Filling a need where none existed
Mark Pavilons

We are quite ingenious, we professional consumers.

Rumour has it that our education system is not in the business of turning out great thinkers, leaders or saints, but rather just good, solid consumers who help keep the economy running smoothly.

We western entrepreneurs wrote the book on creating a need, and then filling it.

More often than not, the need never existed in the first place and so we trudge along in our self-created rat race, chasing our tails but being content in the fact we have disposable income to buy that newest iPod, Game Boy, plasma TV or German luxury car. If something doesn't directly effect us, we don't care - it's that simple.

But that way of thinking has led us into global conflict and allowed ruthless leaders to murder millions of innocents. It has led to the destruction of rain forests, depletion of reserves and the poisoning of our oceans. It has created an atmosphere of political indifference.

It's repositioned selfishness - directing our energies mainly toward ourselves and our creature comforts. If there's any time, money and energy left, that's when we'll look at our society, environment and those less fortunate in our midst.

It seems the more advanced we become, and the richer we get, the more slips away.

Maybe that's why I tend to be the consummate philosopher in my family - always questioning why, and finding fault with the way things are. My wife sees that as negative energy and time well wasted.

But, if no one ponders and tries to right wrongs, where does that leave us? A thousand years from now, I envision a planet that we've totally used up, and the entire human race scurries quickly away to find a new home. Will the last to leave shut the proverbial door? And what will we have left behind, in our haste to save ourselves? A barren, soulless canvas of architecture.

Maybe I watch too much gloomy science fiction.

Back to the present.

More and more, I'm finding people are creating their own jobs, roles and niches in our never-satisfied economy. While the supply and demand aspect still predominates, today's golden rule seems to be to create a need (however far-fetched) and encourage consumers you're the one to fill it.

Enter the brokers. Most of us are familiar with brokerage firms who earn a commission acting as an intermediary. The best examples would be real estate agents and stock brokers. In the case of the latter, there's simply no other avenue for investors to pursue. You can't just go to a stock market store and buy a little of this, a lot of that, over the counter. It's a closed society of sorts.

Financial investment works much the same way. We hand our cash over to "advisors" who then take it (minus their fee of course) and spend it for us, hoping to generate a profit at the end of the day. They are supposed to be on top of things and know the market inside and out in order to advise on sound business deals. But, alas, there are no guarantees. As in any profession, some of these types are better than others.

There are more and more intermediaries popping up all over.

Years ago, no one ever heard of a mortgage broker. You simply went to the bank, proved you didn't need their money and voila, they'd give you what you need, on their terms. If and when you paid your mortgage off, you took great delight in burning those papers.

Today, via a broker, they will tell you how much you can be leveraged for, hunt down the best rate, and sell you a mortgage, getting a cut from the bank.

While there's nothing wrong with this arrangement, why did the banks stop offering mortgages to their clients directly? They figured they could still lend money without employing full-time staff (lowering their expenses) and the need, hence, was created.

More money than the gods! Well, I'd love Zeus to send a few well-placed lightning bolts down to Earth to right this wrong. It's never been in anyone's best interest to have the world's financial power in the hands of a few.

There are several other examples of pseudo-brokers

in our midst - individuals and companies who produce and provide nothing, and yet make a very good living at doing so. I've always had a hard time understanding abstract services.

But even the rich and famous have agents and publicists to act on their behalf.

Is it prudent business sense, or simply laziness on everyone's part? In the blink of an eye, our entire society can change overnight, if we allow buck-passing on a huge scale. Again, if there's a way to get someone to do something cheaper and fill the need, it will win and become mainstream.

Again, perhaps there's nothing wrong with this direction our society is taking. We should give credit to modern thinkers, those whose outside-the-box mentality creates new opportunities and new roads to riches.

But deep down inside all of this I feel fewer people and companies want to be burdened with dealing with actual people. With many banks and online banking, they've reduced (eliminated?) the need for real people. And if they can farm out more and more services, their human ranks will continue to dwindle, swelling the vaults with profits.

Most of us see nothing wrong with this. But if other aspects of our society - health, medicine, etc. - become impersonal brokered services, where does that leave us?