I posed a bunch of clarifying statements to understand your point and instead of responding to them that's how you respond? Weird.
I respect most, if not all, of your viewpoints on HN (even if we disagree), but dodging the meat of my questions and clarifying statements isn't helping with your argument.
That's fine, but I think that if you don't understand someone's point then your best bet is to ask, not to extrapolate.
I'm not dodging anything here, it's just that it makes responding much harder because now instead of clarification we're off on some wild goose chase.
It's ok with me if you don't believe that people got by just fine before marketing became a weapon in the armory of companies that all compete for the same market because traditionally the reach of companies was fairly limited due to the cost of transportation. But (mass) marketing as a profession is a relatively recent invention, as are companies with global consumer reach.
The availability of 30 brands for the same niche is what drives one form of marketing ('we're better than them', when in fact the products are most likely at best at parity). The other is that plenty of 'need' is merely marketeers pushing jealousy buttons, something that you don't need to do if there is a genuine need for a product.
All that marketing and advertising is in the end an arms race and a big contributor to overproduction and overconsumption. The thing that needs marketing the most is probably the thing that you need the least.
I respect most, if not all, of your viewpoints on HN (even if we disagree), but dodging the meat of my questions and clarifying statements isn't helping with your argument.