11 ms·

How to Make Trillions of Dollars

284 points by froggy 16y ago

DanI-S 16y ago
Human civilization (and not just our current iteration) is like a gigantic, uncontrollable beast. It tramples thousands underfoot, growing fat on their fears and impossible dreams. Some people may be riding up on top, out of trample range, but they're still riding on top of a gigantic, uncontrollable beast with no real aim other than its own continued survival. Not much to be gained from blame or envy. Just try to set a good example. It might help, over time.
- kiba 16y ago
  Well, look. I decided that I will get rid of the useless things in my life. Books and papers, trash, and so on. I also decided to save and not consume much. Therefore, I resort to making homemade sandwiches and finding water bottle. A few days ago, I made a pencil holder out of a discarded soda can. Why the hell not? There are cool things that I want to buy. But, they're mostly for making cooler projects. I am a prosumer. I find it fun to make stuff and sell stuff just so I can make much more interesting stuff to sell. The Man's strategy? Did he even really exists? What's there to blame and be envious? The intellectual life is worth more than the cars, the fancy houses, and 2 1/2 kids. Things are in itself an interesting intellectual exercise. Selling them is merely a way to keep points about which is the most interesting things to the most people.
  - tabsa 16y ago
    From your comment it seems that your are advocating an "intellectual life". Isn't this the same old consumerism, just a changing real goods for virtual ones (aka information)?
    - kiba 16y ago
      Hardly, because for your life to be intellectually interesting, you must discriminate between information. You're choosing not what people will think of you, but what is interesting to you.
      - DanI-S 16y ago
        I'm sure most people at least in some way try to develop interests in certain areas so that other people find THEM interesting!
- pyrhho 16y ago
  You should read "What Technology Wants" by Kevin Kelly. He investigates these sorts of things, talking about how it is now impossible to be separate from civilization (even the Amish are dependent upon civilization at large to support their lifestyle). And he starts to talk about how we can cope with that, and engage with it on our own terms, in a constructive manner.
3am 16y ago
Start with quadrillions of dollars and invest in airlines.
phrotoma 16y ago
I can't decide if this article is pure paranoia, depressing as hell, or inspiring.
- jerf 16y ago
  Excessively anthropomorphizing the Man is a quick way to sketch civilization, but leads to a failure to understand it deeply. If I were going to put a word on it, it would be glib. Sort of Malcolm Gladwell-ish. It's not necessarily that it's wrong, it's just so incomplete a view that it might as well be wrong.
  - nick_urban 16y ago
    The term "The man" may be glib in many cases, but if we understand that "the man is us" then we reach some place more fundamental. Heidegger has a fascinating analysis of this phenomena, which he calls "Das Man" or "The They". Most of the time, all of us are "the they" instead of being authentically ourselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#.27The_One.27_.2F_.27the_They.27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#.27The... Note: if you decide to read Heidegger, it may take as much time as a television habit.
    - jerf 16y ago
      "may be glib in many cases" I agree with you in general, but I think this is one of the "glib" cases in the original post. Buying into "vs. the Man" is, ironically, one of the Man's main tools in the contemporary US; there are entire ethnic cultures in the US being held back in no small part by the belief they are being held back by the Man, which in turn requires them to be externally rescued by the don't-look-too-closely-just-believe-we're-not-the-Man-Man. There's truth in the "Man" analysis, but the escape is to transcend the narrative, not engage with it. (The synthesis of the man/vs. the man thesis and antithesis, I suppose.) Which I doubt you disagree with, I'm just being explicit.
- veb 16y ago
  I thought it was inspiring. EDIT: Why? Because I've never thought about it from that point of view before. It doesn't necessarily make his point true, but it's interesting nevertheless.
StavrosK 16y ago
I would say, don't get too hung up on the "the Man" aspect of the article. For me, the most profound part was the one about keeping people wanting useless gadgets more and more and thus keeping them in jobs they hate. People can easily live with much less and do work that will allow them to be much happier. From what I've seen, higher earning potential doesn't correlate well with happiness.
- ljordan 16y ago
  In the study I heard about from a family member it correlates strongly up to a threshold, say $90,000 for a family of 3-4 living in the midwest (ex-Chicago, etc.), but thereafter increasing income doesn't increase happiness (and possibly erodes it).
  - klbarry 16y ago
    Yes, what has been found is that anything below $60,000 is strongly correlated with unhappiness, but it flattens out above 60 annually. This was in a TED talk, probably one by Hans Rosling.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    Yes, obviously having a very low income would come with worries, but above that, as you said, there's not much correlation...
