Friday, 4 March 2011

The New Industrial State


John Kenneth Galbraith was born on October 15th 1908 in America. He was an economist and a Keynesian.

Keynes (Galbraiths influence), opposed the original ideologies of Laissez-Faire Capitalism which believed that the market would achieve balance by itself. He instead believed the Government should step in to increase spending whenever and wherever the case may be.

In Galbraiths book The New Industrial State, written in 1967, he talks of a large firm called the Techno-Structure. This Techno-Structure should supposedly be something like a human entity, being fairly self-sufficient. These changes in the industry, from manpower to a technology led market were brought to the forefront after World War II when changes to the economic life were far greater than anything that had come before it. However, Galbraith argues that this modern technology reduces the reliability of the market, since so much more needs to be managed, monitored, and avoided. One tiny fluctuation in the system could bring the Techno-Structure to a grinding halt. Also the whole system is much more inflexible as situations need to be known far in advance and not changed.

Before this technology was introduced, products were far less abundant, but far more necessary. Products such as loaves of bread or medicine were in short supply but there was no question of them being constantly needed as they were everyday objects that maximised the consumer’s satisfaction levels. But with nowadays industry being able to produce products at a high rate, items such as beauty products or games need an element of persuasion if they are to be brought. Although they may maximise one persons satisfaction level, it may not apply to everyone and in order to shift the levels of product the structure has produced, elements like advertising come into play. Since in recent times, people were becoming less and less poverty stricken, those with low levels of literacy were joining the classes of people with excess money to spend. Therefore television and radio advertising were key to reaching these specific individuals.

The regulation of Aggregate Demand became a recognised policy during the 1930’s and was advocated by John Maynard Keynes. It was put into effect by the Roosevelt Administration and was thought to be a move on behalf of the Labour Party, and was immediately opposed. The reasons being that during the 1930’s most industry was led by Entrepreneurial Corporations who did not have a need for it. This was down to the fact that they were using simple technology with little to no planning involved. They could simply lay off workers if demand was to fall and they had a much smaller Techno-Structure. Of course the more Mature Corporations were desperately in need for the regulation as that sort of planning would offer them security and safe planning. They were vulnerable to a fall in earnings which would curtail the whole business and one mistake could “disintegrate the very brain of the enterprise”. Of course the more Mature Corporations won out in the end and technology continued to expand.

Aggregate Demand needs to be regulated as correct production (not going into un-necessary excess) creates large amounts of savings. These savings are then stored and used to fund further production. If these profits and savings are not made then they cannot meet the need of Aggregate Demand, therefore monitoring is imperative as the whole system depends upon one another. This sort of monitoring prevents unpredictable fluctuations in demand, sales and production in which case planning would be impaired, technology would have to be used more cautiously and the whole Techno-Structure would be far less secure.



The Techno-Structure is essentially just one big well oiled machine in theory. Men who work for these large organizations agree to lose all individuality for it and even rival firms within the structure avoid competition because situations like price-cutting would threaten its survival.

“Mutually destructive behaviour is banned”

Whether this infinite structure is actually in control or not is another question. Most people will argue that there is such a thing as Consumer Sovereignty, where the consumer governs the uni-directional flow from purchasing an item from the market, where this information will then reach up to the industry. Meaning the Techno-Structure can monitor what people are buying and respond to the customer’s choices. This is called The Accepted Sequence, and it sustains the idea of industries trying to understand what produces the most customer satisfaction.

However, The Accepted Sequence may be becoming less and less so as the producing firms reach out to control the markets, manage behaviour and shape the social attitude of the consumer. Mainly with aspects like advertising and heavy persuasion as to what is good for them to purchase.

In terms of consumers buying products, not only is it important for them to do so, it is equally as important that they have the money to spend in the first place. Spending is a physical need, even within the techno-structure itself. When it comes to situations like increased incomes or maybe a slight depression; the Techno-Structure uses taxes to keep demand under control. When income increases, so do taxes. This prevents people from spending ridiculous amounts and spiralling demand out of control. Likewise, when incomes decrease, so do taxes. Freeing up more money for people to spend and therefore keeping demand high. Taxes must be large in regards to income to have any sort of effect and Taxes are purely there so as to direct consumer spending.

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

A Giant Snake Eats the Earth and Other 2012 Predictions


So apparently- and this is exclusive to the year 2011 - if you add your birthday to the age you are going to be this year it comes to either the number 111, or 2011. Observe:

91 + 20 = 111
1991 + 20 = 2011

Pretty nifty! Almost as nifty as the calculator I found lurking, completely unused on my desktop to figure out this little magic trick. Of course these are just my own personal digits, I welcome you to try it yourself and see if it really does apply universally or just to those born in the year of the sheep (rejoice!).

