How to Make Trillions of Dollars

http://www.raptitude.com/2011/01/how-to-make-trillions-of-dollars/

by froggy • 15 years ago

284 135 15 years ago

DanI-S2• 15 years 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.

kiba2• 15 years 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• 15 years 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)?

pyrhho• 15 years 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• 15 years ago

Start with quadrillions of dollars and invest in airlines.

phrotoma• 15 years ago

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

jerf2• 15 years 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• 15 years 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...

Note: if you decide to read Heidegger, it may take as much time as a television habit.

veb• 15 years 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.

mhb• 15 years ago

Whichever it is, it sure doesn't belong here.

Evgeny3• 15 years ago

It was all of the above for me, quite a rare combination. I think I'm going to read the whole blog and I have no idea how I did not come across it before.

StavrosK2• 15 years 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• 15 years 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).

klbarry3• 15 years 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.

StavrosK2• 15 years ago

Yes, obviously having a very low income would come with worries, but above that, as you said, there's not much correlation...

corin_4• 15 years 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.

jat8502• 15 years 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_4• 15 years 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?

shawndrost• 15 years ago

By that logic, a customer whose NPV is $100 is "worth" $13150.

viggity• 15 years ago

you missed the whole point of this article, he wasn't talking about actually starting a single company that is going to make trillions of dollars. He was talking about the system and culture in which we live

corin_4• 15 years ago

I'm not arguing with the entire article, I'm arguing with a mathematic statement he made within it.

joe_the_user3• 15 years ago

I think the article is correct but phrases the lifelong customer part wrong.

The habits of a single life-long customer divorced from everyone else whose spending is absorbed by a single player might not be worth a million - EDIT: maybe 50k with interest (being very generous).

BUT if a small player has "in hand" said habits, they could be worth much more sold to the larger players. The larger players can direct the consumption of this consumer to convincing counterfeit items (margarine instead of butter, Budweiser instead of a decent beer, etc). This gives them much higher profit margin. These larger players can also us the single consumer's habits as a model for ten other people's habits.

And naturally it feels nasty discussing things this way...

So I think the "amortized" control of single consumer's habits might conceivably be worth about a million.

AnthonBerg• 15 years ago

Wow, well put. There is of course no Intention of The Man to ingeniously swap margarine in for butter, but the gravity of profit margins will tend to pull reality that way. It usually does.

mmaunder• 15 years 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

jacquesm5• 15 years 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?

klbarry3• 15 years 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]

genieyclo• 15 years ago

Some would argue there is no point in doing better. Some would argue the "we" is populated by stupidity that knows almost no bounds, and the only solution is to join the ranks of the Man on the quest to the mythical (in a probably hyperinflationary environment) trillion dollars. Cash in while the shit house goes down.

Yzupnick• 15 years ago

True, the basic problem I have seen with people that present views such as Chomsky's is that I have yet to see an alternative to free market capitalism that doesn't have worse problems (in my opinion) than any problem pointed to by those such as Chomsky.

jacoblyles6• 15 years ago

>"Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time.

Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1].

Anti-capitalists are anti-human. I wonder if the billion or so people that climbed out of poverty over the last decade thanks to global capitalism would change Chomsky's mind at all. But I doubt it, considering how invested the man is in being a spokesman for a flawed worldview. It seems to me that anti-capitalism is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development.

[1]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/best-decade-ever.html

lisper• 15 years ago

> "Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time.

> Bullshit. A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity[1].

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

steveklabnik4• 15 years ago

I've often found it funny how two sides often use the exact same argument against each other, almost down to the wording: most anti-capitalists specifically charge capitalism with taking the human element out of the equation.

ynniv• 15 years ago

It's much better to work 16 hours for a $1 in your pocket than to do whatever you've been doing for the last 100,000 years. Those unfortunate poor people, someone should tell them how unhappy they are!

anthonyb8• 15 years ago

There was a society based on the principles of the free market - Victorian England. It wasn't so great for most of the population there - pitiful wages, child labour, pollution, poor houses, squalour and misery.

Free market? Sure, it's a great idea, but minimum wage laws, workplace safety, pollution control and so forth have all done just as much for our health and prosperity.

thret• 15 years ago

Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Concisely sums up everything good about free-market capitalism.

drstrangevibes• 15 years ago

>A society based on the principles of the free market will >create unprecedented human health and prosperity agreed , but only for 0.005% of the population

fgbadiu• 15 years ago

>A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity

The living standards of black slaves in the Americas increased over time as well.