corin_ 16y ago
"A single, lifelong customer who lives his life spending the way you want him to is worth six or seven figures. A single one." Let's say that "lifelong customer" spans 47 years (aged 18-65). In order for him to spend seven figures s/he would have to spend $1750/month. And, depending on what they're paying for, a lot of that won't be profit... So not sure why it's worded as if everyone should realise that a single life-long customer is worth a huge amount, chances are, for most companies/people, they won't be.
- jat850 16y ago
  I don't fully agree with your math. Mine is potentially no better, but: A single customer, spending $500/year on whatever it is you do, wherein you make 5% compounding profit off of their $500/year, nets $100,000 in 45 years. I feel that's a bit more realistic of an approach.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    I wasn't taking interest into account in my example. 5% profit of $500/year is $25/year. I'm too lazy to work out compound interest over 45 years considering that a new $25 is being added each year, however: 45 * $25 = $1125 If you invested $1125 for 45 years at an interest rate of 4%, you'd end up with $6571. (And investing $1125 over 45 years gets you more back than only adding $25 a year to the investment.) Obviously it's possible to do better than 4%, but I would suggest that, then, however you are investing the money is "how you are making money", not "having a lifelong customer". So, have I completely misunderstood your example, or was your maths way way off?
    - martinkallstrom 16y ago
      His math is not off, I get about the same using http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu... When he said 5% profit he meant 5% interest. Result depends on the figures you put in, but if you can get people to spend hundreds of dollars on your business every year of their life, you are probably in possession of a mechanism providing interest well over 12% or 15% annually. Which makes the value per customer much higher. IKEA is one of the companies that successfully transformed the culture of one or several nations to their own benefit and routinely creates lifetime customers from infant to the grave.
mmaunder 16y ago
Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival. ~Noam Chomsky, from "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" 1992
- jacquesm 16y ago
  The question is, taking all that in to account and conceding that it is (1) true, and (2) a real problem how will we do better?
  - klbarry 16y ago
    The above is a very concise version of my thoughts, thank you. There are a lot of problems with democracy, stemming from the dangers of mob rule. For instance, there are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]
exit 16y ago
reminds me of a story i just read by charles stross: http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html about a future in which bioengineering allows individuals to become self sufficient (adding photosynthesis to their genome, for example). this causes the economy to collapse as many consumers no longer depend on society.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  And indeed, once people are self-sufficient, why would they care if the economy collapsed? The only problem with the scenario is if/when wars between the self-sufficient farms erupt.
- The_Igor 16y ago
  That was a good read. Thanks!
michaelcampbell 16y ago
"First, start with hundreds of trillions of dollars..."
- kongqiu 16y ago
  I'm not a fan of Chomsky, but I completely agree that all too often we "go along" with ways of life that are sold as "normal," but which are in fact unhealthy and unsustainable.
mkramlich 16y ago
absolutely brilliant piece. and i agree with his perspective. i've thought almost exactly the same thing for over 2 decades now. it is extremely rare to see someone say it, and say it so well.
redemade 16y ago
reminds me of a Carl Sagan monologue from Cosmos: "Those worlds in space are as countless as all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. Each of those worlds is as real as ours and every one of them is a succession of incidents, events, occurrences which influence its future. Countless worlds, numberless moments, an immensity of space and time. And our small planet at this moment, here we face a critical branch point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants, it is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we could plunge our world into a time of darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilisation and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet." so intelligent, inspirational and full of hope, but listening to it 30 years later I can't help feeling bummed out, as it seems as though our civilization has chosen its path. also, Idiocracy.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  That's an inspiring quote. But it is flawed. It is designed to instill passion and motivation in the listener's heart. But it is missing a virtue which is a strictly necessary ingredient for making an actual positive impact on the world: subtlety. If you are motivated by addressing humanity's long-term challenges, please do not attempt to bludgeon others into being more thoughtful or compassionate. Instead, learn first how human society works. Learn how to motivate social change in the least destructive way (all change is costly to someone). Learn why people oppose you, and what their interests are, and try to come to a common ground. Don't go off half-cocked. Learn subtlety. Nobody talks about subtlety. It is an under-appreciated virtue, and one of the most important.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonBerg 16y ago
