9 ms·

Eh? Russell's complaint is not that "the little man" prioritizes in ways Russell dislikes. It's that he prioritizes in ways that (a) he doesn't like when he ca

by gjm11 17y ago

Eh? Russell's complaint is not that "the little man" prioritizes in ways Russell dislikes. It's that he prioritizes in ways that (a) he doesn't like when he can think it through clearly, and (b) produce results that he doesn't like when he experiences them; and that what salesmen and advertisers are doing is to interfere with his ability to think it through clearly and anticipate the likely results of his actions. Or, to put it differently: the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole. I've no idea what's supposed to be "holier-than-thou" about that, even if it turns out to be dead wrong; perhaps you could explain? (It need hardly be said -- but I'll say it anyway -- that the sneer at "the little man" here is mseebach's invention, and doesn't e.g. occur anywhere in Russell's piece. Russell introduces his victim as "some hard-working professional man", and if mseebach sees that as patronizing or insulting, so much the worse for mseebach.)

mseebach 17y ago
My rant including the "little man" was no so much directed at the article in question as it was at the movement in general. But Russels depiction of this hard-working professional as a victim is condescending. He can provide for his family, but can't in the face of a simple salesman say "no, go away, and if you come back next week I won't be this polite"? This is obviously a contrived example, because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make. > the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole. Obviously there are scammers out there, but the average advertisement/sale caters to the average consumer, and by declaring that the actions of these consumers make them "sillier and stupider" (than what?) and that they don't act in their own interest or "those of the community / nation / world as a whole" is "holier-than-thou". How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? To take a very current example, the current financial crisis is caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > This is obviously a contrived example, because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make. You don't say... I think it is an excellent analogy of the process that goes on between producers, salespeople and consumers. > How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? That's a tricky one, but I suspect that the maximum by any definition does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them. > caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home. There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials in the US that together brought about the crisis, equally culpable are the people operating the banks, the people that took on mortgages that they knew up front they would not be able to pay for ('ninja' applicants), foreign banks buying up the debt packages etc. Indeed, no-one gets away clean.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > I think it is an excellent analogy of the process that goes on between producers, salespeople and consumers. Well, I don't. Care to elaborate? > ...does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them. That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone? > There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials Of course. I singled out the government, because that's an entity we often look to in search for a definition of the common best interest.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      The goals of sales people and producers are generally not aligned with the goals of consumers. In an ideal world all consumption would be 'pull'. Consumers would be informed about the available products in a neutral way, would know about the ins and outs of all the products they could choose from and would have an idea of the long-term benefits of the products if purchased. Clearly, we do not live in an ideal world. Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis, at least it is in most parts of the world. But even there advertising is shaping consumers decisions more and more. Branding and marketing are gaining a bigger foothold than ever before even when it comes to buying everyday needs items such as drinking water, bread, rice, clothing and so on. For other goods 'regular consumption goods and luxury goods' the situation is even more extreme. > That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone? It's not circular, it is recursive ;) But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. Most income spent on useless stuff (for instance to feed addictions) goes at the expense of a real need (for instance to feed or clothe children). By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle. Nobody is able to make their decisions about what they need with any degree of impartiality. The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness. So all other things being equal, if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat somehow then your happiness will not be as high as it would have been had you gone through with what would have been the most rational decision. If you look for a definition of what is in the common best interest I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart. In theory it does, in practice I don't think there is a single government on earth that would be able to make that claim and withstand an investigation into the veracity of that claim. Maybe I'm old and cynical, but where ever I've lived I did not have the feeling the government had my interests in general at heart.

by gjm11 17y ago

mseebach 17y ago

My rant including the "little man" was no so much directed at the article in question as it was at the movement in general. But Russels depiction of this hard-working professional as a victim is condescending. He can provide for his family, but can't in the face of a simple salesman say "no, go away, and if you come back next week I won't be this polite"? This is obviously a contrived example, because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make. > the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole. Obviously there are scammers out there, but the average advertisement/sale caters to the average consumer, and by declaring that the actions of these consumers make them "sillier and stupider" (than what?) and that they don't act in their own interest or "those of the community / nation / world as a whole" is "holier-than-thou". How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? To take a very current example, the current financial crisis is caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home.

jacquesm 17y ago
> This is obviously a contrived example, because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make. You don't say... I think it is an excellent analogy of the process that goes on between producers, salespeople and consumers. > How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? That's a tricky one, but I suspect that the maximum by any definition does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them. > caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home. There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials in the US that together brought about the crisis, equally culpable are the people operating the banks, the people that took on mortgages that they knew up front they would not be able to pay for ('ninja' applicants), foreign banks buying up the debt packages etc. Indeed, no-one gets away clean.
- mseebach 17y ago
  > I think it is an excellent analogy of the process that goes on between producers, salespeople and consumers. Well, I don't. Care to elaborate? > ...does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them. That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone? > There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials Of course. I singled out the government, because that's an entity we often look to in search for a definition of the common best interest.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    The goals of sales people and producers are generally not aligned with the goals of consumers. In an ideal world all consumption would be 'pull'. Consumers would be informed about the available products in a neutral way, would know about the ins and outs of all the products they could choose from and would have an idea of the long-term benefits of the products if purchased. Clearly, we do not live in an ideal world. Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis, at least it is in most parts of the world. But even there advertising is shaping consumers decisions more and more. Branding and marketing are gaining a bigger foothold than ever before even when it comes to buying everyday needs items such as drinking water, bread, rice, clothing and so on. For other goods 'regular consumption goods and luxury goods' the situation is even more extreme. > That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone? It's not circular, it is recursive ;) But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. Most income spent on useless stuff (for instance to feed addictions) goes at the expense of a real need (for instance to feed or clothe children). By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle. Nobody is able to make their decisions about what they need with any degree of impartiality. The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness. So all other things being equal, if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat somehow then your happiness will not be as high as it would have been had you gone through with what would have been the most rational decision. If you look for a definition of what is in the common best interest I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart. In theory it does, in practice I don't think there is a single government on earth that would be able to make that claim and withstand an investigation into the veracity of that claim. Maybe I'm old and cynical, but where ever I've lived I did not have the feeling the government had my interests in general at heart.