"If people are so overwhelmed by choice, why does, for example, Bunnings hardware store continue to be successful stocking so many items? How does Safeway and Coles compete against small corner stores with less product varieties?"

I agree with the thrust of the article, but take umbrage to this bit here.
Safeway and Coles compete against small corner stores by being cheaper - they do this by forcing suppliers to trade with the barest profit margins.
They also stock a full product range, and by this I don't mean that they have all the brands, I mean they have all the products.
Corner stores are all very well for bread, milk and a few other essentials, but not many stock fruit, frozen goods and so forth.
The higher prices also make shopping at them unpractical.
Whats more, the giants like this may provide more choice in products, but by crowding out and ultimately eliminating the smaller competition outlets, they are removing choice of a different kind.

Cant help but say the revolution in choices is limited to a subset of a smaller sub of souls on the planet - the plethora is in the main limited to Western countriies and the choices reduce the further down the food or socio economic chain you happen to be.

It is really nothing at be all that gleefull about -

A typical elitist-academic article about me - Julie Novak - my life and my choices where I live.

Before reading the article, I had a cynical chuckle about its byline - "Never before have so many people had affordable and convenient access to so many goods and services". But she forgot to add the qualifiers after it - "only if you live in a primary capital city and make a six-figure income like I do."

Try getting affordable and convenient access to goods and services in the bush. You can't. The goods and services aren't here, because nobody makes the money to afford them, because lefty academics and lefty environmentalists and lefty politicians won't give rural people the time of day, let alone their fair reward for their not insignificant contribution to the wealth of city-folk and the nation.

Whatever... LOL.

And I must commend both TRTL and sneekeepete for their good, accurate and poignant comments above.

Over the past couple of decades we have become used to the phenomenon of product placement in Hollywood movies. The business has become pretty slick - the use of a Nokia phone or the glimpse of the Stolly bottle as a drink is poured has become almost subliminal in its effect.

Translating this to the medium of the Forum article, Julie Novak's use of "Aussie Homeloans Mortgage Market" (note the use of the full business name) as proxy for the mortgage broking market, sticks out a mile. What, I wondered, is the going rate for a writer to use product placement techniques in OLO?

>>Some businesses, such as Aussie Home Loans Mortgage Market for example, have been established to guide people through the many choice options available, helping consumers find the options they prefer.<<

This is straight from the try-too-hard school of the genre, like an over-long close-up of the hero's Rolex, and should not pass unremarked. In addition, in the one sentence it manages to undermine the entire argument.

As a general observation, mortgage brokers are agents of the product supplier, from whom they earn commission on the sale. No sale, no commission. So you may be certain that any "guidance" will be towards one of the products in the broker's kitbag. As in any sales process, the salesperson needs to give the impression that they are guiding the mark to their preferred product; hey, that's simply being good at their job.

>>They serve to reduce the transactions costs, as well as relieve personal anxiety <<

But the one thing it patently does not do is to reduce the transaction costs. Simple logic tells us that if there were less choice in this particular market, and loans came in only one flavour, transaction costs would necessarily be lower, as the need for "guidance" would disappear.

There is nothing at all wrong with the concept of choice in the market. But the selection of Aussie as an illustration is as far from the mark as are Safeway and Coles, as TRTL has already noted.

Is choice of electricity retailer an improvement on the government monopoly that used to exist. Is Origin's electron any different to Citywest's electron. No its all generated in Yallorn by TRU or Texas Utilities.

Is choice of canned peaches from South Africa, Greece or the expensive Australian brand any choice? What about when transport costs rise because of rising oil prices, I hope that Australian farmers haven't ripped out all their orchards before we are forced to buy domestic.

What real choice of phone service do we really have, the wires are deterorating as Telstra goes out backwards but you can chose to get billed by Optus or Telstra. Those of us who wear reading glasses want a mobile with black and white screen visible in bright sunshine and don't need camera, mp3 player or games. When will marketers understand that Australia is an aging population with spending power still with the baby boomers.

Too much choice and an ideology of promoting only the virtues of endless change (because if we buy into the concept, then "leaders" can forever take us where they will) causes us to lose any sense of satisfaction or feelings of constancy in our lives. Lives with no constancy or ability to feel satisfied are inevitably unhappy.

Greater choice leads to greater competition, which inevitably (at some point hence), leads to conflict. Co-operation leads to shared time and shared resources which leads to harmonious relationships.

It's not that difficult to understand the causes of historical conflicts ... nor the increasing levels of conflict currently taking shape around the world

PS - I forgot to mention - increased choice also leads to inordinate levels of waste (as we turn into throwaway, fickle cultures). Our blind, addictive behaviours will create untold problems for future generations.

