The $700M razorblade: extreme capitalism is still extremism
I was up late last night defending one of my favourite theories: that unrestrained, any social, political or religious movement goes bad. Islamic extremism is everybody’s #1 extremism in my community at the moment, but I contend that Scientology, Christianity, Evolution and even (shudder) Capitalism can go bad and start to do more evil than good when let off the leash.
Don’t think I converted anybody to my view last night, but on the train into the city this morning, deep in my RSS feeds, was this perfect example in a story by The Guardian.
I always suspected new generations of men’s razor blades were expensive to develop but assumed most of that was spent in market research and advertising. I never suspected that it might cost hundreds of millions of dollars in technical research and development, or that product design labs for razors might be better funded and equipped than NASA labs.
Why? In essence, because the market for razors is dominated by only two brands, and because there is so much money to be made selling razors. Because capitalism, left unrestrained, goes bad as quickly as Islam or Communism.
Good spend of $700m, you think? What if the same
money had been invested in a renewable energy technology, or sustainable agriculture, or funding a peace-keeping force in Sudan? …or just about anything else?
6 Responses to “The $700M razorblade: extreme capitalism is still extremism”
Leave a Reply
Additional comments powered by BackType
$700m probably isn’t much to spend on refining a product that many of the 3 billion males on earth either use or will aspire to use as prosperity spreads.
But yes, I agree with you — extremism is a problem in any ideology. Just think of the Spanish Inquisition, the Cultural Revolution, etc etc.
What we need is pluralism — multiple centres of power and opinion, all jostling for influence. In this regard, capitalism does have one advantage over its opposite, communism, in that capitalism advocates a continual jostling for power between business owners, even if — in its extreme form — capitalism doesn’t support jostling bewteen business owners and other centres of power and opinion like government, unions, and green and consumer groups.
Dude, I’d guesstimate <10% of global clean-shaven population shaves with a latest-gen razor! Costs more than most earn in a month. Then there’s the bearded cultures. $700M to stay infinitesimally less stubbly for another few hours? Doesn’t stack up as a rational spend.
You obviously haven’t met my silky smooth chin, thanks to the wonderful Gilette 3000…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjEKt5Izwbo
They’ve bought your opinion too! You and Tiger Woods! OMG!
Totally agree on the inefficiencies of capitalism. If you want to see wastage just look at banks. Why do we need 1000’s of banks all doing nearly the same functions for society. Billions, maybe trillions of wasted activity and dollars. I used to work in that sector and it constantly felt wrong. It felt like I was probably the only social capitalist in that village!
Good heavens, that’s dangerous talk Marc! But I agree totally. There’s no evidence that Australia’s ‘four pillars’ banking policy has delivered any cost or efficiency savings for Australians. Indeed, I have good friends in snr positions in one of the Big Four who’ll cheerfully admit the exact opposite is true.
Plus, a smaller number of banks would mean fewer data feeds that Saasu would need to integrate with