This explains our current parties pretty well

[dilloduck]

They have to have an interst in something about the product.

You can explain WHY they may be interested but you can NOT force them to be interested.

There are failed ideas like this all the time in the market place, they just fail before you evern hear about them.


DEMAND runs the market and to pretend ANYTHING else runs the market is propaganda

says the woman who speaks of brainwashed conservatives. You crack me up TM.

LOL! The only way that supply side ever worked was Reagan set up a fallacy economy with the credit card to entice people to spend and buy what they didn't need with money they didn't have. The card created a false demand and got more people working. Now days the credit card would need more than a product to buy to entice a shopper. Perhaps you supply siders could take a cut in profit and sell your Chinese junk on 2 for 1 credit card sales.

Reagan invented buying things that you couldn't afford ? Damn--he's older than I thought.

 

[shintao]

Marketing research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK dilly then why do 65% of products fail?


What you people are now arguing against is the entire field of market reseach.

Even with extensive MR products still fail.

You can not create a market for a product the consumer has no interst in buying.

I kind of disagree with this, by saying that if you put 1 item on the television screen, there will be at least a million people out of our 300 million who will buy it. They may send it back, but they would buy it if they had the means. Those are not people who have a need for the product.

But outside that, you are correct, and dilloduck is giving me some great humor to fill my morning with.

 

[shintao]

says the woman who speaks of brainwashed conservatives. You crack me up TM.

LOL! The only way that supply side ever worked was Reagan set up a fallacy economy with the credit card to entice people to spend and buy what they didn't need with money they didn't have. The card created a false demand and got more people working. Now days the credit card would need more than a product to buy to entice a shopper. Perhaps you supply siders could take a cut in profit and sell your Chinese junk on 2 for 1 credit card sales.

Reagan invented buying things that you couldn't afford ? Damn--he's older than I thought.

Well, you are dumber than I thought, so....................

 

[midcan5]

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey


It would not be hard to tell the story of the entire 20th and beginning of the 21st century as a battle to halt progress for the working classes. One can see easily how it is that Marx and others came to view capitalism, even when their prognosis was wrong or too weak to see the whole picture. Corporate power has worked long to set the foundation for the modern 'supply side' ideologue. All that was needed were enough 'contented' people to believe and to vote for a corporatist vision of society in which the successful deserve the pie and the working class needs to stand in line. Modern corporate propaganda has advanced only into a wider base, think tanks which publish corporate worship books, corporate media to dilute the real situation, and the republican party, which has always favored the monied over the people, only compete a process that has gone on for over a hundred years.

This creation of a world in which profit is gawd and the people are only required to patiently wait a turn, that hardly ever comes, is constantly present in the revisionist history of conservative think tanks authors, and in the constant defamation of social security - a policy act seen by corporatist as standing in the way of working class dominance, and wall street profit."


See below and see book noted below for a long view.

"Lund’s memo provides an interesting window into the world of industry during the 1930s. It revealed that there were still corporate leaders who believed that business had the leading role in promoting economic and social order. However, this was a view that ran against the grain of significant events. The economic collapse had called into question the authority of business and the New Deal’s collectivism emphasized that government should protect and restore citizens’ economic security against the whims of the marketplace (Wall, 2008). Industry needed to work together, said Lund, to refute anti-business sentiments by partnering under a banner that extolled the virtues of free enterprise. Business men could no longer stand by and watch government proclaim unchallenged that it held the key to economic and societal restoration; business needed to articulate the value it brought to every individual in American society (Ewen, 1996, pp. 301-2).

By 1937 NAM began its campaign, the first widespread domestic propaganda effort in the U.S. since the Committee on Public Information’s (CPI) selling of World.War I twenty years before. NAM’s effort to sell the public on the virtues of free enterprise used speakers bureaus, movies, radio shows and special events. It also flooded daily and weekly newspapers with information. This study examines the appearance of NAM propaganda rhetoric, from 1937 to 1939, in news articles in what has come to be considered the country’s newspaper of record – The New York Times. Specifically, NAM successfully placed in the Times three messages: 1) a collectivist government is dangerous, 2) industry is best-suited to lead Americans for the common good and 3) free enterprise and democracy works symbiotically toward the benefit of all." (Page 3 of 31) - A View that's Fit to Print: NAM Propaganda and the NY Times, 1937-1939 authored by St. John, Burton.


Top quote is from: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Risk-Out-Democracy-Communication/dp/0252066162/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty (History of Communication) (9780252066160): Alex Carey: Books[/ame]


See. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame] "Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."

 

[dilloduck]

Marketing research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK dilly then why do 65% of products fail?


What you people are now arguing against is the entire field of market reseach.

Even with extensive MR products still fail.

You can not create a market for a product the consumer has no interst in buying.

I kind of disagree with this, by saying that if you put 1 item on the television screen, there will be at least a million people out of our 300 million who will buy it. They may send it back, but they would buy it if they had the means. Those are not people who have a need for the product.

But outside that, you are correct, and dilloduck is giving me some great humor to fill my morning with.

She's correct but she's not ? That's pretty funny too

 

[shintao]

Marketing research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK dilly then why do 65% of products fail?


What you people are now arguing against is the entire field of market reseach.

Even with extensive MR products still fail.

You can not create a market for a product the consumer has no interst in buying.

I kind of disagree with this, by saying that if you put 1 item on the television screen, there will be at least a million people out of our 300 million who will buy it. They may send it back, but they would buy it if they had the means. Those are not people who have a need for the product.

But outside that, you are correct, and dilloduck is giving me some great humor to fill my morning with.

