Linking to Ross Gittins’review of Clive Hamilton’s Growth Fetish, Ken Parish writes
The Buddha discovered this fundamental truth about happiness thousands of years ago, and not only about material possessions. All worldly striving and attachments, Buddha taught, are ultimately unsatisfactory. Happiness is transitory by nature.
But endemic human unhappiness and striving are the engines of growth and development, including in an intellectual and cultural sense. They have led us to decreasing levels of hunger, disease and malnutrition, as well as great discoveries in science and the arts.
Ken is right about this, but I don’t think this undermines Clive’s criticism of a system in which advertising and other social forces keep us permanently dissatisfied with our levels of material consumption.
Granted that striving is better than vegetative contentment, and even that there’s inherently nothing wrong with striving for more and better material possessions (I’m not sure Clive would grant this, but I will), it’s surely a problem when an entire society is premised on the assumption that everyone should be pursuing this limited and limiting goal. There may be nothing more noble in, say, striving for 10 000 unique visitors per day than in striving for a Ferrari, but at least I can feel that I’ve chosen the first goal for myself rather than having it foisted on me by the advertising industry. And some goals, for example curing diseases or saving the environment, are better than Ferraris or blog rankings.
John Quiggin 
Ideally one would get maximum status-rewards, usually in the form of unlimited access to nubile women, through an occupation that maximises the output of benvolently intended socio-economic production actions (eg art/science/life-saving).
But I am unaware of a job with those employment conditions.
If people were altruistic we would be all communists instead we are greedy lying accummulators of goods and services.
Why doesn’t Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Packer et al just enjoy their riches rather than trying to gain more.
I believe the Bible saying something about people in this position never being satisfied.
and then there’s striving for vegetative contentment…
Homer – speaking of Packer – I was impressed with his big donation to the RPA recently (not as big as his donations to casinos, but still):
http://old.smh.com.au/news/0108/13/national/national17.html
(kind of typical of wealthy high profile people though, that they often only want to help when it’s something that has directly adversely affected them)
What’s all this stuff about having desires foisted on you? Advertising is a form of speech like other forms of speech. How is advertising more powerful than other forms of exhortation? I suppose if you want to be truly scientific about it, everything we do is partly the result of various forms of speech and communication being sent to us. There is no strict beginning or end between the things that influence us by the way they influence connections being fired and reinforced in our nerve endings and where we ‘choose’ whatever this autonomous ‘I’ is. You may feel that you’ve chosen the first goal but I just don’t see how one form of peer pressure/industry presssure is different from another in its magnitude of influence on your final decisions.
As for happiness I agree with Ken while recognising that it’s an unverifiable value judgement like your value judgements about nobility.
>>(kind of typical of wealthy high profile people though, that they often only want to help when it’s something that has directly adversely affected them)
>Why doesn’t Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Packer et al just enjoy their riches rather than trying to gain more
soon is right. what most people dont realise, especially the left, is that most peopele dont care for their ideas of noble or worthwhile.
the reason most people spend money on useless material crap is because they like doing it. not because they are “tricked” by advertising.
maybe they dont get long lasting happiness from their material crap. but theyre still making their own free choice.
no-one has a gun to their head. if you want you can choose to ignore most advertising fairly easily (except at train stations now) and you can definately choose not to shop for rubbish.
furthermore, communism is worse than capitalism because in our system people can spend their money on whatever the hell they like, making free choices about what they value. you can be a communist in capitalist society, work really hard and give away most of your money to other people.
its called freedom.
altruism is a ridiculous meme for our genetic makeup, thats why its rare.
individual ants on the other hand, which are genetically identical to their siblings are very altruistic.
Nice to see a few libertarians spewing forth.
Altruism in it’s absolute pure form may not be strongly evident in our daily lives, but otherwise it’s everywhere, hybridized. In fact, human societies have been highly dependant on cooperation for survival. Pure self-interest as a complete explanation of human motivation fails empirically, before breakfast.
Do you brake for penguins or old people? Would you trouble youself to give a passer-by the time of day? Why not kill them? Do you respond to blogs with the aim/hope of educating and benefiting blogdom, or is it merely purely to stroke your own ego? From a psychological point of view, a rampant declaration of the primacy of self interest might indicte unease at the lack of personal altuism.
Altuism and it’s antecedent, empathy, are a competely natural part of human complexity. (As are the opposites.) Humans who actually fail to develop any altuism – typically due to arrested development – are unable to fit into society and commonly end up in jail (or fronting major corporations and repressive governments.)
