That is how the problem of choice looks from a consumer perspective, but there are other perspectives as well. One can chose to spend society's resources on trivia, such as fashion, dumb tee-vee shows, or life style drugs - instead of putting them to alternative, and I dare to say, more productive uses. From a strictly consumerist perspective this can be reduced to the sum of individual choices, but that is also a reductio ad absurdum, as the "tragedy of the commons" clearly illustrates.
This is not how things work in real life. In real life, individual choices are affected by institutions and "path dependencies" (i.e. situations in which initial choices by key decision makers affect the subsequent choices made by every other decision maker in a particular field). Institutions affect individual decision making by eliminating alternatives (e.g. not building public transit, not implementing universal health insurance), by manipulating transaction costs (i.e. making it easy to engage in a particular behavior), and by legitmating certain alternatives (private ownership) and delegitimating others (cooperative or public ownership).
Of course, we can choose to ignore all those institutional ramifications and path dependencies and pretend that all market decisions are demand-driven while the vendors deliver only what the public demand. That is, what you essentially argue - teenagers call the shots and poor business execs sweating to meet these capricious demand. Milton Friedman himself would not say it better.
I am pretty sure you know that darn well, but you are trying to be difficult because your favorite pet - counterculture - has received some "friendly fire."
Wojtek