On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
There are several possible answers to what you have written. First, at least theoretically, your "'globalization' people" were elected to represent the people. In a democratic system, the people's "input" into the process is the ballot box choice of their representatives.
Unless faced with a "choice" between tweedledum and tweedledee. Which is the status quo these days at least in the US. In nations with proportional representation, things may be different.
Also, the personal pressure on them is a little higher every year as the forces of capitalism get more ruthless and efficient at exploiting them as a market and as cheap labor...
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What are the "forces of capitalism" to which you refer? Personally, I try to avoid the word "capitalism" at all. First, it's a pejorative Marxist term. Second, everybody seems to have a different definition.
Hmm. What I was referring to is the science of marketing, and the fact that the data available to do it is ever more precise and personal. When marketing and advertisement get sufficiently sophisticated, the "average" person feels more pressure to buy stuff. In the aggregate, we see a lower savings rate, but on the personal level, I think it's a source of stress -- a feeling of being on a treadmill. This is one of the main reasons I no longer indulge in advertising-supported media myself; I wasn't able to handle it and keep my tendency toward depression in check.
If you mean "free market economics" I totally disagree with you. If you mean government welfare for favored businesses, well, we might have some common ground there. Clear definitions make all the difference in the world.
Nah. Free market economics is fine, and necessary, the way water is fine and necessary. But lately it's seemed a lot like the water is boiling hot and under about ten atmospheres of pressure. It gets a little stifling when people can't or don't control how much pressure (as advertising etc) they are exposed to.
I'm sorry, the Furby definition of capitalism isn't very cogent or helpful.
Let's put it this way; why would a rational person or even a sane person purchase a furby? It is useless; it is annoying; its expected lifespan is under five weeks; your kids will be unhappy when (not if) it breaks; and its price exceeds that of two good meals at a nice restaurant. I maintain that people buy furbys (and most other "fad" items) because of pressure and false expectations raised by carefully- designed advertising, and then fall into inevitable disappointment with the real item. In short, they are acting irrationally, and have given people a vested interest in maintaining their lack of mental health. I believe in capitalism where it meets real needs; where rational buyers meet rational sellers, where the customers know what they're buying and will in fact be well-served by it, I am delighted to be part of the transaction. But the science of marketing is increasingly about arresting the processes of rational thought, and even the processes of mental health, in order to induce people to buy crap which they don't need, won't or can't use, or can't get any real satisfaction from. Sometimes I wish I could grab people and shake them and yell, "no, the car will not come equipped with a bikini model. Make your decision about the car, not about the woman..." It's not *explicit* deception. But I believe that the marketer today, and particularly the marketer in posession of personal information, unfairly distorts people's perceptions to a point where the average consumer is no longer an equal rational agent in financial transactions. People are buying things that they later regret buying. On the one hand, you can call it "survival pressure" and hope that the next generation will be smarter. On the other hand, it's just one more example of the kind of things that make life suck if you're on the recieving end. And on the gripping hand, it's why some of us are concerned about the use of private information by marketers. This is why people feel exploited by "capitalism", giving rise to some of the "anti-capitalist" rhetoric that's come out of the protests. Bear