge your original point. Capitalism will only make people desire more and more. The agents of capitalism don't want you to desire less. Can desiring more be bad? Of course. Look at cigarette addiction. Or worse, heroin addiction. Can it be good? of course. Can it be ambiguous? Of course. Capitalism isn't interested in creating "good" desire over "bad" desire - capitalism is only interested in creating desire, period. And bad desire does not lead to happiness. *stomps foot down*

And to avoid confusion, good and bad here are in the moral or value sense of the terms. I am not talking about human mental health - as for that, one example that's close to home is the college admissions process. My brother just sent in his applications. My parents, in their desire for him to get into a good school, had went through a lot emotionally, let's just leave it at that. So, on instance where excessive desire does not lead to good mental health. Capitalism doesn't care either way.

And as an aside, 'looking cool' can't possibly be innate because the meaning of the term depends on the social context of its use. One desires to 'look cool' depending on one's social circumstance. I don't think a nun goes out of her way to 'look cool'. Or is 'looking cool' innate for some people and not for others? Or take heroin. I don't desire it. If I never did it, I won't desire it for the rest of my life. But if I shot up every day you bet I'd desire it. It may be said that we have a propensity for heroin addiction. But is that the same as saying my desire for heroin was innate? Absolutely not. Do you even know what you are talking about??? You are soooo far out of your league here.

Face it, your concept of human nature is trash.

According to your theory, there would be no way to quantify desire. Everything would be desired equally. But clearly this is not the case, because people desire things in different intensities and amounts. Sometimes, they do not desire things AT ALL. Clearly, certain objects can fulfill desires better than others, which makes them more profitable.

OF COURSE desire CAN'T be quantified!! It has no absolute values! It only makes sense to talk about it in relative terms (more than, less than). It only makes sense to talk about 'amount of desire' in a relation of comparison for a single person. You can't even generalize it to the population because the flows of desire are so subjective, complex, and dynamic. Even the assigning of say, degrees of depression from 1-10 is quite methodologically flawed, and there are a number of articles out there that show how so. And depression is a far simpler problem as there are a number of effects of depression that are conserved in depressed people. And if you tried to quantify desire, how would you know you had desire quantified? An all-too common error of social scientists and economists is the synecdochic fallacy. And finally, would this quantification be in any way useful in determining the amount of desire of a single person?

I only brought up 'pleasure units' to parodize your idea.

Futhermore, all that I said about the actions companies take is true - people within corporations do not just spontaneously come up with ideas, they recieve customer feedback and assign human resources appropriately.

The focus group was an invention of Robert Merton's, maybe 30 or so years ago. Are we to believe that ONLY NOW is capitalism working the way it should be??

You also have not provided anything through reason or fact to support your argument.

Wrong. I think you are just afraid to think about it.

Define reasoning, and then I'll dig in. We may be functioning under different operators. After all, doesn't that completely eliminate spatial reasoning?

I'll get to this more later. But reasoning entails understanding, and understanding entails assigning meaning. This isn't possible without language. And even a parrot that imitates its owners speech patterns cannot be said to 'understand'. As for spatial 'reasoning' (confused use of the word in this context), well, fish seem to know where to swim. Nothing special or uniquely human about it. Higher forms of spatial intelligence also depend on language.