The Economics of Caring: Responsible Consumerism
Published August 02, 2007
Many products produced by giant multinationals in impoverished countries are cheap as a result. Take most of the products at your local Wal-Mart or other relatively cheap department or big box store. Price, it seems to me, was the original motivation for moving production to foreign countries. Most poor people, because they cannot afford anything else, buy these products. For these people I have much sympathy.
Of course not all similarly produced products are cheap. Many companies, despite their exploitative practices, sell products for outrageous prices. They have managed to use branding and fashion sense to inflate their prices. Sheeple (sheep-like people), often people with ample resources, mindless and insecure, buy these expensive products of exploitation at the huge profit of those responsible for the exploitation. For these people I have very little sympathy.
Most manufacturers of products that are locally produced and/or produced with sensitivity and awareness of environmental and social justice issues, are forced by an economy dominated by multinationals, and governments, to raise their prices, often just to survive. I understand that. This will not change until there are more environmentally and socially conscious companies in the marketplace, and/or until governments begin to legislate change, forcing change. It is difficult for anyone to compete with the multinationals, so more are slow to come. And government will not likely force change as long as it is profitable for them — supporting exploitation is profitable.
We the public, since we have all been rendered consumers, are ultimately responsible for forcing change. We are, to borrow an idea from Chomsky, the world's second superpower. We need to make choices in our consumption, choices that will starve companies that exploit the environment and people, and profit those who care about the environment and about people. The poorer masses simply cannot afford, in most cases, to make many of those choices. Of the poor I expect only small steps. Those with more disposable income have a much greater potential for making choices that force change. Of these I expect giant steps. Of those who have more, more must be expected.
- The Economics of Caring: Responsible Consumerism
- Published: August 02, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Filed Under: Culture: Advertising and Marketing, Culture: Business and Economics, Culture: Fashion and Beauty, Culture: Society
- Writer: Abram Bergen
- Abram Bergen's BC Writer page
- Abram Bergen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us


Abram Bergen is a logophile, thinker, reader, and writer. His research/writing interests include gender and sexuality issues, hybridity and identity politics, secular ethics, and ecosensitive technologies and lifestyles. His day job keeps him too much removed from the world of ideas and words.



I agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately I think most people don't want to think about it not because they're lazy so much as because they perceive they can't do anything about the situation, therefore thinking about it would only produce considerable stress, pain, &/or rage for them at their helplessness. Yes, if we all got together & boycotted multinationals that are irresponsible or unresponsive, we could make a difference, but trying to motivate enough people to make a difference is a herculean task that many if not most people have no conception how to get started, let alone execute to the fullest. Also, anyone who thinks that once such a movement is started, the multinationals in question/the targets aren't going to retaliate, is very mistaken, whether it be mere character assassination or (as is reputed of a couple of cases) actual assassination - altho mostly they control enough of the MSM to just roll over & ignore protesters, or more likely, mount an extensive counter-advertising campaign as Walmart did, all the while changing not a damned thing. They don't have to, because there are, unfortunately, enough poor who can't afford any alternative, as well as far too many sheeple, who are indifferent or too stupid to care.