One day, everyone will realise: constant change, more choice, increasing competition, in the end, make poor provision for a 'generally' happy, sustainable species.

I have no problem with consumer choice. It is, though, a pretty minor aspect of life. Whether I can choose four different kinds or five different kinds of yoghurt is hardly the basis for a life philosophy.

So why does it appear important to some political writers? I think the answer is as follows.

All liberals, whether left or right wing, begin with a concept of an atomised, pre-social individual pursuing his or her own will. This means that all liberals have to answer a basic question: how do you regulate a society made up of millions of such competing wills.

Left-liberals generally believe that the state can harmonise competing wills. Right-liberals, though, believe that millions of individuals can compete for their own profit through the free market and still benefit society overall.

I don't agree with either view - I think the entire starting point of liberalism is wrong.

However, what's relevant here is that the right-liberal, free-market solution leads to an emphasis on "Economic Man", since it is through our economic activities in a free market that society is seen to be effectively regulated.

If the free market is the essential way of harmonising competing wills, then we will choose to view individuals in their economic aspect, as consumers, or employers, or members of a labour force.

Hence the concern to either undermine (from the left) or defend (from the right) individuals as choice wielding consumers within a free market.

It's an ideological thing. We should let the left and right fight it out, and stay focused on more important things (family, nation, individual character, love, art, nature, beauty etc).

I lived for a while in the USA. The supermarkets were awesome, aisles and aisles of seemingly endless choice. But were they?

Most of the choice were simply variations on a theme, for example, laundry detergent, which can basically be divided into powder or liquid form, then down into sub categories of whitening agents each then into different fragrances, lavendar, lemon and so on. These weren't choices at all the product was essentially the same.

This is true of most western consumer goods. We are bombarded and blinded by superficial variation. It is all designed to part us of from our hard earned dollars.

Similar to our communication plans offered by Telstra, Optus etc - taking the time to sit and work out what is really being offered one soon discovers there is little to distinguish them.

The endless choice we are offered is a chimera. An advertising campaign. It isn’t real. But it is often bewildering.

Any who criticise this pseudo choice is referred to as an anti-choicer by the author. This is a simplistic view of a complex problem.

I would like to choose consumer goods that actually lasted; computers or other electrical goods that could be upgraded, without a built in use-by date and become toxic land fill in a few short years - this is short sighted and not choice at all.

Real choice is about choosing how we live our lives. Whether to marry, stay married, have children, excell in a professional career or live simply off the land. I would like to choose sustainable energy systems for my home - on my income I have no hope of achieving that. Affordable? Not. Another non-choice.

Similar are the communication plans offered by Telstra, Optus etc - taking the time to sit and work out what is really being offered one soon discovers there is little to distinguish them. Much like our political partys.... our current Prime Minister is really the default PM - there is no other choice on offer.

The author has confused capitalism with freedom of choice.

Many seem to take opportunity to criticise “choice”.

I find it hard to.

Why – because when choice is removed – what is left ?

The uncompetitive offerings of a bloated and protected producer (eg Australian Telecomm, as was) or worse, nothing at all (as was the case for those to the east of the east/west divide).

When someone wants to limit choice I suggest you ask yourself – why?

What is in it for them to restrict and reduce the range of options which present themselves to us as individuals?

Certainly “choice” is partially a matter of competition and competing vendors of goods and services of every nature from baked beans to hospitals, schools and religion.

Less choice = more likelihood of monopolies, higher prices, greater central control and less regard for the user / consumer / taxpayer who funds the choices and generates the results which providers seek.

Greater choice determines better value for money and better results through free competitive participation. When the range of choices exceed the number the market can support, marginal vendors will fall out of the supply side of the equation, simple.

The last thing we need is some plutocrat telling us how many choices we are allowed to have because that same plutocrat will determine that “no choice” is the most efficient “production model” and when Stalin is the Plutocrat, then we all suffer.

Oh, regardless of how appeasing and sensible they start off sounding, like those of a “verdant hue”, they all end up as Stalin, once in power.

Oh Scout – freedom of choice and capitalism – an easy error, since the opposite is the bedrock of the socialist, where we are all forced to settle for zero-choice mediocrity.

The sort of choice that Julie Novak writes about is really rather superficial. It doesn’t add a lot to our quality of life because it doesn’t add quality to the products or services, just more of similar quality. The quality was generally high to start with in most cases, so increased variety couldn’t significantly improve them. Besides, it is marketing and price that sells a product, not so much quality.

Choice in ways that really matter is not increasing, but is declining as more and more restrictions are implemented - basically because of stressed resources such as water supplies, stressed infrastructure, higher crime rates, more rip-off merchants and con artists, less respect for the law in conjunction with poorer law-enforcement, etc, etc.