    VERY good point. > Nobody talks about subtlety. Yes they do - It's just that nobody notices :) Kidding. Seriously, very good point.
momotomo 16y ago
This struck a chord with me. Recently (and more or less intuitively), I got rid of pretty much everything I own to charities, friends and relatives. A couple of graphics workstations, home entertainment system, mountain of business and philosophy books, clothes, TV's, etc. Everything bar a bed, clothes, writing material and some basic kitchenware. The outcome is the anti of the "typical person" inventory on that page. I feel healthier, more motivated, my work life balance has shifted, I'm socializing more and getting involved in more community / business opportunities. The sudden understanding that I don't need technology, media or a mountain of knowledge / reference to succeed at my goals is completely liberating, and I feel much less resistant to change. The additional time, clarity of thought and free cash is quite mind blowing, it's basically re-oriented my life completely. No magic bullet, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > Everything bar a bed, clothes, writing material and some basic kitchenware. And since you're posting here it seems at least one computer, unless you're writing this in an internet cafe of course.
  - momotomo 16y ago
    Office PC. Realistically, job and career wise, I'll uptake a home computer again at some point, but only when the habits associated with the old ones die off.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      That's pretty brave and inspiring. I am not sure I could do that again, I've 'rebooted' a couple of times and it takes a long time to find a new path. And inevitably you always end up with lots of stuff again, it has a way of creeping up on you. Emigrations are a good way to realize what you can do without. And then a few years later you look around and wonder how it happened again.
      - momotomo 16y ago
jacoblyles 16y ago
Hey guys, it has been too long since our last self-righteous anti-consumerist circle-jerk. This one is good! You can smell the smarminess right through the screen. We live in a time where the individual has more freedom to do what he wants with his life than ever before. When people live longer, survive perviously unsurvivable diseases, and can get by with the least work. When the glorious knowledge produced by human advancement is the most open and attainable it has ever been. When world illiteracy, infant mortality, and malnutrition are at their lowest point. When the most people ever get a college degree and work in fields that challenge their minds. This really depresses some people for some reason. Can't figure out why. Mostly they just seem to get a kick out of criticizing how other people have chosen to live their lives. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves to imagine the great majority of the population are rubes and they are some wise sage.
- ttttannebaum 16y ago
  You confuse criticism of freedom with criticism of stupidity. Some people just want higher standards of critical thinking. Is that so childishly anti-progress, or whatever you'd call someone like me, who thinks people should be maybe just a little smarter about what they consume? You come off as dogmatic yourself in defense of consumerism. Capitalism can still exist if people aren't stupid sheep, you know.
- klbarry 16y ago
  It's the paradox of choice, as written about in many places. Give people many choices and many options and they will be, on average, less happy. Someone who assumes the only way to be is by being a subsistence farmer is not so unhappy.
- Evgeny 16y ago
  Mostly they just seem to get a kick out of criticizing how other people have chosen to live their lives. Doesn't it make you sad that a huge number of people are unhealthy, unhappy, die prematurely from perfectly preventable reasons or just plainly do not have any slightest idea about what to do with their lives? That's especially sad because it happens at the times when there are the most possible opportunities available to almost anyone. Of course, I understand the common response - "but shouldn't they just live the lives they choose and who are you to tell them what to do with their lives". This is reasonable and true, but I'm still sad for some reason.
acconrad 16y ago
