Ray Dillinger bear at sonic.net
Sun Jul 22 23:30:38 PDT 2001




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






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list