Nice to get mentions in such a prestigious website:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/continued-existence-of-edible-arrangements-disprov,19856/
BTW here is the Edible Arrangements website;
I hope they explain the Snuggie for me next.
The Snugie needs explaining?
I do not quite get it…why is it going against economic theory?
Because they are selling something totally useless and people are buying it.
Sadly, the continued existence of the Snuggie doesn’t need explaining, but the world would be a better place if it did.
There is nothing useless about this magnificent piece of art. I am drooling.
For every next major female event i’ll be buying something from these guys. Just found a store 6 miles from home. Ofcoarse I’ll be sharing in on the loot!
If I had to debate, I would much rather be arguing the usefulness of a blanket with sleeves (aka a “robe”) rather than a painting…but somehow you seem to think the latter is “useful” while the former is not?
I realize it’s a (supposedly) humorous and intended-to-be satirical “news source”…but that is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. Obviously, if they are turning profit, then the goods are desired. This is just another example of what Friedman described so beautifully:
“What most people are objecting to is that the market gives people what the people want, instead of what the person talking thinks the people ought to want.”
(I just want to know how much of that article is real and how much was made up to be funny)
James,
It’s not a painting.
I’m hoping the quotes are all fake, or we are in big trouble.
I agree with you on this…But this is why I am confused on why this company dis proves capitalism? These goods are being desired, who cares if the desired goods are “useful” or not.
Brilliant (especially the last sentence).
Haha, it actually exists!
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
I agree with you on this…But this is why I am confused on why this company dis proves capitalism? These goods are being desired, who cares if the desired goods are “useful” or not.
[/quote]
Thats the irony the article keeps leading you to. It’s a great satire. In fact I think it’s an outstanding way to get the economicly ignorant to really consider things in a very Austrian manner.
I realize the way I said it may have been a bit confusing, but I was just using an example of a popular thing considered “art”…which is what I believe is a large part of the appeal of the edible arrangements bouquets.
You call them “useless”…I say even most people who don’t buy them would consider them “art”…and if you’re going to argue that something is “uselss” because it doesn’t perform any sort of physical function or doesn’t provide any visible utility (i.e. you can’t see the utility it provides…which of course in the case of art is to make the person looking at it feel good), then you have to consider virtually all forms of art “useless”. And of course, I don’t think anyone would be dumb enough to try and claim paintings (which have been around for literally thousands of years) are “useless”…despite the obvious fact that they do not physically “do” anything or serve some visible purpose…yet they still exist, people still labor to create them, and others still spend millions of dollars every year to acquire them.
Apparently, the existence of the art industry “disproves” capitalism…because “one of the crucial assumptions of capitalism is the idea that businesses producing undesired goods or services will fail. That’s how it’s supposed to work. Yet somehow, despite offering no product of any worth whatsoever, the art industry not only makes payroll every week, but also generates strong profits.”
Thats the irony the article keeps leading you to. It’s a great satire. In fact I think it’s an outstanding way to get the economicly ignorant to really consider things in a very Austrian manner.
[/quote]
As much as I would love that to be the case, I sincerely doubt that is The Onion’s intention…and even if it were, I doubt even more than anyone who isn’t at least interested in economics or already an Austrian would be pushed in a free market direction from that article.
If you really think so, I welcome you to perform a test and send the article to some acquantences who are completely unfamiliar with economics and see how they respond. I bet less than 10% would even question “well how are they making profits if no one is buying? Obviously someone is buying.” The truth is the general public knows so little about economics and there is so much information (and misinformation) thrown around in a sea of jargon they are unfamiliar with and math and numbers that they are uncomfortable even looking at that people are much more comfortable just going along with whatever a so-called “expert” says.
I can almost guarantee you an average person who reads that article (even if they know the Onion is satire) would be further pushed in the direction of thinking (a) the “invisible” hand and all that lassaiz faire stuff is even less true than everyone thought…and (b) even the experts are confused by todays economy. No one knows for sure what’s going on.
And what does that lead to? Acceptance of more government control…out of fear and ignorance: “Wow…I don’t know anything but even these guys who study this stuff for a living don’t either. They’ve got Nobel Prizes and it’s confusing to them. We’re totally better off at least letting the experts try to manage the economy…they’re better equipped than any of us, that’s for sure.”
That’s all possible, but I think the largest impact in the article is that it is entertaining and it mentions Mises and Hayek. That’s all. A whole lot of people read the Onion. So if just a small percentage of them see the name Mises or Hayek mentioned elsewhere they will at least be familiar, at least recall that they heard it somewhere before. At this stage, that is something. Any publicity is good publicity when you’re the complete unknown underdog of the field.
John James, it isn’t just a robe, it is a robe that you wear backwards. If you do not see the genius in that, I do not know what abnormalities can be going on inside you head.
Dude!!! It’s a robe that you wear backwards. And, it is made for those 8 feet tall. How can you not see the true magnificence of that combination?
In truth, it is usually the most inane and obvious products that become regular staples. The desk, the chair, the bracelet (remember slapwraps, or today’s “cause” rubberband bracelets?), trucker hats, bottled water, etc. All of these are merely variations on original inventions. It isn’t just the usefulness of the product, but also the form in which it is used, as well as any number of things that make us want a product for our use. Utility has no limits when it comes to our consumption. Whether or not you or I think that something is useful or worthy does not matter, it only matters that it is available, and that there are some that think it is worth the money to have it.
That somebody would purchase a robe made for Gigantor, that is meant to be worn backwards, is no more illogical than someone who watches any sport and also buys merchandise associated with a certain team and/or player.
We all want to satiate our demands, what those demands are is entirely irrelevant in terms of the opinions of others. Thankfully, there is no shortage of producers and entrepreneurs to come up with new ideas and variations in order to spike our fancy.
You must have misread this thread. Smiling Dave said the Snuggie was uselss. I’m the one who said I would much rather have to argue the usefulness of a robe you wear backwards as opposed to some piece of “art”. And on a broader scale, I’m the one who implied no one has any authority to claim what is “useful” to someone else.
I didn’t call it useless but I implied it, in keeping with the original joke of the Onion article. I think it’s a goofy piece of crap I wouldn’t spend any quantity of money on, but here it is and they sell tons of them. I recall telling my wife when they actually sold a ton of these things that there’s a brilliant entrepreneur behind this; I would never think to get rich filling a need for giant-sized, cheap, backwards robes and then have the balls to make a completely ridiculous commercial for it so that it becomes a sensation. Hats off to that guy.
For those who haven’t figured it out, the “joke” in the Onion piece was a satire aimed at all of the clowns (sorry, ‘experts’) you see on TV, in magazines, etc. declaring with authority that “nobody needs this, nobody wants that, this is a waste, that is useless, blah blah blah something is wrong we better do something about it!” when people are out there buying this stuff like crazy because it’s what they value. There is no problem, they just don’t share your preferences and that’s OK.
At least, that’s what I got out of it.
Damn.
Marx was right.
Give up.
/forum