She's correct but she's not ? That's pretty funny too

That is because you are treating the subject in absolutes when it is filled with variables. Common sense won't help you here, you need to be logical, and you need to be honest. So far you haven't shown me that.

There is more one variable I can think of, which is a corporate scam to sell you things you do not want and there is no demand for. That is sending people items, and charging their credit cards, just as if they ordered it. Many people won't take the time to fill out a return form, or meet some other vile condition, like you only have 7 days to review or send it back. If you don't we will start billing you, BS.

But both examples you are skating on thin ice, and your response has been less than honest or forthcoming. A 101 Econ student will tell you there has to be a demand to sell a product.

 

[Avatar4321]

Like I said before , you are confusing demand with need.

demand is not = to need

And your confusing us with someone who actually believes you know anything about economics. Which you dont btw.

 

[Truthmatters]

The fact that 65% of products fail shows without a doubt that just giving money to the wealthiest will creat jobs.

IF demand for a product is not there no jobs will be created by the wealthy having a little more money.

You have to stimulate on the demand side NOT the supply side.

 

[dilloduck]

I kind of disagree with this, by saying that if you put 1 item on the television screen, there will be at least a million people out of our 300 million who will buy it. They may send it back, but they would buy it if they had the means. Those are not people who have a need for the product.

But outside that, you are correct, and dilloduck is giving me some great humor to fill my morning with.

She's correct but she's not ? That's pretty funny too

That is because you are treating the subject in absolutes when it is filled with variables. Common sense won't help you here, you need to be logical, and you need to be honest. So far you haven't shown me that.

There is more one variable I can think of, which is a corporate scam to sell you things you do not want and there is no demand for. That is sending people items, and charging their credit cards, just as if they ordered it. Many people won't take the time to fill out a return form, or meet some other vile condition, like you only have 7 days to review or send it back. If you don't we will start billing you, BS.

But both examples you are skating on thin ice, and your response has been less than honest or forthcoming. A 101 Econ student will tell you there has to be a demand to sell a product.

TM is the one claiming absolutes. A psych student will tell you that you can create a desire to buy in a person.

 

[Truthmatters]

Like I said before , you are confusing demand with need.

demand is not = to need

And your confusing us with someone who actually believes you know anything about economics. Which you dont btw.

You might have a point IF I was the only person who believed supply side is voodoo economics.


I know more about economic than you do If you adhere to supply side for its own sake and not political reasons

 

[dilloduck]

Like I said before , you are confusing demand with need.

demand is not = to need

And your confusing us with someone who actually believes you know anything about economics. Which you dont btw.

You might have a point IF I was the only person who believed supply side is voodoo economics.


I know more about economic than you do If you adhere to supply side for its own sake and not political reasons

do you think marketing pressure works ?

 

[Truthmatters]

She's correct but she's not ? That's pretty funny too

That is because you are treating the subject in absolutes when it is filled with variables. Common sense won't help you here, you need to be logical, and you need to be honest. So far you haven't shown me that.

There is more one variable I can think of, which is a corporate scam to sell you things you do not want and there is no demand for. That is sending people items, and charging their credit cards, just as if they ordered it. Many people won't take the time to fill out a return form, or meet some other vile condition, like you only have 7 days to review or send it back. If you don't we will start billing you, BS.

But both examples you are skating on thin ice, and your response has been less than honest or forthcoming. A 101 Econ student will tell you there has to be a demand to sell a product.

TM is the one claiming absolutes. A psych student will tell you that you can create a desire to buy in a person.

Not enough to make a profit.

If you can not convince enough people to purchase your product it will fail.

Go sell dog shit face cream and see if you can make money.

 

[dilloduck]

That is because you are treating the subject in absolutes when it is filled with variables. Common sense won't help you here, you need to be logical, and you need to be honest. So far you haven't shown me that.

There is more one variable I can think of, which is a corporate scam to sell you things you do not want and there is no demand for. That is sending people items, and charging their credit cards, just as if they ordered it. Many people won't take the time to fill out a return form, or meet some other vile condition, like you only have 7 days to review or send it back. If you don't we will start billing you, BS.

But both examples you are skating on thin ice, and your response has been less than honest or forthcoming. A 101 Econ student will tell you there has to be a demand to sell a product.

TM is the one claiming absolutes. A psych student will tell you that you can create a desire to buy in a person.

Not enough to make a profit.

If you can not convince enough people to purchase your product it will fail.

Go sell dog shit face cream and see if you can make money.

are you ******* kidding me ? Kids toys are totally unnecessary. They can make their own. Toy companies make profits

 

[Truthmatters]

Why are you AGAIN confusing demand for NEED

 

[Truthmatters]

If the supply side runs the market and NOT demand you should have NO problem selling dog shit face cream.

The fact that you can NOT sell dog shit face cream with great marketing shows that the market IS DEMAND based.

 

[dilloduck]

Why are you AGAIN confusing demand for NEED

why are you insisting that people only buy what they need ?

 

[Truthmatters]

I never did.

I really thought you were trying to discuss , sorry I started talking to you again

 

[dilloduck]

I never did.

I really thought you were trying to discuss , sorry I started talking to you again

it's OK . I like your soft and gentle side.

 

[Truthmatters]

No business has EVER succeded by producing something there was NO demand for

lie----as has been said here numerous times----the very first thing you produce is a perceived "need".

How do you create a need for dog shit face cream?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not enough to make a profit.

If you can not convince enough people to purchase your product it will fail.

Go sell dog shit face cream and see if you can make money.

I think it would be rather easy to convince someone to purchase "organic" face cream.

After all, people actually buy this socialism crap. Id expect them more than willing to buy something that smells less.