And as long as that happens, we don’t really give a flying one what happens in 50 years, do we? Hell, our kids can fix it.
What’s going to happen in 50 years?
A fine essay on the problem of stuff here.
Aha! And the truth comes out. I swear every single thread that even tangentially involves money or politics on the Dope can be summarized by “rich people are evil.” It’s so old, CW, just give it up. Rich people are rich because others give them money. And others do that because they want what the rich person’s selling. And no matter how much you resent that, it’ll always be true. Not because people are stupid, but because they’re not like you.
Good question. Wish it were asked more often.
There being nobody who knows the answer, asking the question is kind of pointless. We don’t really know what the world will be like in fifty years.
Rich people are not inherently evil, but rich people in mass-market economies that reward only constant growth have little incentive to be otherwise.
Wow.
Here is, in total, your evidence that advertising “back when” was more honest than advertising today:
“At its inception advertising was merely an announcement; for example, entrepreneurs in ancient Egypt used criers to announce ship and cargo arrivals.”
First off, it’s hilarious that you have to go back to ancient Egypt to even begin to make such an argument.
Secondly, nowhere in that sentence does it mention honesty, and certainly there is no comparison between then and now. How many dishonest advertisements were there then, compared to now? (Clearly we’re worried about percentages here, not raw numbers.) My answer - I don’t know. Did criers ever announce that a ship was ready to sell goods, when it was only just entering the harbor? Did criers ever exaggerate the freshness, uniqueness, or other positive qualities of the cargo? Did they ever emphasize the honesty of the seller, or the fairness of the price? I can’t say for certain. Your link certainly doesn’t say one way or the other either.
But based on my own experience the vast majority of modern advertisements do not lie, nor mislead. They do try to evoke an emotional response - usually a positive response associated with their product, sometimes a negative response associated with a competitor.
Do you think those ancient criers went about their jobs scowling, mumbling or using a thick foreign accent, and insulting people they encountered as they went about their job? I doubt it. Or more likely, did they smile, shout clearly using the local dialect, appear jovial and perhaps greet people they saw regularly on their route? This may depend partly on whether it was the ancient Egyptian equivalent of a Monday, but I hope the point is clear: A cheerful (or at least not dour), clear-voiced, friendly announcer who remembers your face and / or name is a form of emotional manipulation.
I don’t think it’s a dishonest one, but I don’t think most modern forms of advertising are really dishonest either. I do find most ads annoying. I suspect I would have found someone yelling, “THE SHIPS FROM PHOENECIA ARE HERE! GET YOUR TRENDY TYRIAN PURPLE WHILE IT LASTS!” while I was just trying to enjoy a day off from pyramid-building to be equally annoying.
Good article; I also like the idea behind the Voluntary Simplicity movement.
Just as an FYI, I’m not a hippy or an environmentalist. I’m actually a Conservative in my country. 
Nah, I just liked the idea of advertising and marketing being used to passively let us know what was available, rather than aggressively interfering in our lives, creating the need that their product fills.
Thanks for that. I have had the same ideas floating around in my head for some time, it’s interesting to have someone else put it into words.
I actively dislike receiving gifts I have no need for. It’s feels rude or wasteful to throw away and it’s just more clutter. I have to expend mental effort figuring out what to do with it. I dislike most decorative objects that have no functional purpose. I can’t stand closet full of clothes that will never be worn. There is a real and a psychological cost in accumulating too much stuff.
Consumerism is a societal phenomenon but I don’t believe in manufactured demand per se. To me that’s mostly a bunch of crock marketing types like to pass as rocket science to seem important and brainy.
It surprises you that we don’t know wha tthe world will be like in fifty years? That strikes you as being a remarkable statement?
Nobody in 1960 had a frickin’ clue what 2010 would be like. Nobody in 1910 knew what 1960 would be like. Hell, people aren’t good at predicting what the next TEN years will be like, much less fifty.
If you’ve got a line on answers that have baffled the generations since Hammurabi, by all means share them with us.
I gotta say, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for anyone that easily manipulated.
Although the “You’re a bad parent…” is dishonest enough that I have no problem with fighting against this sort of advertising. But I still have no problem with gllittery deodorant.
This is the fundamental misperception which high school economics classes are supposed to address.
Money creates jobs regardless of what it’s doing, unless it’s stuffed under a mattress or buried in the backyard or something. If you spend it on a widget, you allow the widget maker to pay its staff.
However, the job creation doesn’t begin and end with your spending. If you stick it in a bank account, the bank lends it to someone who buys a widget and you indirectly allow the widget maker to pay his staff. If you buy a government bond, you allow the government to pay the widget regulator’s salary or to buy its own widget. If you buy stock in WidgetCo your capital can then be used to expand widget production and hire more staff.
From a purely economic perspective, it doesn’t matter whether rich people or poor people are the ones who get a given dollar, because it’s all going back into the money supply anyway.
Again, unless you’re Scrooge McDuck and you have a vault of cash for swimming in, all your money is creating jobs regardless of what you do with it.
I think that’s what I said. Or if I didn’t, or didn’t make it clear, that’s what I meant. I was contradicting the notion that the money I spend only goes to line the pockets of the rich, because the rich spend it and invest it, and that creates wealth. And if I invest it myself, that also creates wealth.
Well sure, if you are talking about the minutiae of scientific progress, social change, etc. Even then, it’s broadly possible to predict trends with a high degree of accuracy. There are whole disciplines in the field of statistics which are based on that concept.
From the perspective of consumerism, the broad trends are eminently predictable, and you know it. Our entire economic system is based largely on expanding markets for, y’know, whatever shit people will buy. This has been true for quite a while, and any 1960 advertiser could have told you what 2010 would be like in those terms, because virtually everything about our economic system is geared toward making it come true.
Here: I’ll make a prediction. In 50 years, we will still have a freely capitalistic economic system. There will be lots and lots more people. These two factors will mean that ecological degradation will be even more advanced, and people will STILL not be educated enough in basic earth sciences to realize that Human Exemption is an illusion.
There. That wasn’t so hard. Let’s come back in 50 years. I will have been right, and everybody here knows it.
Well, if you can show me what those disciplines were saying in 1960 and that they were reasonably more accurate than a wild ass guess, then I’ll buy it.
It’s always been true, because it’s a statement that’s so general as to be meaningless. All economic systems are about people buying and selling things. That’s what economics is. If an economy expands, when people must, by definition, be buying (and selling) more things, or more valuable things.
It is NOT certain that the economy will always expand. It usually does, but it didn’t last year. Lots of societies have seen economic collapse.
So your prediction is that we’ll have a free markey economy, more or less, and that in your opinion the environment will be worse in some way you won’t define but it won’t be so much worse that it will have caused the population to decline or for modern capitalism to be replaced with something else.
That’s sort of generic. I guess it might be right, but it’s not that much more remarkable than stating things like “people will be having sex” or “little kids will enjoy dinosaur toys.” Of what USE is your prediction?
Are you really trying to hijack this thread by telling me we have no ability to predict future market trends? That I can’t predict that advertising and marketing will be nakedly manipulative in the future? That I can’t predict that the Commons will not continue to be badly abused by a throw-away culture which values profit over everything? Seriously? Again: wow.
You’re the one who hijacked this thread. It happened at the top of this page when Sarahfeena pointed out how foolish it was to say that buying something may not lead to money in someone else’s pocket. Your response was to make a rather stupid and off-topic remark about how she didn’t care about what happens to the world in 50 years. Don’t blame Rick for pointing out your bit of weaseling.