Dave wrote:
I'm not missing it. I agree with your first sentence, as assumed that was
the case. I'm simply not persuaded that your second sentence is true. My
view on that score is significantly colored by the fact that virtually every
advocate of regulating one product or another earnestly argues that his
particular hobby horse should be regulated because it is uniquely exempt
from the usual laws of supply and demand.


But of course! Every product *is* unique... not exempt from
the laws of supply & demand, but with it's own unique curve
fit. Does that mean more regulation is good? In some cases,
yes. DDT & Agent Orange, for example, should be banned.


Galbraith, before he was discredited, made a career of arguing that supply
and demand had been repealed by the emergence of sophisticated advertising.

sigh just can't give up the political posturing, can you?

If Galbraith has been discredited, that's front-page news.
You could be rich & famous. However, I'm confident that he
hasn't been discredited at all, in reality.

And your misquoting again, although this time I will assume
it's from bad memory rather than ulterior motive. Galbraith
said (and demostrated rather satisfactorily) that
advertising shifts demand, which in turn skews supply (for
many types of goods) because of economies of scale.

DSK