Viral Capitalism supplants Viral Consumerism
A mental installment in things that make me go “HMMMM…”
I had the luxury of sitting on the couch, recovering from a month of exceptional travel. Couch = TV = commercials. Glued to the ”set,” I began to wonder: “Is Viral Commerce a good thing?”
- Commerce: Merriam-Webster “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place”
- Capitalism: Merriam-Webster “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market “
- Consumption: Merriam-Webster “the utilization of economic goods in the satisfaction of wants or in the process of production resulting chiefly in their destruction, deterioration, or transformation”
Are we consuming goods? Or are we simply transporting them? Are we using them? Transforming them? Are they sitting in our closets and cupboards with the price tag still on? Will we sell them in one location and then again in another? I think that instead of being consumers, many people have become CAPITALISTS. Buying and selling without the use. Without the transformation. What does that do? Does it stymie the economy? Does it breed innovation? Amassing wealth becomes amassing stuff in the way the Sun King (Louis XIV, “le Roi Soleil”) gilded his furniture.
And suddenly, it occurred to me. “I think I have just gone GREEN.” I kept the TV on and got up to turn off the extra lights. 
| Comments | Print |
Share | |
| Add comment | RSS |
February 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Interesting post!
I don’t think that I know enough about viral commerce to comment on that aspect, but you make a thought-provoking point about “buying and selling without the use.”
What is the long-term effect of buying and selling without use? Do you think that this “buying and selling without use” (i.e. large-scale debt trading?) trend has contributed to the current condition of the banking industry?
I would argue that it definitely stymies the economy. With no transformation, the incentive to consume is decreased as multiple transactions raise costs. I am not an economist, but I think that this trend has negative implications for the economy because it creates artificial supply and demand curves that have higher levels of variance than ‘natural’ curves.
Then again, maybe our economy needs some element of buying and selling without the use.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Thank you for your reply to my post. I worked in manufacturing for a while and got to really understand material goods. Yes I think it stymies the economy and creates artificial curves. Its difficult to see how much inventory is in the process and what the actual value of that inventory is. Artificial price increases without the increase in value (think about the “bulb bubble” of the 1600’s. People hoarding and holding and POP the value drops out.(http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp)
I am consoled by thinking that the market ultimately has its revenge on greed.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
I am not the person of the field related to the topic so I can give hard comment. But I can say form general knowledge that the trend you willing to start can affect negatively. Might be I am wrong but I think so.