I wonder if the millions whose standard of living increased under slavery would change your mind that slavery is bad? It seems to me that anti-slavery is a symptom of simple ignorance of basic facts about world economic development.

acqq• 15 years ago

> A society based on the principles of the free market will create unprecedented human health and prosperity

Only for a limited time as the natural resources are also limited. We don't have another Earth. The total standard of living existing now for humanity is not sustainable.

hxa7241• 15 years ago

Chomsky is not anti-capitalist in the sense of proposing some particular complete replacement of it (as one might infer from your comment). He carefully avoids what is not well understood. Would you say capitalism is perfect? No, of course not. Then surely you will allow people to criticise it.

protomyth3• 15 years ago

I've seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the enlightened and would rather go with the flawed individual freedom crowd.

borism• 15 years ago

but have you seen the effects of "rational social planning" by the unenlightened?

steveklabnik4• 15 years ago

You do understand that he's not speaking of a centrally planned government, right? Chomsky specifically advocates as close to direct democracy as possible.

exit• 15 years ago

reminds me of a story i just read by charles stross: 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_user3• 15 years 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• 15 years ago

That was a good read. Thanks!

michaelcampbell• 15 years ago

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

kongqiu• 15 years 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• 15 years 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• 15 years 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.

jacoblyles6• 15 years 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.

InclinedPlane2• 15 years ago

Idiocracy is an entertaining movie, but it's not a very accurate critique of society: http://xkcd.com/603/

Also, don't be disheartened by the continual persistence of stupidity and triviality. There are amazing things happening all around us, never forget that. For two generations human civilization has had the unprecedented capability to cause the near extinction of mankind, and yet that hasn't occurred. Measure that in the context of history, it's fairly remarkable. Meanwhile, war is becoming less common (honestly, check the data), more and more people are getting lifted out of poverty every day, amazing innovations are occurring continually, and we continue to reach for the stars. There will always be setbacks from time to time, but you shouldn't let that dishearten you.

Within the next 30 years there is every reason to believe that there will be more developed nations, fewer people in abject poverty, yet more communication between peoples around the world, and perhaps even hundreds of people living and working in orbit and off-Earth.

momotomo5• 15 years 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.

jacquesm5• 15 years 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.

momotomo5• 15 years 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.

matwood3• 15 years ago

"The things you own end up owning you" - Fight Club

The book/movie takes anti-consumerism to a grand finish, but I think there is a definitely a continuum and that most people are too far towards the consumerism side. The real problem is that people equate having stuff with happiness. My issue is I look at people who have a lot of stuff and they seem to spend all their time and money on maintaining said stuff. Owning a boat is probably the prototypical example.

Years ago I owned nearly nothing. My apartment living room consisted of a couple of deck chairs and a small TV. My bedroom had a bed and the office had a small desk with my computer on it. There is great freedom in knowing that I could leave and the only thing I would need to grab would have been my computer. My life hasn't changed very much today, except I would add my camera to the list of things I would also grab.

Another thing to note is that it's not just owning things, but also the attitude you take towards what you own. Owning some nice things is fine, but you can't let them control your life. You have to remember that they are just things.

momotomo5• 15 years ago

The maintenance aspect is the biggest hidden cost I think.

Your last point is interesting - one of the guys that used to mentor me in meditation often said that the attachment to not having things is just as painful as the attachment to having things. It's a true point.

jacoblyles6• 15 years 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.

klbarry3• 15 years 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.

Evgeny3• 15 years 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.

jacoblyles6• 15 years ago

I recognize the diversity of the human experience and I understand that not everybody would be happy living my ideal life. This respect for the choices of my fellow humans often puts me out of step with passionate idealists who feel contempt for folks who live in a manner outside their dogmatic parameters.

Living in Silicon Valley while growing up in the South East, being an Atheist and coming from a religious family, being a programmer and rubbing shoulders with MMA fighters and fans, and associating with Indians, Chinese, Europeans, Israelis, South Americans, and Africans in school has reduced my instinct to judge people who live according to systems of values different from mine. I guess I am broken in that way.

anthonyb8• 15 years ago

Which I think is the original article's point - we're living in what should be a time of plenty, but just having plenty isn't enough if you sacrifice everything else to get there.

moultano2• 15 years ago

>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.

On the contrary, I identify with the article because I know how stupid I am.

I know how manipulatable I am. I know how easy it is to hijack by overclocked-monkey-brain instincts. I know how subject I am to addictive behavior. I know how far I am from my ideal self. I know how much vigilance it takes to get closer to that ideal self.

I know that I am barely conscious for most of my life. The decisions I make throughout the day are mostly automatic, governed by forces trained on habit rather than intention. To live deliberately is a nearly impossible struggle with the meager tools at our disposal, and I'd be the last person to fault anyone for not doing it, or even for not desiring to.

It is not contradictory to believe that capitalism is the most effective engine for driving human ambition towards useful goals, and at the same time, decry the perverse incentives it creates to manipulate people against their interests and to destroy the environment.

