On Big Stores and Advertising

Earnest Hemmingway wrote in his memoir, “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I agree completely. Not a day goes by that I do not think back fondly on my years walking the historic and fashionable streets of Paris. France left me with the indelible conviction that life is better when society is not so obnoxiously full of huge chain stores and pervasive advertising. Although the United States should avoid many Western European policies like the plague, we should follow their example by helping small shops and regulating manipulative, in-your-face advertising. Corporate stores and rampant advertising contribute to a materialistic culture and an undesirable physical environment, both of which are enemies of American spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Our American Dream should be about the contributions we will make to our families and to society, not about the stuff we buy.

Big Corporate Chain Stores

There are fewer and fewer small consumer-oriented businesses left in America. We buy our Chinese-manufactured clothing from chain stores. We buy our genetically modified groceries at chain stores. We buy our furniture from chain stores. Same goes with our electronics, hardware, beauty supplies, and sports equipment. Although there are a few Ma & Pa restaurants and shops around, we buy almost everything from big corporations. I dislike shopping at big chain shops because the quality of products and service is poor. There is a plausible argument that big chain stores are cheaper and more convenient than shopping at small shops. I generally disagree; but the argument is intelligent. However, that big corporations put out better quality products and services than small shops, nobody has even begun to prove. Owners of small shops take greater pride in their services and products. Products are higher quality when they are made by a particular craftsman for a particular customer. Unfortunately, many Americans have become habituated to poor quality products—plastics, wax, and cheap construction are everywhere. Similarly, small service providers tend to outdo their corporate counterparts.

I’d like to briefly address the arguments that big chain stores are better because they are cheaper and more convenient. Products are generally cheaper at big stores, but their duration is shorter, which costs more. For example, a tailored suit will be more comfortable, look better, and last longer than a mass-produced, cheap suit. It is very possible that the a man would have to buy two or three cheap suits to dress himself for the same amount of time that the tailor-made suit will last him. Big stores are probably cheaper than small stores to some extent, but much less than many Americans seem to think. If there were much fewer big shops around, shopping at little shops would be more convenient than shopping at the big places. It isn’t much more convenient to walk the length of a street in the same store; you might as well walk the same distance from little shop to little shop. Since all of our stores are huge nowadays, we have to travel longer distances to get what we need. If shops were smaller, we would be better able to walk to buy our food and supplies rather than have to drive—healthier, more sociable, and generally more pleasant.

I have found that many people do not know that public corporations are required by law to put the pecuniary interests of shareholders before all interests of consumers. Frequently, pleasing customers translates into increased profits, but not always. Big corporations wield their influence over government and society to make their job easier and more lucrative. They use their power to make things more convenient to make money, not more convenient for the consumer. They get customers addicted to a product or service and then decrease the quality with time. As a result, frivolous consumerism is way too much a part of American culture. The companies convince people that they need more stuff, not better stuff. The corporations convince people that they need things, they don’t really need. The corporations use advertising to teach people to envy others for their things and to feel like they are inadequate if they don’t keep up with the Joneses. It is even rather rare for critiques of corporate stores to show up in reputable publications because they are hesitant about publishing anything that will offend their sponsors.

In my opinion, this consumerism is exemplified by smartphone buying. I know a few people who spend exorbitant amounts to constantly upgrade from the iPhone 3GS, to the iPhone 4, to the iPhone 4S, and for what? Finicky voice-recognition software? A slightly improved camera? More likely, it is to keep up with the Joneses because they have fallen prey to the corporation’s message that your phone is a status symbol. Or, they have convinced them, through sly psychological trickery that stuff makes them happier than it actually does; that things are better than time. Despite all of the freedom and money we have in America, we are not the happiest people because we are too stressed about things that don’t matter. We need to stop spending our resources on stuff and status and start spending them on enjoying our family, nature, and culture—for that is where real happiness lies.

Additionally, the growth of big corporate stores concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer citizens. Some of my friends who disagree with my sentiment here argue that I am going against the free market. I am not so sure that I am—but, perhaps I am to a degree. I measure the value of the free market first by its ability to bring about a good society and secondarily by its ability to maximize wealth and American political power. Regardless, I think that these big chain stores are engaging in anticompetitive activity by elbowing out their competitors with an onslaught of manipulative advertising, political influence (e.g. procuring favorable changes in the tax structure, business regulation, etc.), and even pushing urban designs that favor big stores over little ones, even to the detriment of city beauty and the health of the environment.

Some businesses perhaps provide more public good to us as Americans if they are big. I do not doubt it. This essay is not against all big natural resources, pharmaceutical, manufacturing companies, etc. What I am convinced of is that quality of life is better when there are more SMALL SHOPS than there are corporate mega-chains. Having a few big stores is fine. But, the proliferation of corporate chain stores has weakened local economies, stripped communities of their beauty and character, and impoverished civic and cultural life in American towns and cities. 

Advertising

But wait, there’s more! We are practically drowning in the manipulative marketing of big shops. I have tried American-style advertising for free and I want to return it for a full refund. The trial was definitely not risk-free. It was fraught with puffery, misleading information, psychological chicanery, and false portrayals of reality. The ubiquitous nature of the loud and bright advertising is so constant that it fatigues you and pounces when you are too tired to adequately defend against its cunning attacks. You see, advertising works. It sells. But, it is annoying and bad for America on a cultural and moral level. Even the advertisements online are worse in the United States. They are more common, more in-your-face, brighter, and cheesier.

