Somewhat tangential to the discussion about burning disco records: I watched a documentary about the Bee Gees and Barry Gibb believes that the reason the *Saturday Night Fever* soundtrack did so well is because the disco music was done by white guys. He believes racism was a key factor in the "disco sucks" movement, and it's hard to argue, particularly when you've already stated here that only "white guys with guitars" in rock music count as authentic. It's essentially the same argument black people have made about Elvis Presley stealing black music and making it palatable to a white audience. Both rocketed to stardom (or in the case of the Bee Gees, had a major comeback) with music originated by black/latino artists.
1st, good essay. The only reason I'm writing this screed is because it is one of the few pieces on Substack I've found that didn't make me want to blow my brains out. Now, on to the "criticism"
WTF, "there’s nothing noble about the act of consumption itself", that's not "the most potent part of that 90s counterculture". The most potent part of the 90s counterculture, the underlying idea behind the concept of "selling out", is what you highlighted in the beginning. That "commercial success and artistic integrity are so obviously at odds with one another".
If there's nothing "noble" about consumption, then why is there anything "ignoble" about it. No, you are trying to argue that we need to be more noble about our consumption, that we shouldn't reward the pop stars who only stand for capital. That's fine, but you see, the problem isn't that we view consumption as moral, the point of this piece is that we've done that since the 90s, only the valence has flipped.
Look, nobody believes in the concept of selling out anymore, partially because they don't think commercial success and artistic integrity are that much at odds (obviously you don't, you've got this newsletter!). But also, because most people don't believe much in artistic integrity. Why is artistic integrity a good thing? Your tagline is, "Find what's true and make it useful". You can argue artistic integrity is about finding truth. But making it useful? That's where you dip into commercial success. Art isn't about use, and thinking in this manner can degrade it.
But let alone artistic integrity, most people don't believe much in integrity full stop. The underlying ethos of "getting the bag", I think you're wrong, that the riches of the famous are "incidental" to their fame. The whole point of being famous, is that you can convert this into dollars. That's the idea. If you couldn't do this, being famous would be much less appealing. We are still a money-obsessed culture, there's a reason Mr. Beast's videos so often have a dollar amount in the title.
The other thing, is that most of pop culture, most of culture, is geared towards children and teens, since that is where the most attention is available. Where you complain about our awful culture, are you sure it's not just you getting old? But more importantly, this means that instead of convincing sober older "readers" to change our culture, where you're more often than not preaching to the choir, you have to convince younger "watchers" to change the culture.
Anyways, good piece, I don't see selling out coming back, because there is no real way to implement it, those who sell out will spread further, and even if we reintegrate the culture, I think Pearl Jam was selling out, so there's really no winning. If you make your music available to be heard, for a price, are you not selling out? Or is it only selling out if you're making "too much" money. I think the world will be much richer in the future than it is right now, and so it is impossible to sell out in our present age, after all, Jeff Bezos is a miser compared to the average person in 2100. One can dream
As a general rule, celebrity endorsements tend to turn me off a product. Tie in packaging, you’d have to pay me (and well) to use it even if I liked the celebrity’s work. No, not giving YOU money for that. Dunno if it’s because I was around for the nineties. Think I always kinda felt that way.
I think it’s just annoyance with the noise and commercialism. Not so much a reasoned boycott as a twitch. I can maybe excuse it if there is possibly relevant domain knowledge—a musician I like or an athlete performing well saying hey I like the instruments or equipment or sporting gear X company makes for Y reasons, I might pay some attention if it looks like they’re really saying it because that’s really their experience, and okay maybe that’s not unreasonable of them to do. Even then tho I’m probably more thinking, yeah, okay, taking note of your opinion and maybe I’ll give them a try but I do want to try them myself first. And always a little suspicious they were more looking at the endorsement money than the actual quality.
And generally, if you’re paying someone to endorse your cookies, or to let you print their name on them, you’re paying them to chase me away from them.
Even a product I already like enough to use, you don’t want to film a pop star saying I love those. It’s likely to make me less enthusiastic. I might look elsewhere. I think a part of me is thinking wait what’s wrong with those you feel you need to do this? Or more likely: I really am just a bit annoyed again.
