Death of Self-Interest: The Moment of Doubt

I keep starting a post on the death of ideological self-interest, but I'm in a patch where I'm being exposed to a lot of stimulating ideas on the subject, a subject which is embedded in our social fabric. There are so many ways of coming at it that my writing keeps branching off into new fields, the boundaries of which are heretofore unseen.

So, unable to spiel on about it (probably unreadably) I shall tackle the topic in bite-sized morsels, see where they lead, beginning with the moment of doubt.

Dr Wayne Cartwright is an economist. As in schooled and trained in the 70s, and deeply invested in the "science" of capitalist economics that has dominated the world for the very same period. It was his life's work, what he taught and studied every day. Until, in the late nineties, he encountered a moment of doubt.

He framed this moment as being a catholic priest who no longer believed his own dogma. The comparison is one I have used many times myself, and it is stunningly apt. The Catholic Church emplaced a social order that allowed their monarchs and vassals - who were essentially brutal, robber barons - to rule by the divine right of kings.
The same is the case today. The "science" of our economists is also used to establish a social order, where the divine right of global capital holds the same, undemocratic and ruthless sway over the world that the swords of England's monarchs held over their subjects.

These moments of doubt are crucial. Everyone has them, and they deal with them in different ways. It is often a small thing, that finally ticks over, the last straw. Dr Cartwright's moment was realising in 1997 how grotesquely unsustainable NZ dairying had become in such a short time, and how desperate the industry was to grow further, all because of the precepts laid down by his economics.
Not an especially dramatic insight, you'd think, but in these moments you're on a precipice. You can either dig in, bury your head further - Dr Cartwright had every reason to, he'd committed 40 years to this ideology, it was his livelihood, and there is a massive framework of influence and wealth, of media, ready to support this outlook; or you can face facts, and search for another way.

The well-respected economist, Dr Wayne Cartwright, became a realist. He realised that the science he had been trained in no longer existed. He realised this because he is a scientist. And his economics had been proven wrong.

Economics ceased being a science when it started ignoring results. It became a dogma. It refused to accept consequences, externalising the environment, therefore securing the integrity of its own abstract, fantastical fairytale. And the wealth this ideology garnered for the world's elite and corporate citizens totally eliminated the idea of "consequences" from our vocabulary.

Terrorism? Inexplicable aggression. Climate Change? Cyclical. Disgust with the rich? Envy.

In 1961 we used 30% of the world's sustainable capacity; In 1999, we were using 120%. But there are no problems, only opportunities. No consequences, only challenges.

Except for the poor and out-of-work and dispossessed in society, the marginalised, the growing numbers struggling to meet the rising cost of living. That's just the consequence of their actions.

The current set-up benefits the wealthiest 10% in the world, in our country, very nicely. They don't want us examining the fundamentals underpinning the structures of power. They want us to crawl over each other, chain our intellect, sacrifice our integrity just to be one of them. And many people do.

But there's never enough room at the top. The fairytale will never be real for 80% of the population. And more and more people are facing that moment of doubt, exponentially so as the obvious becomes blindingly obvious. And if an economist can choose the right side - the realist's side - that's reason to hope.

(Dr Cartwright is one of many published in the paper Strong Sustainability for New Zealand)

Advertising - fuck, yeah!

I watched the Fair Go ad awards last night. Verdict: less cringe-worthy than usual. The Primary school competition entries were better than the Secondary schools'. Had to put up with the usual gushing over how creative this parasitic industry is. Particularly from some Colmar Brunton advertising honcho dribbling on how about ads represent our country, and another triple-chinned going on how advertising was good because it helped competition. It helped people make choices.

Uh-huh. Really.

I think the competition remark was aimed at the NZ telecoms industry in particular, and as far as duopoly-busting goes, a few weeks of pitch-perfect advertising with Rhys Darby has had an immediate impact. At least in raising 2 Degrees profile. But that is because the demand was already there as the gouging Vodafone and Telecom turned us into a country of texters. We'll see if 2 Degrees lasts the distance against the heavy-weight money. We saw what happened with Kiwi Air etc, in that other big monopolistic industry.