The best articles can take a hackneyed concept (the ills of materialism) and still manage to say something worth listening to. This is one of those articles.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This was long-winded and flawed in many ways. To point just one flaw out: part of the argument is that the modern culture is designed by marketers to keep you unhealthy and consuming. That's confusing, yet again, correlation with causation. It's just as likely that modern marketers are just doing what people want. That the current system of distraction, consumption, and unhealthiness is evolutionary and not some master plan of a cadre of evil overlords. Sure, it makes for a better straw man to bounce your essay off of, but it's flawed. If nothing else, it assumes a personality for a thing that quite obviously involves tens of thousands of people acting independently. Usually (almost always, really) such systems are emergent in nature. I understand all the emotional buttons that are being pushed with this, and by all means enjoy your time reading it. I enjoy a good rant and pipe dream about "rational social planning" as much as the next guy. All I ask is to take a little time and ask "Am I being manipulated by people I should hate? Or am I being told a story and a narrative about people to hate so that I can be manipulated?" EDIT: Of course the truth is somewhere in-between, and I didn't mean to make a false dichotomy. Most times these types of reasoning errors are simply artifacts of the way people solve problems. So, for instance, if you feel that systems are controlled from the top-down, you are more likely to see a dysfunctional system and assume that it was made that way from the top-down. Those of us who have studied dysfunctional systems can only wish that things were that simple. They aren't.
- moultano 16y ago
  I think that is actually his point towards the end of the essay. Replace "the man" with "the invisible hand." It's the same thing anyways. The solution is to build up your own personal resistence, not to rage against any external force (according to him.)
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    A point which I think we can all agree. I continue to be amazed at how many different places you can start at and end up with existentialism.
- davidhollander 16y ago
  >part of the argument is that the modern culture is designed by marketers to keep you unhealthy and consuming. Welcome to the field of Applied Psychology and Cognitive Science. Once you have reverse engineered the mind, the only practical application is manipulating it. >just as likely that modern marketers are just doing what people want For a TRILLION dollars we are not talking about "marketers" in the Mad Men, I-made-a-website-and-wrote-a-book, or "social media expert" sense. We are at minimum talking about behavioral psychologist PhDs and global corporate parasites like Coca Cola, Philip Moris Tobacco, etc. In reality, those are still on the billion dollar level and not on the top of the food chain. The only trillion dollar companies I'm aware of though are financial institutions, so that would be my criticism of the article. If you really want to make a trillion dollars, you'll need to be much closer to the monetary spigot. In other words, a bank.
fleitz 16y ago
In all honesty Tyler Durden summed it up much more succinctly, "Working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need." Reminds me of the Vampire Weekend song Kids Don't Stand a Chance. Particularly the verse: I didn't like the business But that was at first glance Your pillow feels so soft now But still you must advance In particular I think he hits it perfectly on the head with the idea that 'the man' just doesn't know any better and is part and parcel to the culture. 'the man' are just the individuals who are particularly adapted to this way of life and thus succeed in it.
- ttttannebaum 16y ago
  Illustrated even nicer by this comic: http://buttersafe.com/2011/01/27/traps/ http://buttersafe.com/2011/01/27/traps/
icarus_drowning 16y ago
The entire article rests on the assumption that the things which are produced in order to be consumed have no value-- or at the very least, that, as more of them are produced, the total value in "the system" doesn't increase. While this is undoubtably true for many things, is it true for all of them? I mean, sure, I can't accept that enormous piles of consumerist junk manufactured every year don't really represent the creation of much value. But that isn't everything, and, I'd argue, it is dwarfed by the enormous amount of valuable materials, goods, and services that are produced. In order for this kind of invective to carry in weight, one has to implicitly agree with the hidden assumption that the trillions of dollars of goods and services produced every year represent essentially no value to human beings. And that seems to me to be a pretty ridiculous statement.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
"...create a nation of people who typically: [....] have learned, through the media’s culture of blame-mongering, that the key to solving public and private issues is to find the right people to hate" It's funny that someone could write that as part of a scathing critique of consumerist culture and yet not see the irony of it. There are things that are a lot worse than materialistic, shallow, consumerist culture. Specifically a moralistic, prudish, puritanical culture which is at every point so very concerned with what is the best for everyone else. At least consumerist culture is easy enough to escape and ignore.
Tycho 16y ago
Personally I have no problem with consuming stuff for entertainment. I just don't kid myself that consuming a poem through oral tradition in a field without electricity would be somehow more noble/satisfactory.
ttttannebaum 16y ago
You can call Chuck Palaniuk an overrated writer all you want, but this is what Fight Club is about and did a good job of illustrating.