The observation that television viewers who are subjected to a stready diet of images of self-centered greed created by, or on behalf of, self-centered greedy people tend to become like what they are contemplating actually has little to do with high falutin’ ideas like free will and personal rights. That comes later in the argument.
actually i dont run over old people because id be arrested and go to jail…
but seriously, thats exactly my point. altruism is a meme, which is restrained (or enabled) by our genetic makeup.
yes humans live in a society. but this is only because it allows those in the society to pass on their genes and memes. its all about system dynamics, not noble aims.
having said that, theres multi-levels. at the system level, morals are merely functional aspects to allow certain systems to perpetuate themselves.
at the individual level, morals seem real. so yes, i do have moral instincts (but only because of the reasons at the system level).
…c8to
This is sort of related to the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE hereafter). Mark Kleiman has a very good post up criticizing an article in the NY Times magazine last week, which pointed to the decline of the PWE as the reason for Europe’s impending collapse.
The article seemed like bollocks to me but I am not an economist so what do I know. The only justification I can see for the consumerist “getting and spending” impulse which is under discussion in this thread is, it elevates demand for goods and services, so makes the economy grow faster than it otherwise would, or at all. I don’t know if capitalism would work sans acquisitivity over and above people’s basic needs — well looking that sentence over I guess I can say I’m pretty sure it would not; but the lack of acquisitivity could be on a sort of sliding scale; what I mean to say is I don’t have any clear idea how far down that scale you can go before capitalism either stops working or becomes something radically different.
Anyways: it sounds like Dr. Quiggin’s problem with the “getting and spending” is that it encourages the wrong sort of economic expansion. (Correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth, sir, this is what I took away from your post but that could be transference since it was already about what I thought.) I believe this impulse — in its present manifestation — is wrapped up historically with the development of the PWE.
Sorry, I linked to the wrong Kleiman post. Here’s the correct one. Read the other too, if you are interested in US drug policy.
“Advertising is a form of speech like other forms of speech. How is advertising more powerful than other forms of exhortation?”
It’s more powerful because it uses the psychology of persuasion to make you part with your money. If you aren’t aware of (or don’t accept) this subliminal creation of desire, then advertisers have succeeded.
well of course there’s a moral aspect to wealth. Where do you think Australia’s richest man gets his loot, if not from ordinary Australians? That’s why I’d expect a little more altruism, empathy, reciprocity or whatever from the guy. Then I’d really respect him. I mean, people that wealthy are no longer just ordinary citizens in a capitalist society, but kind of overlords or kings. And ‘noblesse oblige’.
ps re: “Do you respond to blogs with the aim/hope of educating and benefiting blogdom, or is it merely purely to stroke your own ego?” – more than one motivation can be in play at any given time 🙂
Jason,
I would never call Kezza or Rupert lazy merely for enjoying the fruits of their labours.
You missed the major point of what was said which is why do they keep on accumulating goods and services they can never enjoy.
Lets take Rupert. Can he enjoy all those properties has has ( or his family trust).
Of course he can’t.
By the way the Left is only catching up with the right ( Social conservative right that is)!
I largely agree with Jason (no surprise I guess). Gianna – yes, advertisers are trying to influence. But so am I when I try to convince you that markets are nearly always preferable to government. You try to convince people on your blog, the Greens try to convince people to vote for them, and my parents try to convince me to go to church. At church, people try to convince people to become christians, and then a friend may try to convince me to go fishing with him/her.
Influence is everywhere. Taking a Clive Hamilton view of the world, then this is a disaster. Luckily, influence is characterised by one important element – it isn’t force. I am able to not buy a new watch, not vote for the Greens, not go to church, not become a christian, not go fishing etc.
On the other hand, the only way to stop influence is to use force. The only way to prevent somebody freely influencing others is by coercing that person. If these are the options, then I prefer influence… even if it’s not always a force for good (for instance, influencing people to buy something they don’t need or influencing people to vote for the Greens).
About why rich people continue working. Sometimes, the enjoyment is in the journey, not the destination. It’s not for me to judge their motivations in life, but I admire people who are able to set high goals and then reach them.
Gianna – one final note. It is not necessarily true that rich people gain their wealth at other people’s expense. It is possible for wealth to be created not just taken. I believe not understanding this point is a reason for a lot of anti-rich feelings. I guess you have been influenced at some point into believing otherwise… hopefully my influence can make a difference also. Before it is banned. 🙂
I am prepared to admit that some small subset of those we call ‘entrepreneurs’ contribute to the creation of wealth. What I’d like 24601 to admit is that those who have only their labour and time to sell contribute to that wealth, too. That’s where most of the risk and most of the work actually resides. The wealthy benefit disproportionately by way of the state, yet contribute proportionately less to the state, upon which institution rests much of the responsibility for ameliorating the plight of the disadvantaged. So I can see where Gianna’s coming from.
yeah, what Rob said (thanks Rob).
re advertising and influence – if it’s all so intuitive then hey, let’s just get rid of the discipline of marketing altogether! anyway i’m not arguing that advertisers are trying to influence people (derrr) but that they use certain subtle techniques of which we are often not aware. i don’t mind someone trying to influence me so long as i know they’re trying to influence me!
