In a world of parochial politics and liberal economics, money is not everything. The disparate power in business interests are not just driven by political contributions. The overlooked and underlying core is that ideas play a big role too.
The importance of ideas can be harvested from the simplest of things. These ideas can then be repackaged and sold to the mass in deceptive corrugates of appeal. This entire process can be loosely defined as suggestive marketing.
An example that defines this fallacy at the highest level of societal bureaucracy is the creation of bills and acts. Where it favours the powerful constituencies, these acts and bills are generally given appealing and misleading names. In the United States, a tax holiday to repatriate foreign earnings is called the “American Jobs Creation Act.” It was passed because it is easier to sell a bill that allegedly benefits the public mass and not beneficially skewed towards a small group of society’s privileged members.
In the health frontier, new ideas spawn new drugs. As noble as the fallible field and parallel profession sounds, the pioneers of this front are driven by the hope of securing lucrative patents despite dedicating their lives searching for the cure to cancer, regardless of any monetary incentives. Researchers here often delude themselves into thinking they are inspired by the noblest of goals. The cold hard truth is that their need for funding forces them to take into account profitability. So often is a drug created but cannot be shared with the world because it cures rare diseases or diseases that affect people who cannot afford to pay for them.
At the arena of the literati, the process of creating new ideas and new evidence of old ideas is not that different. The scholars here are not motivated by patents, but by the hope of academic prominence and the money that comes with it. This is their one hope of attaining certifications, citations, recognitions, and elevations despite devoting themselves into their lifelong search for the truth, regardless of any personal gains. Intellectuals here often deceive themselves into thinking they are spurred on by the most ethical of purposes. The ugly truth is that their need for grants forces them to take into account the demand for ideas. Too often an idea is archived simply because its mechanism of amplification is not appealing enough to be lobbied.
In a very simplistic truth, pivotal human achievements in time only pursue and celebrate whatever that benefits the society that controls the power. There is no more the good for the greater whole. It is now called the good for the greater empowering whole.
There is always an abundance of demand for evidences that celebrate the benefits of a certain undertaking in an industry or field that justifies government and corporate subsidies. There is no equally structured demand for evidences that these sponsorships are distortionary and a waste of money, making the invested organizations less competitive rather than giving them the edge.
The reality of the futurescape today is that the idea of pro-market does not necessarily mean pro-business. A pro-market landscape seeks to encourage the most ideal business conditions for everyone. On the contrary, a pro-business landscape only aims at maximizing profits of existing players in the market. Therefore, the market will gain from evidence that an industry is too saturated; its profit margins too high and the consumers are being ripped off. The players can only profit from the lack of it.
It is where suggestive marketing thrives, at its most subtle. As easy as it is to observe it, it is also important to appreciate the possible distortions in the market for their creation and diffusion.