It just seems cheesy, a little too manipulative. Granted, I get advertising is meant to be the latter: the message is always buy this. But while I get promotion is just part of commerce, and fine fair play saying we make a thing we think is good and we want you to buy, I find it, I dunno, kinda especially insulting to the intelligence a pop star saying hey now you can have Oreos with my name on them. Thanks, no. I think I’d be a little embarrassed having those in my kitchen. Don’t care if it’s trendy. I can live with being untrendy.
I do own a few Ralph Lauren things with the little polo pony, some athletic gear with visible logos. A lot of it this is pretty difficult to avoid. Not generally against people saying we made this and we’re proud of it. Not really anti label. More just annoyed by pointless, unrelated endorsements.
Well written. It's amusing that "late stage capitalism" is 100 years old. Yeah, that death rattle just keeps rattling on, dunnit? Inconvenient fact about capitalism, no other economic system in history has resulting in greater gains for more people in less time. Yes, the rich get richer, but there are also a lot more rich people than there used to be. And folks keep trying to get in so they can get rich. The poor aren't as poor as they used to be, either. True, there's a huge divide between the very rich and very poor, but that's been the case since Gonk could knap flint better than Kronk. Inequality is a fact of humanity, and every attempt to eradicate it at scale has only made it worse.
People have a right to a decent living, but not at someone else's expense unless they're a child or an invalid. So if you can do something that other people need or want, that's a good thing. If it's something that a lot of people need and want, chances are it'll do a lot of good and also make you rich. Nothing wrong with that. Most billionaires today got rich by doing things that made the world better for hundreds of millions of people. Gates lowered the cost of software by a factor of 1,000. Ellison built a standard data infrastructure. Musk and his partners enabled secure online micropayments. Jobs put a device in our pockets that let us access nearly all human knowledge and speak face to face with anyone else on the planet. Bezos created a system that let us order nearly anything and have it delivered, now. Page and Brin let us get answers to any question on a whim, instantly, and find anything. Altman may have either created a monster or ushered in a new golden age; time will tell.
Now, maybe that thing you do is utterly ephemeral. You haven't invented something new and useful that will save lives and reduce misery. You just make noises that people like to listen to. Well, people still find that of value, don't they? They trade their labor for money, and trade their money for your noises, and like your noises well enough that they'll also buy stuff with your name on it just because it has your name on it. Partly because that makes them feel like they're part of something bigger than themselves. (Paging Dr. Maslow...)
I'm old enough to remember the KISS Army. Heck, I'm old enough to remember hippies - young people who rebelled against authority (especially against "selling out"), who rejected conformity and embraced freedom and self-expression (and somehow all looked alike as a result). They're now mostly living on pensions and Social Security, and God help you if you threaten those entitlements. Don't ask them about "selling out." The conversation isn't likely to go well.
I think a more interesting question is what human needs does the current consumer economy fulfill? Mostly because I believe incentives are more effective than telling people not to eat Lady Gaga Oreos.
For example, making anti-consumerism cool again. Meaning if you're not buying celebrity-endorsed crap you get extra status points by your peers.
Challenge is, of course, there's no financial incentive for corporations. And they would be working very hard and fast on ways to monetize anti-consumerism. (that will make your head explode a little).
I'm all for reducing consumerism and mindless consumption. It's way better for the planet and for us humans in the long run. How to make it "cool" is the fun and interesting challenge. I think it's possible but it requires creativity, will, and influence.
I did a paper in my marketing class in college about the effect of the counterculture on the clothing industry. It got me a job offer from Squire Shops. That tells you how old I am now.
There’s a great documentary about Kenny G by Penny Lane. On the surface it’s about the musician, but it’s really more about selling out, critics, elitism, etc. For people who don’t know, Kenny G is generally mocked and hated by “serious” music people, but is one of the best selling musicians ever.
Anyway, I highly recommend it anyone who found this post and discussion as interesting as I did.
This is the line that needs to be amplified: "I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me." Yes, this is what art is for.
But didn't you have an example of a Heineken ad that helped people understand each other? So I guess it's possible for ads to delve into art?
The example you used here that caught my attention was Maroon 5, because I recently learned via the Lonely Island podcast that Adam Levine was excited to jump on the Iran So Far digital short after Kanye turned it down when he heard that a potential worst case outcome was that there would be a fatwa called on him. People change a lot in 15 years, it seems. Or maybe not. Not caring about a potential fatwa is maybe the same kind of short-sighted thinking as not caring what people will think when you cover a music legend for a car commercial?
