[a_Username]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You are absolutely correct. That is why I believe a modified version of capitalist theory must be considered. The original version of the theory incorrectly assumes that the mere existence of a superior product corresponds with its success. Practice shows that consumers buy based on what is available. A store is successful based more on location and price than service and quality. As a result, a store with inferior products could feasibly sell better than a store with superior products, disputing the entire basis of the theory.

Again, you can not say what product is better than another in one strict sense of what defines "better." Better doesn't have to be one that is has better quality, but yet it could be that it is cheaper than another product. The fact is that for whatever reason, consumers will choose a product that is better than another based upon rather or not it meets their demands adequately.

Let us also consider how a supply line works. In practice, someone invents a product. The product is the best of its kind. Now, this someone must sell the product to stores. Let's say Venture signs an exclusivity agreement with this company to carry this product. The product competes with a product sold at Target. Venture, as we all know, goes out of business. Target's inferior product continues to sell. The holder of Venture's rights gets the exclusive rights to this superior product and foolishly does nothing. Capitalism ignores this almost entirely.

You're assuming you undoubtedly know that this product is better. In order for it be better, it has to meet consumers demand more than its competitor. In this particular scenario, this product isn't the fall of Venture; Venture has failed to effectively manage its business and use its opportunity to its advantage. Capitalism isn't solely about product vs. product, but individual vs. individual exchange of goods that both believe to benefit each.

Instead, capitalism assumes that the market is open, but companies restrict rights to monopolize relationships they have with vendors and product lines. Let's take a look at Camaro5. Many of our vendors carry competing products. On this, I'm sure, we can agree. Have you noticed that our suspension specialists tend to advertise either Pedders or Pfadt? I have not noticed both logos carried on the same vendor's signature. Let us, for the sake of argument alone—not an invitation to debate suspension companies—say that one makes a part better than the other and that the other reciprocates this. Now, let us further point out that vendors tend to have repeat customers due to their customer service. This tendency reduces odds that the superior product from the reciprocating company ever gets purchased in favor of the inferior product that is more easily accessible. Do you follow?

Product isn't the only determining factor of a business's success. Advertising, Management Skills, competitiveness of product, etc. are all equally important, determining factors of a business's success. The one's who believe that, for example, Toyota, has brainwashed the American public into believing that they are the end-all of automotive engineering through their effective advertising is only falling victim to legend.

Basically, capitalism assumes that everyone has access to everything and that the best product will prevail. This is almost never the case. For that reason, we have fanboys who perceive their products to be superior despite the obviousness of some of their faults. Take, for instance, the heavy duty trucks of 2011. The Chevrolet is better in all the ways that count, but Ford and Dodge fanboys will leap in here just to tell me I'm wrong despite their lack of engineering, mechanical, or functional knowledge of how a truck works. If the best product prevailed, it would instantly generate the most revenue or perhaps even all the available revenue for that market, which is also rarely the case because existing titans would do whatever they could to earn exclusivity in the largest possible share of the market. The only reason to buy an inferior product would be because that is the only product available. This availability thesis points to a fundamental problem in capitalism: that we reward inferior products simply for existing despite their faults.

Fanboys believe that their product is superior based on reasons that appealed to them the most, i.e. it's a subjective opinion. You need to reword yourself and say "all that counts to you." Individuals value certain criteria over others, consequently some will buy one product over another despite their similarities. An inferior product can only exist without competition, i.e. only through monopolies.

Right now, the market we have is not an open capitalism. It is a very corporate protectionist bastardization of capitalist theory. This bastardization takes what we know about capitalism and makes it work for the biggest companies, inflating the wealth of those who already have money by giving them the opportunity to nip competition in the bud. Most of us, were we to have brilliant ideas, would eagerly sell them for millions to industry leaders and retire on our newfound assets while they use these ideas to fund generational dynasties of their ostentatious lifestyles.

Obviously. I could go down a very long list of how governmental regulation will always and necessarily fail despite its intentions to do the opposite. Of course, I even doubt their intentions. The companies that rely on the state to remove the self-correcting attributes of Capitalism would not exist in a truly free market.

I won't draw any conclusions or say what should be done about this. That would be politics, and I'd like to keep us on the intelligent discussion at hand without divulging into a forbidden debate about how the world should be. On observation alone, it appears that we agree on some things, but we can't find a lot of common ground on how big a role advertising is. Let me simply point to evidence the preposterous funding given to advertising. Ask any drunken college student if he would buy from a company simply because the ad was awesome, and he would probably say yes. Those ads have value. They may mean nothing to you and me, but they do convert to sales, tilting the balance toward those with the largest bank accounts.

Advertising undoubtedly has value, but yet I don't see why you're trying to make an evil out of using a method of gaining sales. It's like saying "stop using a cheaper part to cut costs to increase your profits." The tricks of advertising are available to all companies, but most make it seem like companies succeed only on their skill in advertising. Your major fault throughout your whole argument is proposing an arbitrary objective standard of what defines a superior product over an inferior product.