11.12.04 [ Adbuster-buster ] 2 comments 
Right beside the "got angst?" section in Chapters is the magazine section. Here, you can find a periodical publication tailored to your demographic; from extreme skiing to computer repair to classical history to loathing of corporate structure -- whatever "your thing", it's there. How I ended up owning the "special year end issue" of Adbusters, I will never know; but I did. And later, I even read it.
Firstly, the irony is almost insulting: the magazine is globally syndicated yet preaches against global syndication; it pays lip service to anti-consumerism with a photograph of a "Christmas Gift Exemption Voucher" (just before the "business" section), yet contains three "Give Adbusters as a gift" pullout cards, "we accept VISA and MasterCard: Subscribe online"; twenty-five pages are dedicated to hatred of all things technological, with no admission for the impossibility of the magazine's creation without computers, lithograph presses, cell-phones, email, cars, digital cameras, televisions, others. In fact, the worst thing that could possibly happen for this magazine, would be to declare any of its goals accomplished.
I must admit, I am angry because I bought the damn thing. They tricked me. I was taken in by the headline: "The Big Ideas 2005". How was I to know that it would be more of same petition-era rhetoric, more "damn the man that we don't understand," more flash without dash, more meaningless garbage?
Well, actually, I buy the magazine on a regular basis. In fact, I nonchalantly left the "give Adbusters as a gift" pullout card on the kitchen table as a not so subtle hint. But, I am angry. It is the "truecost economics" that has hit too close to home.
Yeah! You tell 'em. Stupid Econ profs and their stupid disciples ... wait a minute, they're talking about my professors, and me. Clearly, there must have been some mistake. So, I read on.
Woah ... hold on there, buddy. It is obvious that the author of this piece has not bothered to read on economic theory beyond ECON 101. Firstly, my degree is from the Facult of Arts. Economics is a social science, how nice of you to notice.
Clearly, this person was unable to fulfill the mathematical component of his schooling and has reurned in literaty form with a vengeance. Somehow, it feels like this piece should be reading: "I got a poor grade on your exam! I need to prove myself superior to you!"
Math is not difficult, buddy. It just takes a little practice (like anything).
But, one of the first things taught to me during my program is that economic analysis is not universally applicable. Nancy Olewiler argues that public policies targeted towards social welfare should be comprehensive; neoclassically based economic programs are an important component of a complete policy platform.
And, frankly, the need for economics arises because the deeper dilemma, moral incompetence of economic agents, is difficult to address: "people don't necessarily have readily available moral buttons to push [...]"[1] (3). So, rather than blaming individuals' lack of care, it can be more convenient and effective to blame the set up of the economy and its institutions. For, from an economist's standpoint, moral discrepancies are easy to rationalize thus, they are easy to address.
[1] Olewiler, Field Environmental Economics: Second Canadian Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson; Toronto: 2002
Firstly, the irony is almost insulting: the magazine is globally syndicated yet preaches against global syndication; it pays lip service to anti-consumerism with a photograph of a "Christmas Gift Exemption Voucher" (just before the "business" section), yet contains three "Give Adbusters as a gift" pullout cards, "we accept VISA and MasterCard: Subscribe online"; twenty-five pages are dedicated to hatred of all things technological, with no admission for the impossibility of the magazine's creation without computers, lithograph presses, cell-phones, email, cars, digital cameras, televisions, others. In fact, the worst thing that could possibly happen for this magazine, would be to declare any of its goals accomplished.
I must admit, I am angry because I bought the damn thing. They tricked me. I was taken in by the headline: "The Big Ideas 2005". How was I to know that it would be more of same petition-era rhetoric, more "damn the man that we don't understand," more flash without dash, more meaningless garbage?
Well, actually, I buy the magazine on a regular basis. In fact, I nonchalantly left the "give Adbusters as a gift" pullout card on the kitchen table as a not so subtle hint. But, I am angry. It is the "truecost economics" that has hit too close to home.
We, the undersigned, make this accusation: that you, the teachers of neoclassical economics and the students that you graduate, have perpetuated a gigantic fraud
Yeah! You tell 'em. Stupid Econ profs and their stupid disciples ... wait a minute, they're talking about my professors, and me. Clearly, there must have been some mistake. So, I read on.
You claim to work in a pure science of formula and law, but yours is a social science, with all the fragility and uncertainty that this entails. We accuse you of pretending to be what you are not.
Woah ... hold on there, buddy. It is obvious that the author of this piece has not bothered to read on economic theory beyond ECON 101. Firstly, my degree is from the Facult of Arts. Economics is a social science, how nice of you to notice.
Clearly, this person was unable to fulfill the mathematical component of his schooling and has reurned in literaty form with a vengeance. Somehow, it feels like this piece should be reading: "I got a poor grade on your exam! I need to prove myself superior to you!"
Math is not difficult, buddy. It just takes a little practice (like anything).
But, one of the first things taught to me during my program is that economic analysis is not universally applicable. Nancy Olewiler argues that public policies targeted towards social welfare should be comprehensive; neoclassically based economic programs are an important component of a complete policy platform.
And, frankly, the need for economics arises because the deeper dilemma, moral incompetence of economic agents, is difficult to address: "people don't necessarily have readily available moral buttons to push [...]"[1] (3). So, rather than blaming individuals' lack of care, it can be more convenient and effective to blame the set up of the economy and its institutions. For, from an economist's standpoint, moral discrepancies are easy to rationalize thus, they are easy to address.
[1] Olewiler, Field Environmental Economics: Second Canadian Edition. McGraw-Hill Ryerson; Toronto: 2002
Consider an example: firm X is dependent upon near-slave labour to offer its commodity (let's say cloth) to the North American consumer market. I would say that such an action is wrong. However, I will not put faith into the social conciousness of North Americans (NAs) as moral consumers to, en masse boycotte Firm X's product because of its labour practices. The only way NAs will adjust their choices is if the price of cloth from this firm exceeded the standard, market clearing price of cloth.
Here is a case where economic policy can come into play. A governing agent (with a mandate for something like POGG) can adjust the market structure accordingly. The easiest method is to put a hefty import tax on all articles coming from nations which tolerate the exploitation of labour -- this, though, is developmentally suppressive. For the government to take a moral stand, it must ban the sale of products produced with slave labour.
However, such would require some definition of "near-slave labour" that could not be universally applicable. Most likely, under this premise, a government would simply boycott goods from certain nations.
There exists a solution to such a dillemma deep within the bowels of neoclassical theory that would never be undertaken by any self-respecting government: all nations must have free mobility of labour; it must be costless, in time and money, for a worker to move and work and earn income from one country to another. In such a circumstance, the governing agency of the NA country would not be placing its values on the foreign nation. Merely, it would give freedom to worldwide labourers to choose an employment context where they feel that they are paid what they are worth.
The net effects of this approach will be two-fold: wages in the exploiting nation will increase as its labour supply decreases; wages in the consumer country will decrease as its labour supply increases. It is for the latter reason that no nation will ever adopt this policy.
At any rate, I get a little long-winded for your clean and precise observation. The point is: economic analysis (including the hyper-rationalised individual assumption) can be an important tool. Moreover, with respect to the stated goals of Adbuster's anti-economics crew, there is no more effective an analytical tool than neoclassical economics.
I just think they should build and contribute rather than protest and petition.
Post a Comment