Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky |
Date: | Sat, 30 Oct 1999 09:12:10 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
It is a little difficult to see an analogy between starving ;mothers
on welfare (or better, now 'reformed' into the streets) and grandly
overpaid martini-lunchers on Madison Av.
The goods which the latter consume (expensive cars, etc.) were not made
by them and in fact they have no role in production. They are simply
parasitic. Their function again is to try to deal with over production
by convincing people to buy things which they don't really need, at
the expense of proper (more costly) food, education, medical care and
etc.
wcm
There is some
confustion here>
> William Meecham wrote:
> >The money is of course extracted from the economy, where else, and
> >must be paid for out of the wages of those doing productive work.
> >Over consumption must be overcome (lamely) else recession depressions
> >result since production must be stopped to prevent gigantic constipation
> >of the economic system. What it represents is value extracted from
> >productive labor, which advertising is not.
> >wcm
>
> The only way money can be 'extracted' from the economy is if people are
> burying it under their mattresses. The money is of course not 'extracted.'
>
> This is exactly the same argument used against welfare:
> Since money is God's report card and since God wants us to be productive in
> our endeavors, advertising people [welfare mothers] should be made to live
> on a garbage dump and gnaw diseased rodents until they see the errors of
> their ways and undertake productive work.
> Whether anyone's work is productive or not may not be a judgement we'd
> like to make.
>
|
|
|