Also, I recently heard a commercial for instant oatmeal that used the Ramones' "Hey Ho, Let's Go". Apparently that was the best way to celebrate the song's 50th anniversary. But I also think, how watered down is punk in the first place that oatmeal ad execs think that it's all good associations?
So, my qualifications for commenting on this: (1) I've been writing for The Singles Jukebox (where my colleague Katherine St. Asaph had her own argument with W. David Marx, see https://thesinglesjukebox.com/addison-rae-fame-is-a-gun/, and by the way "Fame Is a Gun" is a good song made great by Rebecca Black's cover) since 2013; (2) I once wrote an eleven-part essay series prompted by my favorite pop group; the poptimism discussion is after the Adorno discussion but before the Bay City Rollers discussion.
So my first inquiry is how culturally specific that artists-shouldn't-make-commercials standard is. I know Japanese artists have been doing commercials for quite a while, since I remember Patrick St. Michel recapping Perfume's ventures into commercials more than a decade ago. (For a more recent example, look up the Tatsuya Kitani / yama duet "As I Longed For," an absolutely gorgeous song that happens to be set to a lot of footage of Hyundais.) Similarly, in K-pop, your favorite group is unlikely to survive more than a year or two unless one or more of its members start picking up "CF money" from endorsements.
But, closer to home: you left out Snoop Dogg. I say this as someone who owns Snoop Dogg’s cookbook. (The candied peppered bacon is excellent.) But does it make sense to talk about Snoop Dogg “selling out”? Or Michael Jordan, for that matter, even after he famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too?” It seems to me that even in the 1990s we recognized, however dimly, that shunning various avenues of wealth creation was a luxury black artists and their communities could afford less. (I am reminded of the argument that fur coats, for example, work badly as an investment, but if you’re a minority community with a history of trouble being served properly by banks, then they look a lot better—see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/style/fur-black-women-history.html.)
I think part of what you’re attributing to a deadening of taste is the simple fact that, since the 1990s, the music industry in particular has changed to the point that taking a Fugazi-like stance has gone from merely difficult to nearly impossible. (Even for bands that don’t “sell out.” I love They Might Be Giants; I saw them in concert with my kid last fall, and would happily go again; I want the Johns to have a luxurious retirement. But if we’re going to go after Ice Spice for her Dunkin’s deal—a smart move, by the way, since her musical career looks like it’ll be short—then we should ask how much distance there is between that and offering multiple different vinyl pressings for Flood.) And audiences know this—and critics, who lost their ability to get paid by newspapers and magazines during this time, know it too.
This has gone on long enough, so I’ll only mention that I think the relationships between fans and their chosen celebrities is more complicated (and uglier) than is being suggested here. (As in, the celebrity is a backdrop for interactions with other fans, or even a commodity by which the fan can advertise something about themselves.) If you’re interested, Monia Ali runs a worthwhile Substack on the subject: https://exiledfan.substack.com/
> John Steinbeck’s famous explanation was that, in the United States at least, poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.
This is a famous misquote, which you acknowledge, but you keep the misinterpretation attached to the misquote.
The actual comment Steinbeck made suggested quite the opposite: that all of the communists in the United States literally were temporarily embarassed millionaires, not actual proletarians.
Consumption is anti-capitalist. People should be free to turn their hard earned capital into easily consumable Gaga Oreos, but it would be better for everybody if they invested that capital in a company that develops ultra efficient cookie ovens. That way we get cheaper Oreos, the company gets bigger profits, and depending on the sources of oven energy, the environment wins too.
Somewhat tangential to the discussion about burning disco records: I watched a documentary about the Bee Gees and Barry Gibb believes that the reason the *Saturday Night Fever* soundtrack did so well is because the disco music was done by white guys. He believes racism was a key factor in the "disco sucks" movement, and it's hard to argue, particularly when you've already stated here that only "white guys with guitars" in rock music count as authentic. It's essentially the same argument black people have made about Elvis Presley stealing black music and making it palatable to a white audience. Both rocketed to stardom (or in the case of the Bee Gees, had a major comeback) with music originated by black/latino artists.