And then of course, those at the lowest socio-economic level, not least most people living indigenous communities, are stifled by an extraordinary lack of meaningful choice.

>>The author has confused capitalism with freedom of choice.<<

There is no confusion, choice is a significant aspect of free market capitalism. And the best manifestation of the benefits of choice is exactly where Scout sees the opposite - in the aisles of a supermarket.

Consider for a moment how the "aisles and aisles of seemingly endless choice" actually got there. The marketing departments of hundreds of suppliers constantly analyse what you and I are asking for, and are perpetually in a race to bring it to us.

Orange toothpate to go alongside the acres of minty stuff? Certainly sir. "Eco-friendly" detergent for those concerned about the fate of their dirty suds? Certainly madam (ooops, sexist) er, people.

And guess what? If it doesn't sell - i.e. if they had failed to understand us properly - it disappears.

Like New Coke. Or Betamax. Or Webvan. Or eight track cassettes...

The beauty of this system is that if we want it enough, it will appear.

Of course, where it falls down - and where some folk decry the goodness of choice because of this failure - is where the choice is artificial, or where it doesn't actually exist at all.

Col loves hearing about my white-haired octogenarian mother, a lady whom choice fails, because she often has none in places where she needs it. If she had a choice of modes of transport to the local town, for example, she would be utterly delighted, but unfortunately she doesn't.

However, she would not trade this inconvenience for its opposite - where she could get into town as often as she liked, but there would be nothing to see when she got there except acres and acres of the same stuff. Heck, even at that age you need something to live for.

Choice in the market will decrease when we decide that it will, and for our own reasons.

Pericles I am happy for you that you are so easily satisfied by orange toothpaste. Me, I am still waiting on a choice between a computer where I can install new components rather than having NO CHOICE but to scrap the current system in order to keep up with technology.

I have always found Col Rouge very amusing, as it seems Col doesn’t mind being dominated by capitalists – but anyone else and he has a hissy fit. BTW, Col, I am not an evil, evil socialist; I believe in restrained capitalism, however I don’t believe that the market place will solve ALL our problems in the naïve way that you do. Sometimes we, the hoi polloi, have to become active to bring about change.

Am still waiting on appliances that last, still concerned about over-packaging of consumer goods; still concerned about pollution, oil shortage, toxic land-fill and can’t see the market place solving any of this anytime soon.

At least we seem agreed that Novak's article is very superficial.

I actually want MORE choice. The choice to have the kind of communication plan that I want not the ‘all-the-same-plans’ devised by the telcoms, the choice to put MY had earned taxes to work on sustainable energy instead of nukes and war, the choice of a collective work agreement so that I know I am paid for equal work with my peers, the choice to speak up freely without being jailed for sedition and without charge. The choice to vote if I happen to be jailed for a speeding fine which I couldn’t afford to pay.

I want to be able to discover a real choice between political parties.

Can any one else out there in OLO land think of choices we really need rather than just another flavour of toothpaste?

Scout in addition to useable mobile phones, I would like to have a meaningful choice about

fresh produce, is it locally grown, does the farmer receive a fair price at farm gate so that s/he can remain in production

smart clothes that fit being Australian made, rather than being manufactured in from China

environmentally friendly vehicles and effective public transport. Regional public transport is almost non-existent in NSW

environmentally friendly buildings and environmental building codes that are applicable to the region the dwelling is being erected. There has been talk of Victoria applying Canadian building codes

choice of aged care facility when I need it - not the current Clayton's choice of developer A vs Developer B's retirement village

I regard electricity gas and probably transport as natural monopolies that should be operated by the state. I am prepared to pay my taxes for the state to provide high quality education and health care for all members of our community.

Scout, a meaningful choice between political parties would be rather nice wouldn’t it.

Fancy actually being able to choose between long-term maintenance of a healthy society or short-term profit-driven future-destroying policies.
Fancy being able to actually choose where your vote is going to count at Federal level, like it does in NSW and Qld, instead of having it count where you have no intention of it counting, if you vote for any candidate other than Labor or Liberal in most cases.

Fancy being able to choose whether or not we want forever more people squeezed into Sydney or SEQ instead of having it forced upon us.

Fancy being able to turf a government out of office if they continue to stress basic resources such as water and punish us for their stupidity by imposing tighter and tighter restrictions while at the same time continuing to encourage more and more consumers.

Fancy being able to hold politicians accountable and turf out those that spin deliberate untruths or don’t uphold their promises. Turf them out straight away that is, not at the next election.

Fancy being able to have a meaningful input into all major decisions instead of our government declaring that they have a mandate to do things that they clearly don’t.

