Consumerism: The Identity Crisis

Technological advances, such as the creation of the Internet, have allowed corporations to extend their reach into the homes of everyday Americans, taking away the distinctiveness of society. Due to consumerism, advertisements for cell phones, laptops, musical devices, and clothes, have devalued the worth of the public from being individual rational beings to a collective human capital that will provide a financial return. For the purpose of this essay, consumerism will be defined as the preoccupation with purchasing material goods. This preoccupation, coupled with strategic advertising techniques, has allowed businesses to transform everyday Americans into perpetual buyers, spending out of compulsion in order to “keep up wit the Joneses”, the effects of which move society further away from reality and into a world of virtual identities and tethered connections.

Through advertisements, product placement, and advertiser-friendly programming the media has been able to naturalize consumerism eliminating most criticism of the practice. As a result, when the issue is brought to the forefront of discussion the response is often, “Oh, come one. It’s just a bunch of ads.” The acceptance of consumerism lessens people’s inclination to question why corporations spend billions of dollars to attract costumers. The product of the billions spent is consumers buying new gadgets in order to appear equal to everyone. People are willing to spend money for the newest and latest cell phones in order to not fall behind in technological advances. This increased attentiveness towards PDA’s and cell phones allows businesses to further promote consumerism. By remodeling telecommunication devices, companies are able to market new features further perpetuating the cycle of buying on impulse.

Once affected by this cycle, people lose their individuality and become categorized so that marketing experts can perform their jobs. Businessmen, school children, stay-at-home moms, each become their own group of people, notwithstanding the uniqueness of each of these individuals. Cell phone companies produce phones that enable people to send emails from remote locations and browse the Internet from their phones in order to appeal to the business savvy; TV shows are created solely to market toys to children. As seen in a currently airing anti-tobacco commercial, marketing executives aim to reach all of society with their ads, scooping them up like identical plastic toys rather than individuals with personal needs.

In addition to a divergence from individual identity, consumerism fosters a loss of physical identity insofar as a virtual one is now created. Technology speciously makes life easier by connecting us to one another, but de facto separates us from reality and creates a Matrix-like experience for us to dwell in. In the age of the Blackberry and the Palm, the world is literally in the palm of our hands. With the click of a button people are able to receive news from around the world, and communicate with family and old friends regardless of location. This simplification can lead to a new dependence on consumer goods rather than human faculties. Sherry Turkle takes note of this when quoting a businesswoman in her essay, Can You Hear Me Now?, saying, “When my Palm crashed…I felt as thought I had lost my mind.”

By always being virtually engaged, people are required to think less because someone – better yet something – is doing it for them. Years ago, before the emergence of non-stop bombardments of messaging, friendships were sustained through personal visits, telephone calls and letters. People were able to sit amongst their friends and family and be engaged in each other, providing the forum for meaningful conversations. Ralph Waldo Emerson furthers this argument in his essay, “Friendship”, stating, “But I find this law of one to one peremptory for conversation…two may talk and one may hear, but three cannot take part in a conversation of the most sincere and searching sort.” Although when Emerson wrote his essay he meant the inclusion of a third person, the same principle applies with our gadgets being the intruding party. With this increase in purchases people consequently interact less with their colleagues and more with their newly acquired “toys.” Sherry Turkle takes note in the shift in the behaviors of businessmen, stating, “those who once bonded during limousine rides to airports now spend this time on their BlackBerrys” Superficial friendships are now sustained through social networks, such as Facebook and Myspace, while the creating or sustaining of physically-interactive friendships has ceased.

Undoubtedly it is the role of the consumers to act responsibly and not allow businesses to depreciate their rational thought. In order to combat the adverse effects of consumerism, the solution is not anti-consumerism, but a moderation in spending on material goods. Life is more than comparing what one owns to their neighbor. “The true perfection of man lies not in what man has, but in what man is.” It is more important for members of society to disconnect themselves from their gadgets to leisurely explore the arts and further culture themselves. The Internet indisputably makes gathering information more accessible, however, creating avatars to live in a virtual world and incessant online-shopping does not allow people to engage in all aspects of life.

Technological advances create more avenues for advertisements to reach citizens, consequently furthering consumerism. Furthermore, the more purchases made allows businesses to access and compel people to make another purchase. The tenacity shown to “keep up with the Joneses” needs to be paralleled in other non-consumerist aspects of life such as exploring nature, reading books, or playing sports. There is more to life than the attainment of goods, however, without a moderation in consumer spending and a critical analysis of advertisements, this facet of the human experience may go unnoticed.

-Tyler Sinclair, Editor-in-Chief

To Free or Not to Free...That is the Question.

If under the Patriot Act our freedoms can be repressed just as they once were under British Colonization, and dare I say the slave trade, then what substance does our freedom have? And, if we cannot decline to serve in the military, if drafted, for fear of imprisonment, then what stability does our freedom have? If history teachers are banned from colleges for merely exposing the truth and offering an alternate opinion on the cruelty that the United States has done to other countries, then what use is our freedom? If these are the examples of the opportunities for the cessation of our freedom, then freedom seems just as ambivalent as the “pursuit” of happiness.

Noting this, I would like to pose a few questions. Must freedom inherently come with the vice grip of moderation? Is being truly free the exact same thing as complete chaos and anarchy? Lastly, is it better to live in a society with moderated freedoms, than to live in a society where you had no knowledge of freedom at all?

I fear that the true definition of freedom is fleeting, just as a pure capitalist society. Is it up to the people, the democracy in a republic, to define freedoms? Or, is it up to the government, the overarching superpower that regulates our lives and keeps us “safe,” to dictate to us what freedom is? Truthfully, free society has to be the most burdensome society to govern. It is similar to trying to domesticate a wild animal in its own habitat. Freedom is its own habitat and breeds a particular type of creature; ones that know neither chains nor bondage. So how is that we have found a way to domesticate this wild animal, and why even try to in the first place?