1st, good essay. The only reason I'm writing this screed is because it is one of the few pieces on Substack I've found that didn't make me want to blow my brains out. Now, on to the "criticism"
WTF, "there’s nothing noble about the act of consumption itself", that's not "the most potent part of that 90s counterculture". The most potent part of the 90s counterculture, the underlying idea behind the concept of "selling out", is what you highlighted in the beginning. That "commercial success and artistic integrity are so obviously at odds with one another".
If there's nothing "noble" about consumption, then why is there anything "ignoble" about it. No, you are trying to argue that we need to be more noble about our consumption, that we shouldn't reward the pop stars who only stand for capital. That's fine, but you see, the problem isn't that we view consumption as moral, the point of this piece is that we've done that since the 90s, only the valence has flipped.
Look, nobody believes in the concept of selling out anymore, partially because they don't think commercial success and artistic integrity are that much at odds (obviously you don't, you've got this newsletter!). But also, because most people don't believe much in artistic integrity. Why is artistic integrity a good thing? Your tagline is, "Find what's true and make it useful". You can argue artistic integrity is about finding truth. But making it useful? That's where you dip into commercial success. Art isn't about use, and thinking in this manner can degrade it.
But let alone artistic integrity, most people don't believe much in integrity full stop. The underlying ethos of "getting the bag", I think you're wrong, that the riches of the famous are "incidental" to their fame. The whole point of being famous, is that you can convert this into dollars. That's the idea. If you couldn't do this, being famous would be much less appealing. We are still a money-obsessed culture, there's a reason Mr. Beast's videos so often have a dollar amount in the title.
The other thing, is that most of pop culture, most of culture, is geared towards children and teens, since that is where the most attention is available. Where you complain about our awful culture, are you sure it's not just you getting old? But more importantly, this means that instead of convincing sober older "readers" to change our culture, where you're more often than not preaching to the choir, you have to convince younger "watchers" to change the culture.
Anyways, good piece, I don't see selling out coming back, because there is no real way to implement it, those who sell out will spread further, and even if we reintegrate the culture, I think Pearl Jam was selling out, so there's really no winning. If you make your music available to be heard, for a price, are you not selling out? Or is it only selling out if you're making "too much" money. I think the world will be much richer in the future than it is right now, and so it is impossible to sell out in our present age, after all, Jeff Bezos is a miser compared to the average person in 2100. One can dream
"most people don't believe much in integrity full stop." Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth....
Oh yes. Thanks. Another masterpiece.
Make it a manifesto, and I'll follow
As a general rule, celebrity endorsements tend to turn me off a product. Tie in packaging, you’d have to pay me (and well) to use it even if I liked the celebrity’s work. No, not giving YOU money for that. Dunno if it’s because I was around for the nineties. Think I always kinda felt that way.
I think it’s just annoyance with the noise and commercialism. Not so much a reasoned boycott as a twitch. I can maybe excuse it if there is possibly relevant domain knowledge—a musician I like or an athlete performing well saying hey I like the instruments or equipment or sporting gear X company makes for Y reasons, I might pay some attention if it looks like they’re really saying it because that’s really their experience, and okay maybe that’s not unreasonable of them to do. Even then tho I’m probably more thinking, yeah, okay, taking note of your opinion and maybe I’ll give them a try but I do want to try them myself first. And always a little suspicious they were more looking at the endorsement money than the actual quality.
And generally, if you’re paying someone to endorse your cookies, or to let you print their name on them, you’re paying them to chase me away from them.
Even a product I already like enough to use, you don’t want to film a pop star saying I love those. It’s likely to make me less enthusiastic. I might look elsewhere. I think a part of me is thinking wait what’s wrong with those you feel you need to do this? Or more likely: I really am just a bit annoyed again.
It just seems cheesy, a little too manipulative. Granted, I get advertising is meant to be the latter: the message is always buy this. But while I get promotion is just part of commerce, and fine fair play saying we make a thing we think is good and we want you to buy, I find it, I dunno, kinda especially insulting to the intelligence a pop star saying hey now you can have Oreos with my name on them. Thanks, no. I think I’d be a little embarrassed having those in my kitchen. Don’t care if it’s trendy. I can live with being untrendy.
