Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Ad Whore

As Galbraith asserts, our ideas about economics are a product of our continual existence in poverty (until late). Continued economic growth has placed us among the affluent societies. Suffering and social conflict, these are machinations of poverty. In this world of utopian possibilities, physical misery diminishes but new complaints and contradictions arise. Our wants multiply (no thanks to advertising) and our quest for growth unleashes new anxieties and economic conflicts that disturb the fragile social order of The Affluent Society.

To those of you appalled by Galbraith’s espousal of government spending: Not all government spending is bad. Galbraith asserts that government spending has (as of 1954) been stigmatized as a necessary evil. For him it’s all about more government spending and less private production. Friedman’s argument for private production instead of public sphere intervention is certainly more compelling here.

Not all advertising is bad. Sure, sometimes that latest Louis Vuitton ad makes me crave another unnecessary expenditure but we’re not robots. Companies can’t condition consumers to buy things they don’t want or need. Do you really feel like all spending is artificial, unfulfilling? (Nathan, don’t answer that.) Our unlimited material desires can’t be driven by advertising alone. Omnicom would be so lucky. Although our environment can shape our thinking, ultimately our ideas and the economic behavior that results is a product of more than just our environment.

What it comes down to is the distribution of income: who gets what, and why? Desert is a consideration but by and large incomes just don’t seem to rise as quickly as our desires. The rich keep getting richer and it’s hard to see where Joe Next Door fits into the picture. In Galbraith’s affluent society giant corporations provide safe jobs and benevolently control the market while the government regulates the business cycle. Globalization and the growth of technology aren’t part of the Galbraith’s picture (even though they definitely didn’t have Photoshop back then).

No comments:

Post a Comment