In my opinion, the only proper purpose of advertising is to inform people of their options with regard to products and services. Advertising in America is, to some degree, protected by the First Amendment and is backed by big-time support of lobbyists; but we need more truthful advertising, fewer commercials, fewer ugly billboards, and fewer product placements in the media. We need to emphasize America’s natural beauty and family values by making the places we live and the activities we engage in supportive of those things. 

Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome

There are two notions of equality that drive different political ideologies. The first is equality of opportunity. An equality of opportunity approach seeks to level the playing field by making the law apply equally to everyone. The second kind of equality is equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes seeks to ensure that everyone ends up in the same conditions. The two are mutually exclusive to some degree as equality of opportunity implies certain inequality of outcome. Only equality of opportunity is consistent with pure liberty. But, what kind of “equality of opportunity” should we seek in America? And, is the line between the two as clear as one might like to think?

Let’s look at a case study of affirmative action. The issue is obviously complex and some oversimplification will unfortunately be necessary to fit this into a neat little blog post. Racial inequality is measurable by educational indicators, socio-economic circumstances, crime rates, single mothers, and by a number of other sociological gauges. To correct for these inequalities, various affirmative action policies have been put into effect. Affirmative action policies can perhaps be grouped into two primary types. First, there are systematic remedies that seek to level the playing field and make the rules apply to everyone the same. Secondly, there are redistributive policies that seek to open up new opportunities.

What would justify affirmative action? Presumably, most all affirmative action policies would be unjustifiable if racial inequality arises from (1) innate biological inferiority (overwhelming evidence refutes this notion entirely); (2) cultural pathologies that deemphasize hard work, education, etc (some empirical evidence supports this); or (3) voluntary choices to pursue the paths that they do (very unlikely). However, what affirmative action policies are justified if (a) discrimination and stereotypes play a role in keeping a race down (informal barriers) or (b) structural based obstacles like segregation or a lack of family connections work against a race (formal barriers)?

Even libertarians think that structural or systematic obstacles stemming from government’s duplicitous treatment of different races should be abolished. But, to the extent that discrimination (overt and unconscious) still exists, should quotas, recruiting campaigns, or employee support programs be provided to members of a disadvantaged race? Although express quotas in hiring and school admissions are prohibited by law, unspoken redistributions of opportunity in many careers and school admissions are measurable statistically and legal. So, should discrimination be remedied by redistributions of opportunities? Such an approach would be an equality of outcomes approach. 

Affirming a belief in equality of opportunity implies a belief that government should make sure everyone starts off in the same place, not that everyone ends up in the same condition. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that people aren’t born in the same place. Although we are all of equal value in the eyes of our Heavenly Father, some of us are born to poor parents, others to rich parents; some are born in the United States, others in Somalia; some to parents who love one another, others never know one of their parents; etc. The only way to get everyone started off equally would be to institute some Spartan program of community child-rearing and a total prohibition of any gifts whether given inter vivos or after death. However, that just seems inherently wrong and completely inconsistent with freedom.

Should we simply ignore birth inequalities? I am tempted to say that it is better to let mysterious fate distribute opportunity rather than the arbitrary or fleeting preferences of government. But, I don’t think such an extreme view is the only answer to this puzzle.

A certain degree of economic inequality is desirable. Inequality provides rewards for hard work, talent, and achievement. It provides lubricant for social enterprise and progress. However, when inequality becomes too great, it animates pride, exploitation, discontent, and rebellion that cause societal decline. When crafting solutions to inequality, government should not focus on where to strike a balance between inequality and equality. Rather, I think the focus should be on balancing economic mobility with the freedom to bequest good things to our loved ones. That isn’t very precise; but I don’t think precise is possible. The slightest possibility of reaching the top of the Forbes Richest People list in a single lifetime is all that is necessary for proper income mobility in my view. 

I am thus only in favor of redistributive policies to the extent that all people have the minimum necessities of education, food, shelter, medical care, and life guidance to change their own fortunes and achieve unlimited success with the probabilities of economic success (for full-time, committed individuals mid-career) being chartable on a bell curve. With a more virtuous society, the bell curve will shift towards the prosperous; with a society in moral decline will shift towards the poor. But, the possibility to succeed or to lose should always be present. Real freedom can only be present if we are responsible for the consequences of our choices.

Given my acceptance of some forms of redistributive policies, it is worth mentioning that such policies have been egregiously mismanaged. First, the government not only redistributes things that are not the minimum necessities I described, but are actually detrimental to a disadvantaged person's chances of improving his or her situation. People don’t need a T.V. In fact, TVs do more damage than good. Somehow, people on government stipends for poverty, unemployment, etc afford televisions. People don’t need more bedrooms than there are people in their family; yet I see that in my service to those in government subsidized (or furnished) housing.  And, even the things government provides that people do need as minimum necessities are mismanaged on a large scale. Student loans are given in excessive amounts and without any risk assessment. Medicare pays for unnecessary stuff and pays more for the same services when compared to Veteran Affairs. Redundant programs (there are 23 agencies that provide independent and overlapping assistance to former USSR countries, 12 agencies that ensure food safety requirements are met, and the list goes on for a very long time) are the norm. The mismanagement of what should be proper government redistribution and regulation purposes cannot be understated.

I should also say that income mobility is not the most important thing in the world. Even people who end up not able to break through their birth social class can live joyful and meaningful lives. Indeed, the rich are often less happy, probably because they focus too much on money and too little on the more important things of life like faith, family, friends, and developing an honorable and virtuous character. Equality and freedom are instrumental in bringing forth a virtuous society. But, neither is the end in itself. Government policies should reflect that emphasis on virtuous living through freedom and equality rather than freedom and equality at the expense of virtue.