284 points by froggy 16y ago

Human civilization (and not just our current iteration) is like a gigantic, uncontrollable beast. It tramples thousands underfoot, growing fat on their fears and impossible dreams. Some people may be riding up on top, out of trample range, but they're still riding on top of a gigantic, uncontrollable beast with no real aim other than its own continued survival. Not much to be gained from blame or envy. Just try to set a good example. It might help, over time.

kiba 16y ago
Well, look. I decided that I will get rid of the useless things in my life. Books and papers, trash, and so on. I also decided to save and not consume much. Therefore, I resort to making homemade sandwiches and finding water bottle. A few days ago, I made a pencil holder out of a discarded soda can. Why the hell not? There are cool things that I want to buy. But, they're mostly for making cooler projects. I am a prosumer. I find it fun to make stuff and sell stuff just so I can make much more interesting stuff to sell. The Man's strategy? Did he even really exists? What's there to blame and be envious? The intellectual life is worth more than the cars, the fancy houses, and 2 1/2 kids. Things are in itself an interesting intellectual exercise. Selling them is merely a way to keep points about which is the most interesting things to the most people.
- tabsa 16y ago
  From your comment it seems that your are advocating an "intellectual life". Isn't this the same old consumerism, just a changing real goods for virtual ones (aka information)?
  - kiba 16y ago
    Hardly, because for your life to be intellectually interesting, you must discriminate between information. You're choosing not what people will think of you, but what is interesting to you.
    - DanI-S 16y ago
      I'm sure most people at least in some way try to develop interests in certain areas so that other people find THEM interesting!
pyrhho 16y ago
You should read "What Technology Wants" by Kevin Kelly. He investigates these sorts of things, talking about how it is now impossible to be separate from civilization (even the Amish are dependent upon civilization at large to support their lifestyle). And he starts to talk about how we can cope with that, and engage with it on our own terms, in a constructive manner.

3am 16y ago

Start with quadrillions of dollars and invest in airlines.

phrotoma 16y ago

I can't decide if this article is pure paranoia, depressing as hell, or inspiring.

jerf 16y ago
Excessively anthropomorphizing the Man is a quick way to sketch civilization, but leads to a failure to understand it deeply. If I were going to put a word on it, it would be glib. Sort of Malcolm Gladwell-ish. It's not necessarily that it's wrong, it's just so incomplete a view that it might as well be wrong.
- nick_urban 16y ago
  The term "The man" may be glib in many cases, but if we understand that "the man is us" then we reach some place more fundamental. Heidegger has a fascinating analysis of this phenomena, which he calls "Das Man" or "The They". Most of the time, all of us are "the they" instead of being authentically ourselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#.27The_One.27_.2F_.27the_They.27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology#.27The... Note: if you decide to read Heidegger, it may take as much time as a television habit.
  - jerf 16y ago
    "may be glib in many cases" I agree with you in general, but I think this is one of the "glib" cases in the original post. Buying into "vs. the Man" is, ironically, one of the Man's main tools in the contemporary US; there are entire ethnic cultures in the US being held back in no small part by the belief they are being held back by the Man, which in turn requires them to be externally rescued by the don't-look-too-closely-just-believe-we're-not-the-Man-Man. There's truth in the "Man" analysis, but the escape is to transcend the narrative, not engage with it. (The synthesis of the man/vs. the man thesis and antithesis, I suppose.) Which I doubt you disagree with, I'm just being explicit.
veb 16y ago
I thought it was inspiring. EDIT: Why? Because I've never thought about it from that point of view before. It doesn't necessarily make his point true, but it's interesting nevertheless.

StavrosK 16y ago

I would say, don't get too hung up on the "the Man" aspect of the article. For me, the most profound part was the one about keeping people wanting useless gadgets more and more and thus keeping them in jobs they hate. People can easily live with much less and do work that will allow them to be much happier. From what I've seen, higher earning potential doesn't correlate well with happiness.

ljordan 16y ago
In the study I heard about from a family member it correlates strongly up to a threshold, say $90,000 for a family of 3-4 living in the midwest (ex-Chicago, etc.), but thereafter increasing income doesn't increase happiness (and possibly erodes it).
- klbarry 16y ago
  Yes, what has been found is that anything below $60,000 is strongly correlated with unhappiness, but it flattens out above 60 annually. This was in a TED talk, probably one by Hans Rosling.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Yes, obviously having a very low income would come with worries, but above that, as you said, there's not much correlation...

