I get what they're trying to say. "The more there is, the more likely you're going to miss out on something." and "The more there is, the more likely you'll buy things that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten."
When in reality, they're saying (or implying) "Listen to us, we'll provide everything you need and you should be happy."
Variety is very good. For example, A&W root beer is better than Mug, Stewarts, and Olde Brooklyn. However, Olde Brooklyn is the best if taken in moderation (very strong taste). If that's all we had, I'm sure I would hate root beer. Mug has better cream soda than those other companies. I like Pepsi better than Coke, AC, and a plethora of no-name brands. I like my hamburgers well done. My french fries curly and by a certain brand. I can go on and on. I'd also type my shoe preferences, but there's not much variety in the sandal family than brown.
Choose between soda sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar, flavored artificially or naturally, colored pink or red or green or blue or purple.
Of course, there's a difference in taste between cane sugar and h-f corn syrup. Artificial or natural. And, hey, who wouldn't like to pick their favorite color?
Here's where it goes from "dang that's sure cool" to "Wait, what?"
The notion transcends simple consumerism. It also is the dilemma facing whoever wins November's election. With options beyond our great-grandparents' dreams, is freedom of unlimited choice really a freedom at all?
In a universe of unprecedented static, how can an American leader lead?
The author obviously doesn't realize that before the 20th century, the major parties were made up of a coalition of smaller parties. If we have so much choice, why do the two parties have a virtual monopoly on the political landscape? Without unlimited freedom of choice, a leader would actually lead. Republicans get behind a Republican as long as he doesn't break a few cardinal laws (mainly war, though to a lesser extent taxes and social issues). Democrats get behind a Democrat most of the time. Imagine if the whole nation got behind a president, like they eventually did with Roosevelt and eventually Wilson too? That experiment was very successful.
The whole article is a contradiction of capitalism.
Why is it on "Forecast Earth"? I wonder if it's a jab against oil and non-green technology. Of course, like the hypocrites they are, they'll argue for more choice until a green fuel becomes as popular. Then suddenly...
