Saturday 20th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

fools gold .....

fools gold .....

Like the bloodthirsty un-dead of Transylvania, capitalism is essentially parasitic. Contrary to the inane mythology that anyone who dreams, comes up with a novel idea, follows Oprah “wisdom,” and works hard will eventually sport a net worth north of seven figures, there is very little true upward mobility in the United States. High regressive taxes, low progressive taxes, de facto monopolies, nepotism, cronyism, bribery, a legal system blind to economic crimes of the highest order, and a host of other factors ensure that the rich stay rich and that those in the working class have just enough to ensure their continued existence as hosts for their parasitic masters.

Most capitalists -those who rest comfortably at the apex of humanity’s pyramid of wealth and power AND reside in the penthouses of the Park Avenues of the world–do not engage in the activity which is the staple of existence for most of us.

Capitalists do not work. They may engage in taxing activities for long hours, but even then they are not working as most of us understand the concept. Capitalists are not compelled to expend their labor to provide for a family or to survive. They simply administer their vast fiduciary empires. They have “fuck all of you” money and have the choice of hiring armies of highly competent individuals to manage their affairs. Don’t look for Richard Mellon Scaife, John Franklyn Mars, Henry Kravis or the rest of their nauseating ilk to start punching a time clock anytime soon. While us “house negroes” in the United States and the “field hands” in the horribly exploited developing nations on the periphery of the Empire scratch and claw in quiet desperation, our lords and masters feast upon the blood, sweat and tears of our labor.

Profit Of Doom

branding like cattle...

Why we put tickets on ourselves Ross Gittins
August 29, 2007

It must be the newspaperman in me. I'm not prepared to carry free advertisements on my clothes. If Camel cigarettes or Yves Saint Laurent want me to advertise their products, they have to pay. But I do make one exception.

I'm willing - pleased, in fact - to wear a fleece with the word PALLIN written discreetly on the chest. When you wear something you bought from Paddy Pallin, you're announcing to the world: I'm not the couch potato I look; I lead an interesting, active, outdoor life.

When you wear PALLIN clothing you're making a statement: I'd rather be bushwalking. Which means, of course, that despite my superior airs, I too can be just another mug consumer. Buying certain brands to reveal my personality? What a schmuck.

I've been meaning for ages to get to the bottom of the role that brand names play in the modern consumer economy. Why? Because I don't like the thought that I'm being manipulated. I like to know what's going on under the bonnet. What the deal is.

The news on brands is, well … mixed. At one level they fulfil a useful, valuable role. At another, however, they're for people with more money than sense.

A mate who used to be in the brand management business tells me the best definition of a brand is that it's a promise - a promise of consistent quality.

The growth in the use of branding is a product of the way the world has become so much bigger, more complex, more impersonal and more short of time

--------------------

Gus: branding is not knew... It starts even before the early days of pseudo-hordes chiefs trying to be kings... It even goes back to the secret markings in Aboriginal caves beyond 40,000 years and on body markings... But since the industrial revolution, making sure people knew your products name has been a growing game, "the more I sell the more money I collect...." I will repeat myself here and invite Ross Gittings to read the funny books by E. T. Guntlach such as "Old Sox on Trumpeting" (published 1928), satirical books from the master of advertising himself (Guntlach started his own and most successful advertising company in the US back in 1915). The techniques aren't new, the purpose aren't new and there's always a point a which as individuals we will succumb and be "bought" — not so much succumbing to the irresistible desires that grew from not-knowing-we-had-wants that are "transformed" into "needs" — but the irresistible subliminal "why not try" and other discreet factors such as "the shoe fits", or "pricing", and the repeat of the message that slowly makes us recognize "the brand" no matter what...

The game played by "branders" is a game of statistical influence on a mob of individuals, never on a "mass market"... Not everyone will buy but enough will, so you can get your percent in a "market place" if more (most) people know you exist... Most political advisers would be versed in the delicate rules of this game in which you cannot alienate the most, but target the individual, while trying to "sell" to the true believers who on most occasions are in minority... Even branding cattle is done individually on each cow, heifer, calf, bull... never as a "cattle" as a whole... although some might try to throw ideas like bombs from a plane... but unlike bombs, ideas still demand an individual acceptance...

The fact of the matter is we are lazy and it is easier to accept someone else "branding" and be part of a mob, rather than "branding" ourselves. But even then the "branders" are smart, they give us the bits and pieces so we can individually brand ourselves with THEIR brands... with "mix and match"... If you look at advertising from the 1920s, you can see the branding already in operation: buying a certain kind of, say, watch or other stuff, places you in an upper echelon on the status scale... and one must have rock in their heads not to want a better status...

That the brander have bigger and bigger logos on one's accoutrement is like wearing the  colours of your king on your chest... Thus the design of the brand shall not demean your status, except in a deprecating way in which you raise your status as a smart arse...