I take it you do not wear a tee-shirt that says "Prada" on it. I don't wear logo anything.
I do own a few Ralph Lauren things with the little polo pony, some athletic gear with visible logos. A lot of it this is pretty difficult to avoid. Not generally against people saying we made this and we’re proud of it. Not really anti label. More just annoyed by pointless, unrelated endorsements.
Preach!
Well written. It's amusing that "late stage capitalism" is 100 years old. Yeah, that death rattle just keeps rattling on, dunnit? Inconvenient fact about capitalism, no other economic system in history has resulting in greater gains for more people in less time. Yes, the rich get richer, but there are also a lot more rich people than there used to be. And folks keep trying to get in so they can get rich. The poor aren't as poor as they used to be, either. True, there's a huge divide between the very rich and very poor, but that's been the case since Gonk could knap flint better than Kronk. Inequality is a fact of humanity, and every attempt to eradicate it at scale has only made it worse.
People have a right to a decent living, but not at someone else's expense unless they're a child or an invalid. So if you can do something that other people need or want, that's a good thing. If it's something that a lot of people need and want, chances are it'll do a lot of good and also make you rich. Nothing wrong with that. Most billionaires today got rich by doing things that made the world better for hundreds of millions of people. Gates lowered the cost of software by a factor of 1,000. Ellison built a standard data infrastructure. Musk and his partners enabled secure online micropayments. Jobs put a device in our pockets that let us access nearly all human knowledge and speak face to face with anyone else on the planet. Bezos created a system that let us order nearly anything and have it delivered, now. Page and Brin let us get answers to any question on a whim, instantly, and find anything. Altman may have either created a monster or ushered in a new golden age; time will tell.
Now, maybe that thing you do is utterly ephemeral. You haven't invented something new and useful that will save lives and reduce misery. You just make noises that people like to listen to. Well, people still find that of value, don't they? They trade their labor for money, and trade their money for your noises, and like your noises well enough that they'll also buy stuff with your name on it just because it has your name on it. Partly because that makes them feel like they're part of something bigger than themselves. (Paging Dr. Maslow...)
I'm old enough to remember the KISS Army. Heck, I'm old enough to remember hippies - young people who rebelled against authority (especially against "selling out"), who rejected conformity and embraced freedom and self-expression (and somehow all looked alike as a result). They're now mostly living on pensions and Social Security, and God help you if you threaten those entitlements. Don't ask them about "selling out." The conversation isn't likely to go well.
Industrious immigrants move here from a cardboard house in a slum and pretty soon they have a car and a nice apartment with a big screen TV.
I think a more interesting question is what human needs does the current consumer economy fulfill? Mostly because I believe incentives are more effective than telling people not to eat Lady Gaga Oreos.
For example, making anti-consumerism cool again. Meaning if you're not buying celebrity-endorsed crap you get extra status points by your peers.
Challenge is, of course, there's no financial incentive for corporations. And they would be working very hard and fast on ways to monetize anti-consumerism. (that will make your head explode a little).
I'm all for reducing consumerism and mindless consumption. It's way better for the planet and for us humans in the long run. How to make it "cool" is the fun and interesting challenge. I think it's possible but it requires creativity, will, and influence.
I did a paper in my marketing class in college about the effect of the counterculture on the clothing industry. It got me a job offer from Squire Shops. That tells you how old I am now.
LOL there were dinosaurs on the planet when I was doing consumer marketing.
There’s a great documentary about Kenny G by Penny Lane. On the surface it’s about the musician, but it’s really more about selling out, critics, elitism, etc. For people who don’t know, Kenny G is generally mocked and hated by “serious” music people, but is one of the best selling musicians ever.
Anyway, I highly recommend it anyone who found this post and discussion as interesting as I did.
This is the line that needs to be amplified: "I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me." Yes, this is what art is for.
But didn't you have an example of a Heineken ad that helped people understand each other? So I guess it's possible for ads to delve into art?
The example you used here that caught my attention was Maroon 5, because I recently learned via the Lonely Island podcast that Adam Levine was excited to jump on the Iran So Far digital short after Kanye turned it down when he heard that a potential worst case outcome was that there would be a fatwa called on him. People change a lot in 15 years, it seems. Or maybe not. Not caring about a potential fatwa is maybe the same kind of short-sighted thinking as not caring what people will think when you cover a music legend for a car commercial?