Gianna – people try to subtely influence other people all the time, in all situations. Subtle mind games, and well timed comments aimed at getting somebody to do something. Getting rid of marketing would require force – which I consider a greater evil than influence.
Rob – it’s a strange request, but I’ll oblige. Output is a function of many inputs, including labour. I don’t know of any economists who disagree with that basic premise.
I don’t understand why you believe that the rich pay proportionally less to the state and receive more. Personally (though I’m not really of the ‘rich’ category), I don’t think I’ve got my money’s worth out of the state. If it was a private product – I’d complain and look for a refund.
Finally, while there are many factors of production that go into producing output, there is quite a strong argument that suggests that only innovation contributes to growth. Further, the nature of the market is that the benefits of innovation are spread too quickly – decreasing the relative incentive of innovating, and hence it could be argued that entrepreneurs and those who wish to invest in knowledge capital (researchers) are being short-changed in the market system. I don’t think so… but that’s one potential conclusion from the endogenous growth literature.
Anyway – my point was that not all wealth is stolen. Some is created. Hence growth. While I’m sure you understand this – you must realise that some people do not (and hence their resentment towards wealth because they think it causes poverty).
In reply to Jack Strocchi’s first post, I think the job he is looking for is film star, popular music star, sports star or literature star. And, despite his flippancy, a lot of people fall into that category.
And to C8to, the notion that all of our hideously complex social interactions are driven purely by the selfish gene is absurd. The mind (and hence us), is more likely an unintended byproduct of an advantageous streak (intelligence) that hasn’t actually interfered with its survival benefit and so persists. Look at dolphins as an example of intelligence not needing a mind.
If it was all about passing on one’s genetic material, then the high-flying, high-achieving, glamorous and desirable intentionally childless couple would be a biological impossibility.
Besides which, poor, ill-educated people have more babies.
The rich will not be destroyed by revolution, but simply discarded by evolution. That particular nightmare will keep the corporate social-Darwinists waking up in a sweat 🙂
In reply to Jack Strocchi’s first post, I think the job he is looking for is film star, popular music star, sports star or literature star. And, despite his flippancy, a lot of people fall into that category.
And to C8to, the notion that all of our hideously complex social interactions are driven purely by the selfish gene is absurd. The mind (and hence us), is more likely an unintended byproduct of an advantageous streak (intelligence) that hasn’t actually interfered with its survival benefit and so persists. Look at dolphins as an example of intelligence not needing a mind.
If it was all about passing on one’s genetic material, then the high-flying, high-achieving, glamorous and desirable intentionally childless couple would be a biological impossibility.
Besides which, poor, ill-educated people have more babies.
The rich will not be destroyed by revolution, but simply discarded by evolution. That particular nightmare will keep the corporate social-Darwinists waking up in a sweat 🙂
24601, i was joking about getting rid of marketing. what i meant was, why do you think people spend three years studying marketing if it is not a science? and do you think that press releases (which newspapers are known to print verbatim) are the same thing as truth and fact?
yes, i agree we are all spinners and we are all spun.
In my opinion, marketing is a worthless degree. I took a few marketing subjects in my day and from what I could tell (I didn’t really show up much), if you didn’t know the basic story before entering the subject you didn’t deserve to be at uni. And all the marketing subjects seemed the same too! I swear it was the same textbook with a different cover… so that I had to buy it thrice! btw, in marketing theory they stress responding to consumer demands, not driving them. Maybe it’s just a lie told in undergrad marketing subjects and later they introduce the tricks? I imagine the art of spin is learnt more on the job.
I don’t think that press releases are the same as fact, and I don’t understand why you asked that. Writing something down doesn’t make it true. Writing something down makes it written and writing something true makes it true. 🙂
“I don’t think that press releases are the same as fact, and I don’t understand why you asked that. Writing something down doesn’t make it true.”
Well, because press releases are advertising/marketing and therefore an attempt to influence, whereas news is not supposed to influence but inform, that’s all.
All news is biased… it’s unavoidable. Best defence is to understand the bias and have many competing biases.