Fancy being able to get past this enormous antidemocratic paradox of big business basically running the show, while true democracy is just a pipedream.

and so on

Scout, you must have missed my very important caveat, "where it falls down .... is where the choice is artificial, or where it doesn't actually exist at all"

Your computer is in that category. You are the victim of a vicious monopolist, who thinks nothing of providing you with dangerously unsafe and hopelessly fragile software, and insisting that you buy a new machine every time he decides that you need even more features that you will never use.

Unsurprisingly in this world of spin, you are told that you have a choice, and that if you don't like it, go elsewhere. Unfortunately for most people this is not an option, thanks to the market stranglehold created many years ago.

[One of the most delicious pieces of spin I saw recently was from the UK, where the minister announced that the postal service would be improved by reducing the domestic delivery service from twice to once daily. Ah, bless]

As for the orange toothpaste, it is too recent a development to speculate whether it will survive in the market. As I said, we seem to have told their marketing department that we want it, but hey, we are a fickle lot. Ultimately though, the market will decide. My thirteen year-old likes it, but he won't be a significant impact on the market even as a solid twice-a-day user.

But you are spot on when you say "Sometimes we, the hoi polloi, have to become active to bring about change"

That is exactly how change will occur. Not by fiat, not by prohibition, but by good old supply-and-demand.

At least we agree on one thing, that choice is good. Whether we are able to exercise choice in every area that we would like to is a horse of an entirely different colour. Worse than having insufficient choice is having no choice at all.

The only choice we are making (as we make make endless no choices)is to destroy the planet. Whilst some people excersise their choice to bathe in superficial choices, they simultaneously take away the choice of those who choose to sustain the planet. Soon, there really will be no choice.

No matter how many options you are given there is only two choices:
One or the other.

Scout “however I don’t believe that the market place will solve ALL our problems in the naïve way that you do.”

The problems invariably start when governments and their bureaucrats pretend they know how to regulate markets. What might have been a “ripple” of a market correction, after government have “bolstered up the levies” and “managed the flow” ends up like New Orleans when the banks finally break.

Billie, your “choices” are only limited by your capacity to research and ask questions for yourself.

The only problem with choices of political parties is, the labor party knows it does not have a hope if it peddles its old manifesto and the liberal/national party policies are what is needed both for the country and to get elected.

Oh labor will play out the old platitudes and humbug of uniformity but the success of the Hawke / Keating years was based on the de-regulation and removal of protective barriers and monopolies of government owned homes for union members and sheltered workshops for the productively feeble.

The most important “choice” we all make is in which sequence to place the numbers on an electoral ballot paper. When governments tell us what that choice will be, then we are all in a mess.

I would observe, those who feel they need government to make their choices for them also lack the competence to fill in a voting card correctly.

Very entertaining. Two brief comments. Scout, my washing machine is 22 years old, my 1973 tv still looks good, my computers all get upgraded. The one I'm using, which is reasonably quick, cost about $430 new last year partly because I cannabalised drives from older PCs. (And I won't be buying Windows Vista because I see no value in the additional functions.) I can't of course say whether currently-available washing machines and tvs will be so long-lived, but they are far cheaper.

Julie had a relatively modest income in her last job, and I believe well below six figures in her current one. And no product-placement fees. (I've avoided brand names to avoid such an accusation!)

I should have demanded REAL choices as opposed to MORE choices.

Pericles, I am aware that you and Col believe that the market-place will solve ALL our problems by supply and demand. It just hasn’t worked thus far.

Pericles, you stated that I am "the victim of a vicious monopolist, who thinks nothing of providing you with dangerously unsafe and hopelessly fragile software, and insisting that you buy a new machine every time he decides that you need even more features that you will never use.”

Yeah, tell me something I don’t know. Besides I was using the computer as an example only.

Supply and demand would work if it wasn’t all controlled by top heavy monopolies in league with government. As proof of this statement, I present the current ‘nuclear debate’ being promoted by the Howard government. It is being run BY big business FOR big business. Renewable energy/sustainable living is not even getting a look in.

My point is we are being fooled into believing we have freedom of choice and that this choice is diverse. A range of toothpaste flavours is a furphy.

Faustino, my car is 20 years old, fridge 30 and washing machine is 15 years old. Problem is when I do have to replace these items it will be with products with a short life span, which required unrenewable resources and pollution to produce and cannot be wholly recycled. So even if they are 'cheap' as you say they are also 'nasty' for the effects on our ecology. (BTW I don't know who Julie is and what she earns has to do with the debate).

While people continue to buy short lived, massed produced products, we will not have the choice many of us want and this planet (if it is to sustain us) desperately needs.

My thanks to Billie and Ludwig who have understood what I am inelegantly trying to say and that is we don’t have REAL choices and that what is presented as such is simply a lie to keep us complacent.

Apologies to Faustino

I realize, now, you meant Julie Novak the author. Your post makes far more sense to me now.

Regards

Dianne