corin_ 16y ago

"A single, lifelong customer who lives his life spending the way you want him to is worth six or seven figures. A single one." Let's say that "lifelong customer" spans 47 years (aged 18-65). In order for him to spend seven figures s/he would have to spend $1750/month. And, depending on what they're paying for, a lot of that won't be profit... So not sure why it's worded as if everyone should realise that a single life-long customer is worth a huge amount, chances are, for most companies/people, they won't be.

jat850 16y ago
I don't fully agree with your math. Mine is potentially no better, but: A single customer, spending $500/year on whatever it is you do, wherein you make 5% compounding profit off of their $500/year, nets $100,000 in 45 years. I feel that's a bit more realistic of an approach.
- corin_ 16y ago
  I wasn't taking interest into account in my example. 5% profit of $500/year is $25/year. I'm too lazy to work out compound interest over 45 years considering that a new $25 is being added each year, however: 45 * $25 = $1125 If you invested $1125 for 45 years at an interest rate of 4%, you'd end up with $6571. (And investing $1125 over 45 years gets you more back than only adding $25 a year to the investment.) Obviously it's possible to do better than 4%, but I would suggest that, then, however you are investing the money is "how you are making money", not "having a lifelong customer". So, have I completely misunderstood your example, or was your maths way way off?
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    His math is not off, I get about the same using http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calcu... When he said 5% profit he meant 5% interest. Result depends on the figures you put in, but if you can get people to spend hundreds of dollars on your business every year of their life, you are probably in possession of a mechanism providing interest well over 12% or 15% annually. Which makes the value per customer much higher. IKEA is one of the companies that successfully transformed the culture of one or several nations to their own benefit and routinely creates lifetime customers from infant to the grave.

mmaunder 16y ago

Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival. ~Noam Chomsky, from "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" 1992

jacquesm 16y ago
The question is, taking all that in to account and conceding that it is (1) true, and (2) a real problem how will we do better?
- klbarry 16y ago
  The above is a very concise version of my thoughts, thank you. There are a lot of problems with democracy, stemming from the dangers of mob rule. For instance, there are some strong arguments that a senate operating behind closed doors would be more effective at ignoring special interests and working together than otherwise. The writers of the constitution did just this (they swore secrecy of anything they talked about in the convention to avoid voter backlash) [1] This is why they initially wanted health care debates behind closed doors - the lobbyists can make much more use of transparency than the uninterested voter can. Fareed Zakaria wrote a lot about this in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution by Carol Berkin]

exit 16y ago

reminds me of a story i just read by charles stross: http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html http://www.bestsf.net/presents/RogueFarm.html about a future in which bioengineering allows individuals to become self sufficient (adding photosynthesis to their genome, for example). this causes the economy to collapse as many consumers no longer depend on society.

joe_the_user 16y ago
And indeed, once people are self-sufficient, why would they care if the economy collapsed? The only problem with the scenario is if/when wars between the self-sufficient farms erupt.
The_Igor 16y ago
That was a good read. Thanks!

michaelcampbell 16y ago

"First, start with hundreds of trillions of dollars..."

kongqiu 16y ago
I'm not a fan of Chomsky, but I completely agree that all too often we "go along" with ways of life that are sold as "normal," but which are in fact unhealthy and unsustainable.

mkramlich 16y ago

absolutely brilliant piece. and i agree with his perspective. i've thought almost exactly the same thing for over 2 decades now. it is extremely rare to see someone say it, and say it so well.

redemade 16y ago

reminds me of a Carl Sagan monologue from Cosmos: "Those worlds in space are as countless as all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. Each of those worlds is as real as ours and every one of them is a succession of incidents, events, occurrences which influence its future. Countless worlds, numberless moments, an immensity of space and time. And our small planet at this moment, here we face a critical branch point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants, it is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we could plunge our world into a time of darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilisation and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet." so intelligent, inspirational and full of hope, but listening to it 30 years later I can't help feeling bummed out, as it seems as though our civilization has chosen its path. also, Idiocracy.