Also, I recently heard a commercial for instant oatmeal that used the Ramones' "Hey Ho, Let's Go". Apparently that was the best way to celebrate the song's 50th anniversary. But I also think, how watered down is punk in the first place that oatmeal ad execs think that it's all good associations?
If the Selena Gomez oreos weren't so damn good, I'd be with you on this
This article is unfairly mean to credit default swaps, an important hedging tool! Otherwise, great stuff. Bring back the snobs.
So, my qualifications for commenting on this: (1) I've been writing for The Singles Jukebox (where my colleague Katherine St. Asaph had her own argument with W. David Marx, see https://thesinglesjukebox.com/addison-rae-fame-is-a-gun/, and by the way "Fame Is a Gun" is a good song made great by Rebecca Black's cover) since 2013; (2) I once wrote an eleven-part essay series prompted by my favorite pop group; the poptimism discussion is after the Adorno discussion but before the Bay City Rollers discussion.
So my first inquiry is how culturally specific that artists-shouldn't-make-commercials standard is. I know Japanese artists have been doing commercials for quite a while, since I remember Patrick St. Michel recapping Perfume's ventures into commercials more than a decade ago. (For a more recent example, look up the Tatsuya Kitani / yama duet "As I Longed For," an absolutely gorgeous song that happens to be set to a lot of footage of Hyundais.) Similarly, in K-pop, your favorite group is unlikely to survive more than a year or two unless one or more of its members start picking up "CF money" from endorsements.
But, closer to home: you left out Snoop Dogg. I say this as someone who owns Snoop Dogg’s cookbook. (The candied peppered bacon is excellent.) But does it make sense to talk about Snoop Dogg “selling out”? Or Michael Jordan, for that matter, even after he famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too?” It seems to me that even in the 1990s we recognized, however dimly, that shunning various avenues of wealth creation was a luxury black artists and their communities could afford less. (I am reminded of the argument that fur coats, for example, work badly as an investment, but if you’re a minority community with a history of trouble being served properly by banks, then they look a lot better—see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/style/fur-black-women-history.html.)
I think part of what you’re attributing to a deadening of taste is the simple fact that, since the 1990s, the music industry in particular has changed to the point that taking a Fugazi-like stance has gone from merely difficult to nearly impossible. (Even for bands that don’t “sell out.” I love They Might Be Giants; I saw them in concert with my kid last fall, and would happily go again; I want the Johns to have a luxurious retirement. But if we’re going to go after Ice Spice for her Dunkin’s deal—a smart move, by the way, since her musical career looks like it’ll be short—then we should ask how much distance there is between that and offering multiple different vinyl pressings for Flood.) And audiences know this—and critics, who lost their ability to get paid by newspapers and magazines during this time, know it too.
This has gone on long enough, so I’ll only mention that I think the relationships between fans and their chosen celebrities is more complicated (and uglier) than is being suggested here. (As in, the celebrity is a backdrop for interactions with other fans, or even a commodity by which the fan can advertise something about themselves.) If you’re interested, Monia Ali runs a worthwhile Substack on the subject: https://exiledfan.substack.com/
really funny that you used post malone as the oreo example because he literally just did do something with dude wipes for his tour https://shop.postmalone.com/products/posty-co-dude-wipes-3-pack?srsltid=AfmBOopBIdU6KHFvpEIGJMEUsCQgvPfgubwv4jAHFsBtblQb7pBpmIQ_
> John Steinbeck’s famous explanation was that, in the United States at least, poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.
This is a famous misquote, which you acknowledge, but you keep the misinterpretation attached to the misquote.
The actual comment Steinbeck made suggested quite the opposite: that all of the communists in the United States literally were temporarily embarassed millionaires, not actual proletarians.
The Rolling Stones first had a song in a TV commercial in 1995. Bob Dylan in 1996. By 2005 he was on screen in a Victoria's Secret ad.
Consumption is anti-capitalist. People should be free to turn their hard earned capital into easily consumable Gaga Oreos, but it would be better for everybody if they invested that capital in a company that develops ultra efficient cookie ovens. That way we get cheaper Oreos, the company gets bigger profits, and depending on the sources of oven energy, the environment wins too.