Ultimately, advertising is only as good as your pockets are deep, because the established players don't just run a "launch campaign". They are there, everywhere, everyday, insinuating into the lives and identities of their target market from age 0.

Advertising is at best neutral in terms of its contribution to competition (putting it mildly) because it benefits the status quo of these corporate market leaders. Also, it forces the newcomers to a market to leverage themselves into the same world of grotesque mummery, possibly compromise values of independence, integrity and honesty doing deals just to raise the funds, much less participate in the "image" war with their competitors.

Furthermore, it corrupts at least one of Adam Smith's three key principles to an effective capitalist free market: there must be true and information in the marketplace for the individual to make a decision on their enlightened self-interest.

Remember Ribena, anyone, and their vitamin C content? Found out by... no, not government agencies, or watchdogs - school children. The penalty for one of the world largest food groups, the largest economic entities in the world? Oh yeah - 200 grand. And an apology. And a slap on the wrist.

Oh, a few bad apples, I hear you say. Well, we don't know. Because there is no one checking the information they put in the marketplace. Not the state. Not the UN. Not the media. Ever notice how few reports there are about companies and corporations on the news? Not a conspiracy, mind -the risk of getting sued just isn't worth any investigation. Not when there're so many press-releases filling their inboxes every day. Much easier to just package them. Call them "news".

Moreover, there is scarcely a penalty when a corporation is caught, and certainly no actual living person held responsible. That's the cool thing about being a corporation. You are taxed at less than the top tax rate; you have the same rights under law as any living breathing person, and you live forever. Accumulating money - power - over all that time, paying for advertising, lawyers, lobbyists... Heck, who needs a vote?

Rhys Darby's role in the 2 Degrees ad campaign was perfectly targeted. It even had the competition scared. A group of wealthy notaries - shareholders of Vodafone and Telecom, no doubt - scrambled to muster a "Drop the Rate, Mate," campaign, ostensibly to influence a drop in the dupolists' calling charges. It hasn't really been heard of since. No surprise, cos it was just PR dressing for a few phone calls and board meetings their real "mates" will have, colluding to combat 2 Degrees. (Shouldn't they just stick to farming, or banking, or whatever?)
Another day in the office.

Look at 2 Degrees though. Rhys Darby, beloved comedian, received money in compensation for promoting something he neither knows nor cares about. 2 Degrees hadn't even launched yet. The teleco bosses got his number off someone who knew his mother. The ad was a hit. Acceptable. No acrimony.

Roll back a month or so, and we have Keisha Castle-Hughes, beloved actress, promoting environmental awareness - something she does know about, and does care about - for no money. Displaying an astounding lack of self-awareness, she was told to "stick to acting" by our Prime Minister, former merchant banker John Key. Cue the laugh-track from the money-huggers, the power-groupies and the elite. Although the PM eventually saw reason and apologised for his gaffe.... why was Keisha such a threat?

So, there's the state of our civilisation. That's the legacy of "advertising" in a nutshell. If a celebrity sells themselves to read some funny ad-man lines - that's acceptable. If they're not paid, they're not selling anything - they're deemed untrustworthy, they've stepped out of line.
Of course to be sure of this thesis, we'd have to get Rhys and Keisha to switch places. What if he had advocated signing on to the 40% reduction in carbo emissions? Would John Key have come down so hard on him? Would Keisha have been "selling out" if she did a Whale Rider for 2 Degrees?

Either way you look at it, there is something very disturbing about what behaviour, what messages we will accept from who in our media-manufactured world. Advertising, marketing and public relations are principally to blame. What they do is corrupt one of the essential pillars of our market society: information.
Not only that, but we are conditioned to accepting certain modes of transmission of information as feeling more acceptable, more true, more trustworthy than others - even though if you step back and look at the facts you can see which story has more weight.

But how often do we - step back, I mean? How far do we have to step back to see the walls that are built because we believe in them?

This is the society our media and advertising standards are making. This is the society we have.