jacoblyles 16y ago
That's an inspiring quote. But it is flawed. It is designed to instill passion and motivation in the listener's heart. But it is missing a virtue which is a strictly necessary ingredient for making an actual positive impact on the world: subtlety. If you are motivated by addressing humanity's long-term challenges, please do not attempt to bludgeon others into being more thoughtful or compassionate. Instead, learn first how human society works. Learn how to motivate social change in the least destructive way (all change is costly to someone). Learn why people oppose you, and what their interests are, and try to come to a common ground. Don't go off half-cocked. Learn subtlety. Nobody talks about subtlety. It is an under-appreciated virtue, and one of the most important.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- AnthonBerg 16y ago
  VERY good point. > Nobody talks about subtlety. Yes they do - It's just that nobody notices :) Kidding. Seriously, very good point.

momotomo 16y ago

This struck a chord with me. Recently (and more or less intuitively), I got rid of pretty much everything I own to charities, friends and relatives. A couple of graphics workstations, home entertainment system, mountain of business and philosophy books, clothes, TV's, etc. Everything bar a bed, clothes, writing material and some basic kitchenware. The outcome is the anti of the "typical person" inventory on that page. I feel healthier, more motivated, my work life balance has shifted, I'm socializing more and getting involved in more community / business opportunities. The sudden understanding that I don't need technology, media or a mountain of knowledge / reference to succeed at my goals is completely liberating, and I feel much less resistant to change. The additional time, clarity of thought and free cash is quite mind blowing, it's basically re-oriented my life completely. No magic bullet, but it feels like a step in the right direction.

jacquesm 16y ago
> Everything bar a bed, clothes, writing material and some basic kitchenware. And since you're posting here it seems at least one computer, unless you're writing this in an internet cafe of course.
- momotomo 16y ago
  Office PC. Realistically, job and career wise, I'll uptake a home computer again at some point, but only when the habits associated with the old ones die off.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's pretty brave and inspiring. I am not sure I could do that again, I've 'rebooted' a couple of times and it takes a long time to find a new path. And inevitably you always end up with lots of stuff again, it has a way of creeping up on you. Emigrations are a good way to realize what you can do without. And then a few years later you look around and wonder how it happened again.
    - momotomo 16y ago

jacoblyles 16y ago

Hey guys, it has been too long since our last self-righteous anti-consumerist circle-jerk. This one is good! You can smell the smarminess right through the screen. We live in a time where the individual has more freedom to do what he wants with his life than ever before. When people live longer, survive perviously unsurvivable diseases, and can get by with the least work. When the glorious knowledge produced by human advancement is the most open and attainable it has ever been. When world illiteracy, infant mortality, and malnutrition are at their lowest point. When the most people ever get a college degree and work in fields that challenge their minds. This really depresses some people for some reason. Can't figure out why. Mostly they just seem to get a kick out of criticizing how other people have chosen to live their lives. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves to imagine the great majority of the population are rubes and they are some wise sage.

ttttannebaum 16y ago
You confuse criticism of freedom with criticism of stupidity. Some people just want higher standards of critical thinking. Is that so childishly anti-progress, or whatever you'd call someone like me, who thinks people should be maybe just a little smarter about what they consume? You come off as dogmatic yourself in defense of consumerism. Capitalism can still exist if people aren't stupid sheep, you know.
klbarry 16y ago
It's the paradox of choice, as written about in many places. Give people many choices and many options and they will be, on average, less happy. Someone who assumes the only way to be is by being a subsistence farmer is not so unhappy.
Evgeny 16y ago
Mostly they just seem to get a kick out of criticizing how other people have chosen to live their lives. Doesn't it make you sad that a huge number of people are unhealthy, unhappy, die prematurely from perfectly preventable reasons or just plainly do not have any slightest idea about what to do with their lives? That's especially sad because it happens at the times when there are the most possible opportunities available to almost anyone. Of course, I understand the common response - "but shouldn't they just live the lives they choose and who are you to tell them what to do with their lives". This is reasonable and true, but I'm still sad for some reason.

acconrad 16y ago

The best articles can take a hackneyed concept (the ills of materialism) and still manage to say something worth listening to. This is one of those articles.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

