Don't blame the American people for their legitimate and deserved desires.

Taplin's the one arguing that . . . . destor23

Not to come to Taplin's defense (Oh my God, never!) but he's really not doing much more than paraphrasing ideas set forth in The Affluent Society.

There, Galbraith, père, posited a competition between private, consumer goods and public goods and importantly, asserted that the private goods were winning due to the power of corporate sponsored advertising in developing heretofore unknown wants.

Galbraith's solution was the imposition of consumption taxes to level the playing field -- although he didn't use that phrase.

Was he right?

Pharmaceutical companies have taken to "advertising" their drugs directly to the public via television ads.

I think it was in Public Citizen that I read we now have any number of people demanding, at times against their Doctor's wishes, that their Doctor write a prescription for the drug the patient saw "advertised" on TV.

People don't know anything about the drug's side effects or any adverse reaction to other drugs they're taking.

I'm not referring to people in here who are generally educated and rational, I'm referring to the public HL Mencken saw.

By the way, Advertising got us the Bush/Cheney gang.

Pre-emptive strike ~~~> No, not all advertising is bad.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like the strength of the American economy, at least when the issue is discussed in the MSM, depends solely on the consumption of the American people. Not by what we produce/export, our real wages or our standard of living...only by how much we spend.

It always struck me as funny that after 9/11 the first thing Bush exorted the American people to do was 'go to the malls'...but now it becomes obvious why.

But as long as we remain an import/consumer dominated economy we will continue to fall further behind the rest of the world. The wealthy will continue to do well while the rest of us get squeezed more...because you don't rate until you get that big screen plasma TV that your neighbor just got talked into buying and neither of you really can afford. Don't forget all TV signals go digital next year...so remember to rush to the store and buy all the new stuff you're gonna need for that.

The advertising - and its efficacy - feeds into JK's emphasis on planning.

GM doesn't invest billions into assembly lines, logistics, labor etc etc, then on the day they start producing, just wish like hell someone shows up to buy one. Does anyone really need the 'information' that GM does in fact produce cars, and will happily sell one to you?

Conservatives have an odd way of defending the critique of advertising: the simply say it really doesn't 'manipulate' people the way liberals say. At which point I might ask why McCain bothers with ads.

Still, even given advertising's efficacy (click through tracking of web ads will soon give us concrete numbers on their effectiveness) a "Hidden Persuaders" ( by Vance Packard of chattering class 1950's fame)critique doesn't fully explain the 'rat race' of consumption.

I think James KG would agree that concepts from Thorstein Veblen (conspicuous waste, conspicuous liesure etc) help explain much of our 'rat race.'

The 72month auto loan, the auto lease, the interest only mortgage - all of these innovations are means to an end, which is to display to the world that you're propserous and elite.

Savings are at

...an average negative personal savings rate (two years running) for the first time in the history of the United States.

No surprise, that. It's part of the last generation's fleecing of the American middle class.

Advertising and the carefully cultivated belief that every successful American will live better than his/her parents are part of the story, but there's more.

For the last three decades the provision of all kinds of credit has climbed amazingly. In 1970 a few people had diner's club or American Express, but it primarily for business and travel expenses. But middle class income after inflation has not significantly increased since then. At the same time, the stagflation of the middle and late 70's meant that any savings in banks lost money.

Saving up to make a purchase became a fool's game. Credit was better. But the middle class was still making money on the appreciating value of their homes. But after that, Alan Greenspan decided to be the savior of the world economy during the southeast Asia financial crisis and lowered interest rates to where - again - saving money in a bank was a fool's game. While he did raise interest rates to tightened the economy in 2000 and defeat Al Gore, he lowered them to unheard of levels right after the election and kept then there until February 2005 when Bush was safely reelected.

Banks were paying interest rates at and below inflation on savings. Why save? It was better to buy now instead of deferring the purchase until you could pay cash for whatever it was. Buying real estate was where the money was to be made.

It's no surprise that after a generation in which savers were played as suckers, no one saves money in banks any more. But now, the one sure bet for saving - a home - has also been shown to be manipulated just like every other form of possible saving.

Savings are no longer a form of security. The Fed steals then as inflation or low interest rates. Last Spring I am told that the government bonds that were supposed to be set at the level of inflation plus a reasonable return were instead reset at the level of inflation! But of course, you still have to pay income taxes on the interest. And even set at the level of inflation those bonds pay over double what a bank CD will pay.

Your only form of security now is your job, and you better work twice as hard as the next guy who wants it if you want to keep that. Is it any wonder that no one with any sense at all now saves for anything?

The middle class has been thoroughly screwed, and it has all been in the name of the Reagan Revolution and the so-called free market which has actually been rigged like crooked casino games.