Re: On unrestrained capitalism [ pigs are consumers too then we eat them ]

If you disect this post, you would see that the author said absolutely
nothing.

irene villanueva wrote:
> http://katahdininstitute.org/pierson-consumer.html
> Call Me Consumer
> by Duane Pierson, Ph.D (March, 2003)
>
>
>
> We used to be called citizens. Now we are called consumers. I am a
> consumer. You are a consumer. Am I alone in being upset at having been
> assigned this odious cognomen? It demeans human dignity, designating
> our societal role as being strictly utilitarian. No longer do we
> Americans enjoy a purpose blessed with dedication to life, liberty, and
> the pursuit of happiness, but one devoted solely to marketing.
>

We are consumers. That is a fact. Believing otherwise would be what
Rand calls refusing to acknowledge that A is A. If you believe A is B,
we're in trouble.

> We used to have consumers on our farm. They were called hogs. Their
> sole function in life was to consume and be consumed. They seemed very
> happy doing nothing but consuming. We made certain our hogs had plenty
> to consume as our goal was to consume them. Consumers never anticipate
> that they too are subject to being harvested.
>

False analogy.


> Our nation is at war. During World War II we were told that our help
> was needed, our duty was to cut back consumption. Now we are told that
> our role is to shop and consume. We have a modern professional
> industrial age army and citizen assistance is not needed - just
> consume, the more the better.
>

Not free trade. Rand is against all forms of self-sacrifice. Consume
only what you want to.

> It is now unpatriotic not to consume as billions upon billions of
> dollars are spent getting us to consume, making things for us to
> consume. Ours is the ultimate consumer economy, an unrelenting force
> that has us ensnared within a great existential conundrum.
>

Rand is against patriotism.

> A major part of our consumer economy lies within the service sector.
> This sounds great; connoting that someone is graciously providing us
> service, simply charging us fees for their kind efforts. Banks, credit
> card companies, brokerages, communications companies, and health
> maintenance organizations, all are serving us. The very words fees and
> charges sound innocuous, merely trifles.
>

Really? Innocuous trifles?

> One would expect that when one most needs money would be when one would
> receive the best service. Alas, when we are on the ropes financially
> our bank treats us as a cat treats a wounded bird. We naively thought
> that a service economy involves industries providing services to us,
> companies exhibiting a touch of altruism. Now we are aware that what is
> actually happening is that we are being served to them for their
> consumption. Anyone can see that there is indeed a whole lot of
> consuming going on.

Ahh yes. Blame the credit card company because you cannot pay your
debt.


>
> Remarkably, the corporations in the service economy remain among the
> most profitable during this time of economic duress. They do so well
> because they have mastered the art of consuming, like the mice and
> other critters that used to hang around our hog sty. They nibble away
> at us with their fees and charges. When their profit margin requires
> tweaking, they simply create another fee or boost an old one.
>

So let's forgive third world debt? You want the credit company to
sacrifice itself for the consumer's behalf? You don't see a problem
with that?

Read my post on the money speech again. Do you see the difference
between the whips on the back of the slaves of egypt, and the force of
reason and justice?

> Now that we are a nation of consumers, we want to go global. We want to
> make the world safe for unrestrained capitalism; our goal is to create
> seven billion consumers. Euphemistically, this global crusade is called
> establishing new markets. Markets is another nice word, it used to
> refer to a place where one could buy whatever it is one required. Now,
> it means buying things one does not need and things that pervasive
> forces convince you that you do need.

If nobody needs it, then why is everybody buying it?

>
> Don't get me wrong. I am an advocate of free enterprise. I love my
> automobile, bountiful food, and my plethora of electronic stuff.
> Capitalism creates wealth, which in turn creates things for us
> citizens, or consumers, to buy. We also understand the criticisms of
> unrestrained capitalism, that it creates hierarchies of wealth, and
> that it is monopolistic, its ultimate success will come when one person
> owns everything.
>

If there is only one producer in the world, it is but just that he owns
everything.


> The rhetorical question is - do we reach a point where we are
> satiated, where we do not want to consume more, when we do not need
> more, when we can resist walking around like billboards advertising for
> some pretentious company, when we will be able to stand at a urinal
> without having to read an advertisement? Does capitalism have to be so
> paramount that it overwhelms life itself? There is little hope, as we
> have to consume so that we can be consumed and our society built on
> consuming can survive.

This shows that the author is high on something.

Do we reach satiation etc.? How does he get from that question to
saying "Does capitalism have to be so paramount that it overwhelms life
itself?"

>
> In America we possess a high standard of living, but do we have a
> corresponding high quality of life? The two are not synonymous. Try to
> remember when we were more than ciphers that our government and the
> marketers designated to be consumers of commodities. Remember when we
> were citizens, people with freedom to be something other cogs in a
> marketing machine, we enjoyed free will, we had the liberty to live
> with simple tastes and needs, all of which brought us a contentment
> that cannot be found when our sole reason for existing is to consume.
>

How can anyone remember something that never happened. Since when have
people not been consumers?

> All the great continuums in human history, the ones that form and
> channel our destiny - the spiritual, metaphysical, mechanistic,
> rational, philosophical, political - all have been subordinated to our
> being part of a colossal economic machine devoted to relentless
> consumption. Our economy, once a cuddly creature, has turned into a
> monolithic beast.

Gee a monolithic beast. Now I feel refuted.

What great continuums in human history are we talking about? The
Romans? The Greeks? The Chinese? All of them are economic powers.
And all of them attest that for any spiritual, metaphysical
achievements, our corporal needs must first be satisfied.

.

Relevant Pages