But then again there is that saying, “Freedom isn’t free?” That seems a little paradoxical to me. Why can’t freedom be free? Well, my argument is that people don’t know how to handle freedom; they abuse their freedoms. But if liberty is as it is defined, then we reserve the right to even abuse our freedoms without being punished for it, right? And if something is indeed free, can it ever really be abused? If this at all makes any sense, then, could we not argue that to abuse a freedom would be to try and cage it in the first place?

You be the judge.


-- Chauncey Jenkins, Executive Editor

Geithner Speaks On Reform

In a Geithner-esque fashion, the Treasury Secretary delivered a prepared statement to the Senate Banking Committee on the Obama administration’s plan for financial regulatory reform. While delivering a substantial amount of words, Timothy Geithner failed to explain how exactly the 'Alphabet Soup' the Obama administration is cooking up will fare during this economic crisis.

Acknowledging that the reform does not address everything, Timothy Geithner, clarified that the aim of this reform is to close the loopholes that allowed institutions to shop for the weakest regulator. Describing what is to come as "a sweeping set of regulatory reforms to lay the foundation for a safer, more stable financial system", the treasury secretary briefed the Senate on the changes being made to the Federal Reserve, as well as the establishment of the Financial Services Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The reason for these changes and additions is, "each [regulator] was assigned to protect the safety and soundness of the individual institutions under their watch." Positing that this economic crisis may have been prevented if there was an agency that monitored the entire system.

The FSOC is designed to resolve this issue. The Council will bring together the heads of all the major federal regulatory agencies, fill the gaps in the regulatory structure where they exist, improve coordination of policy and resolution of disputes, in conjunction with having the power to gather information from any firm or market to help identify emerging risks. In other words, the FSOC will be a conglomerate of the people that were supposed to prevent the current situation that will attempt to put its fingers in a leaking dam, and will have the power to gather information to help identify emerging risks, but will not be obligated to do so. Geithner made sure to remind the Senate that the Council will not have the responsibility of supervising complex institutions, because a task of that nature requires “tremendous institutional capacity and organizational accountability.”

Rather than being liable, the USG doled this most esteemed task however to the Federal Reserve – which is as federal as Federal Express (FedEx). The Fed, which according to Senator Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) dropped the ball on consumer protections, will now be held accountable for systemic risks to the financial system. This entrustment of power is quite baffling considering the Fed took over a decade to write a regulation on mortgages given to them by Congress. This is understandable considering the Fed is an independent bank. But, if the Fed stagnates on future pressing issues for this long, a depression may come and go before they take any action. The reform plan does move to take away the responsibility of oversight for consumer protection. Maybe its because they dropped the ball before, I don’t know.

The “ball” will be put in the hands of the rookie agency, the CFPA. This agency will serve as the primary federal agency “looking out for the interests of consumers of credit, saving, payment and other financial products.” In addition, the capacity to write rules that advocate transparency, simplicity and fairness will be yielded to the CFPA.

A mystery authority will also be created. Modeled off the FDIC, it will be in charge of handling weak or failing banks and will allow the government to resolve failing institutions in ways that place the responsibility on the owners, hopefully making them more vigilant and prudent. This effort also endeavors to extinguish the notion that the government will step in to bail out failing firms, sanguinely washing the after-taste of the billion dollar bailouts from the government’s mouth.

Geithner closes by saying; “The critical test of our reforms will be whether we make this system strong enough to withstand the stress of future recessions and the failure of large institutions. That’s our basic objective; we want to make it safe for failure.” He also adds, “We cannot afford inaction. We cannot afford a situation where we leave in place vulnerabilities that will sow the seeds for future crises.”

Overall, the reform plan sounds nice, protecting consumers, providing transparency, monitoring large institutions, and closing the gaps that were left open. Will the plan work is a different story. With the Feds track record, I would not be surprised if the large institutions that were shopping around for the most lenient regulators go straight to the Fed and do bargaining. The consumer babysitter (CFPA) could have been created as a part of the SEC, considering they investigate price fixing and heinous market actions. The gaping holes in the financial regulatory system as well as the corrupt members of the current advisory boards, will hopefully put the nation first and their pockets second, and perform the task of monitoring the financial services industry. Maybe if everyone does their job, the FSOC will appear to be more than fingers in a dam, and will parallel slabs of concrete. Regardless, the “dam” could use remodeling, but this reform should buy the government time to create more efficient solutions. In the mean time, I will be buying foreign, and keeping my money under my mattress.

-Tyler Sinclair, Editor-in-Chief.

To read Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's statement click here


Information provided by The Wall Street Journal

New Fix of Lupe

Who doesn't love Lupe? Losers, that's who. If you want to be a winner, then check out the newest 'Pe & Matthew Santos Entitled...

"Shining Down"

Welcome

Hello All,

The Pamphlet is a new blog that will allow us to provide our own opinions on current issues going on in the media pertaining to politics and the economy.

We will also make posts about readings by some of histories greatest thinkers and pose questions regarding the validity of their statements, and whether the same holds true today.

The objective of The Pamphlet is to spur open debate among my readers - whether in support or dissent of our opinions. We greatly appreciate and welcome all feedback, the only thing we ask is that people are respectful of others opinions, and that all comments are of substance.

We will be making weekly posts discussing articles published in newspapers, in addition to information reported on television. Any readings that we discuss, a link to the material will be provided so that you, our readers, can access the material as well.

- The Pamphlet Staff