This was long-winded and flawed in many ways. To point just one flaw out: part of the argument is that the modern culture is designed by marketers to keep you unhealthy and consuming. That's confusing, yet again, correlation with causation. It's just as likely that modern marketers are just doing what people want. That the current system of distraction, consumption, and unhealthiness is evolutionary and not some master plan of a cadre of evil overlords. Sure, it makes for a better straw man to bounce your essay off of, but it's flawed. If nothing else, it assumes a personality for a thing that quite obviously involves tens of thousands of people acting independently. Usually (almost always, really) such systems are emergent in nature. I understand all the emotional buttons that are being pushed with this, and by all means enjoy your time reading it. I enjoy a good rant and pipe dream about "rational social planning" as much as the next guy. All I ask is to take a little time and ask "Am I being manipulated by people I should hate? Or am I being told a story and a narrative about people to hate so that I can be manipulated?" EDIT: Of course the truth is somewhere in-between, and I didn't mean to make a false dichotomy. Most times these types of reasoning errors are simply artifacts of the way people solve problems. So, for instance, if you feel that systems are controlled from the top-down, you are more likely to see a dysfunctional system and assume that it was made that way from the top-down. Those of us who have studied dysfunctional systems can only wish that things were that simple. They aren't.

moultano 16y ago
I think that is actually his point towards the end of the essay. Replace "the man" with "the invisible hand." It's the same thing anyways. The solution is to build up your own personal resistence, not to rage against any external force (according to him.)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  A point which I think we can all agree. I continue to be amazed at how many different places you can start at and end up with existentialism.
davidhollander 16y ago
>part of the argument is that the modern culture is designed by marketers to keep you unhealthy and consuming. Welcome to the field of Applied Psychology and Cognitive Science. Once you have reverse engineered the mind, the only practical application is manipulating it. >just as likely that modern marketers are just doing what people want For a TRILLION dollars we are not talking about "marketers" in the Mad Men, I-made-a-website-and-wrote-a-book, or "social media expert" sense. We are at minimum talking about behavioral psychologist PhDs and global corporate parasites like Coca Cola, Philip Moris Tobacco, etc. In reality, those are still on the billion dollar level and not on the top of the food chain. The only trillion dollar companies I'm aware of though are financial institutions, so that would be my criticism of the article. If you really want to make a trillion dollars, you'll need to be much closer to the monetary spigot. In other words, a bank.

fleitz 16y ago

In all honesty Tyler Durden summed it up much more succinctly, "Working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need." Reminds me of the Vampire Weekend song Kids Don't Stand a Chance. Particularly the verse: I didn't like the business But that was at first glance Your pillow feels so soft now But still you must advance In particular I think he hits it perfectly on the head with the idea that 'the man' just doesn't know any better and is part and parcel to the culture. 'the man' are just the individuals who are particularly adapted to this way of life and thus succeed in it.

ttttannebaum 16y ago
Illustrated even nicer by this comic: http://buttersafe.com/2011/01/27/traps/ http://buttersafe.com/2011/01/27/traps/

icarus_drowning 16y ago

The entire article rests on the assumption that the things which are produced in order to be consumed have no value-- or at the very least, that, as more of them are produced, the total value in "the system" doesn't increase. While this is undoubtably true for many things, is it true for all of them? I mean, sure, I can't accept that enormous piles of consumerist junk manufactured every year don't really represent the creation of much value. But that isn't everything, and, I'd argue, it is dwarfed by the enormous amount of valuable materials, goods, and services that are produced. In order for this kind of invective to carry in weight, one has to implicitly agree with the hidden assumption that the trillions of dollars of goods and services produced every year represent essentially no value to human beings. And that seems to me to be a pretty ridiculous statement.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

"...create a nation of people who typically: [....] have learned, through the media’s culture of blame-mongering, that the key to solving public and private issues is to find the right people to hate" It's funny that someone could write that as part of a scathing critique of consumerist culture and yet not see the irony of it. There are things that are a lot worse than materialistic, shallow, consumerist culture. Specifically a moralistic, prudish, puritanical culture which is at every point so very concerned with what is the best for everyone else. At least consumerist culture is easy enough to escape and ignore.

Tycho 16y ago

Personally I have no problem with consuming stuff for entertainment. I just don't kid myself that consuming a poem through oral tradition in a field without electricity would be somehow more noble/satisfactory.

ttttannebaum 16y ago

You can call Chuck Palaniuk an overrated writer all you want, but this is what Fight Club is about and did a good job of illustrating.