I believe that capitalism is the best way to optimize a civilization towards an objective function. I don't believe that that objective function is correct, particularly when the the people optimizing for it have the ability to change it (through brand advertising, government influence, etc.) We ignore the tragedy of the commons at our peril.

In addition, a person freely making a bad decision of their own volition is not moral insulation for offering them that bad decision in the first place.

liamk• 15 years ago

"It is not contradictory to believe that capitalism is the most effective engine for driving human ambition towards useful goals, and at the same time, decry the perverse incentives it creates to manipulate people against their interests and to destroy the environment."

Extremely well put.

jsilver608• 15 years ago

"manipulate people against their interests and to destroy the environment."

What system doesn't do this? If it's not a corporation manipulating people against their interests, it's the government.

"a person freely making a bad decision of their own volition is not moral insulation for offering them that bad decision in the first place."

If a person can't freely make a bad decision, it means they have less freedom. It's also interesting, because many "bad decisions" are subjective. Would you consider allowing a woman to have an abortion a bad decision? How about drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or eating fatty foods?

All of these in one way or another are bad decisions, but I wouldn't want to be prevented from making them.

zoomzoom• 15 years ago

I don't think that it is the benefits of unbridled consumption that have people down. It is true that we live in a time that has amazing medicine, food, and communication.

The problem is that the oil, plastic, space for garbage, fertilizer for food, etc - the resources that our "amazing world" depends on - may not be unlimited. The depression sets in when you realize that with adequate foresight we could have enough amazing to get the benefits but without running our society into the ground; if only people had such foresight.

For most of the "conspiracy-nut losers" I think that your conjecture about the rubes and the sages makes sense. But for the thoughtful minority who believe in technology and consumption but also fear the excess of greedy monopolists, there is a real pearl of concern, it seems.

SageRaven2• 15 years ago

> We live in a time where the individual has more freedom to do what he wants with his life than ever before.

I'm not sure about that. Sure, we have infinitely more ways to work and play today, but freedom? I imagine that a US citizen from 200 years ago may be in awe of our advances in technology and medicine, but they'd likely be aghast by the erosion of our personal freedoms.

I wish I knew the source of the original shtick (it sounds like Paul Harvey), the one that goes something like this: Today's free man rises from bed, turns on his UL-approved lights, eats his USDA-stamped eggs and bacon for breakfast while watching his FCC-blessed TV, brushes his teeth with FDA-approved toothpaste, climbs into federal-safety-approved car with state-mandated insurance, to work at his OSHA-approved workplace, to get his state-taxed paycheck....

The original is so much more eloquent, but it certainly makes a farce out of the concept that any of us are truly free any more. Every facet of our daily lives is controlled by layers of regulation.

sachinag• 15 years ago

Heaven forbid you were a woman or black back then.

Furthermore, if you don't want to take advantage of regulations and consumer protections, you're more than welcome to raise your own damn pigs and build your own lamps in your home workshop.

idheitmann• 15 years ago

It also makes people do drugs. Such as frozen pizza.

I wonder what evolutionary psychology has to say about this phenomenon. Why is luxury so goddamn depressing?

ttttannebaum3• 15 years 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.

acconrad• 15 years 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.

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years 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.

moultano2• 15 years 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.)

DanielBMarkham2• 15 years 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• 15 years 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.

radu_floricica2• 15 years ago

> the only practical application is manipulating it

Or improve it?

blasdel• 15 years ago

Neither Coca-Cola nor Phillip Morris invented their products or market segments — cola/caffeine and tobacco/nicotine have been used for thousands of years by huge portions of every population to gain access to them.

The products have always sold themselves, if anything it's the marketers and behavioral psychologists that are the parasites (on the commodity-selling industries).

jasonkester• 15 years ago

It doesn't really matter whether the current system was designed by Evil Overlords or not. The author's description of the current state of things was reasonably accurate, so the question at hand is "what, as an individual, should I do about it?"

The first step in working the system is knowing that it's a system that can be worked.

Knowing that advertising, consumerism, competitiveness, worries about job security, etc. can be safely ignored is a good start. It then follows that you can wiggle yourself some extra disposable income and a healthy disinterest in your "career". From there, you quickly get to a state of perceived freedom. Keep going and maybe you'll figure out how to be happy. (hint: it doesn't require the addition of any new "stuff" to what you already have.)

fleitz• 15 years 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.

ttttannebaum3• 15 years ago

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

icarus_drowning• 15 years 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.

InclinedPlane2• 15 years 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.

Tycho2• 15 years 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.

ttttannebaum3• 15 years 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.

How to Make Trillions of Dollars

Related Stories