Now to me, this does seem a little weird, I was left mildly disconcerted at this being proven correct, but does it spell disaster? Of course we are all apparently fated to meet our doom next year. The ill fated 2012 which has spurred a Hollywood movie, curiosity and even panic on some peoples behalf. We as humans have been fascinated by our demise and how it's all going to end almost as much as we are fascinated by how it all begun in the first place. So to hush any speculation worthy of Perez Hilton, let's be boring for two seconds and look at the facts:

Why are we all going to face doomsday next year?

Well: First of all there is the infamous Mayan Calendar. The Mayan's were an extremely clever civilization for centuries old folks, and they based all of their theories upon the stars. Apparently their calendar accurately predicted centuries later occurrences such as the World Wars, the black hole in our galaxy, and the solar eclipse of 1999. All of which were dated to the exact year that they happened. Turns out they even predicted their own demise when they correctly jotted down the year that their civilization was over run by Spanish foreigners and destroyed. Their calendar took note of every future event, every detail: right up until 2012 when their calendar ends. This of course to people in the know means that the last prediction is that there is no life after 2012. To people like me and every other student out there who are in a different kind of know how, it means they probably just got lazy.

Second of all there is the wonderful Nostradamus. A soothsayer of his time he actually had a string of creepily correct predictions. Again down to the date that they would occur. In a nutshell he predicted the Great Fire of London with these wise words "the blood of the just will be demanded of London, burnt by the fire in the year 66".
He continued his soothsaying with this next statement: "From the enslaved people songs chants and demands. The princes and lords are held captive in prisons, in the future by such headless idiots"
Which of course correlates with the "off with their heads!" happy French Revolution. Later predictions even involved the death of Princess Diana in which he actually mentions her by name, Hurricane Katrina, and the 9/11 attacks on New York City. For 2011 he has predicted that a war will occur between that of the Christian world and the Arab world which will destroy many countries and of course 2012? A comet will hit the Earth, destroying everything that lives here. Here's to hoping he also just got lazy and bored of soothsaying.

Lastly we come to our own 21st Century theories which are based upon nothing quite so magical as a stone age calendar or a 16th century magician. Turns out that a couple hundred years back, the sun shot out some solar flares, which are scheduled to happen again in 2012. These solar flares fire so far and are so electrically charged that it would severely damage everything we depend upon, like air traffic control, emergency services (like hospital equipment), electricity, it would all be damaged beyond repair. When these flares happened centuries ago it didn't have an effect since the world hadn't invented the lightbulb yet, let alone the ipad, but if it was to happen today? It would throw us into a complete third world state as even our water supply is run by computers and electricity. Even if the world isn't blown to pieces by a comet, the theory goes that we would be forced to start from scratch again. Resorting back to a complete state of nature (yes Rousseau), with illness, famine-you get the gist.

So whether it's a religious war, a comet, a lack of electricity and whether it all adds up in your head or not. I most certainly am not taking any chances. I am celebrating Christmas as early as possible in 2012, just in case. And despite it all, at least we can be thankful of one thing definitely not happening...




Giant snake eating the Earth? Lets see you predict that Nostradamus.

Monday, 3 January 2011

Burberry Biker and Other Summer Trends


Colour Blocking. The word du'jour of the fashion world for s/s11 as Raf Simons for Jil Sander did a show drenched in neon and the magazines loved it. Colour Blocking is when an outfit would, for example, have bright green trousers and a yellow shirt. Eliminate shades, patterns or anything else that would deviate from your traffic stopping image. Despite this blast of colour, still expect to see neutrals dotted around during the summer months as last season still prevails.
For a quick lowdown and what the designers picked for their s/s collections, here are the stand out looks:
  • Dolce and Gabbana went for the romantic side of summer. Floaty dresses, petticoats and light looks were on the menu as they conjured up images of Taylor Swift's music video for Love Story; in my head anyway.
  • Burberry Prorsum rode the other end of the spectrum with their biker chick chic. Leather, aviators, boots. She is the girl in the magazines with the bedhead hair, pulling her jacket and biting her lip. She is riding off the back of Balmains shoulder pad Balmania and she is a powerhouse.
  • Despite the battle with the 60's, the 70's have won out in the end with the likes of Marc Jacobs characterizing this image and having mountains of retro fun with it.
Other little trends like the oriental look, clashing patterns, (bad taste is now the taste) are also floating about on the s/s breeze. My personal favorite for this season is Burberry's hard hitting biker chick. She is fabulous, does what she wants and doesn't seem to take that long with hair care.

Thursday, 30 December 2010

The 2010 Mash Up.

So Christmas is over for another year, leaving a trail of hangovers, paper hats and empty bank accounts. I hope everyone got everything their hearts desired and you're all looking forward to 2011. If you're not then here; have a little slice of 2010!
This guy (DJ Earworm)...(yeah I don't know either) takes the cream of the Top 40 crop from one year (he does this annually) and bungs them all together into one epic song. And when they call it a mash up, it actually is mashed line by line. Take a listen.

I also respect the fact that this was a very lazy blog post.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Monday, 13 December 2010

A Blog From Years Ago That I Forgot to Post or Something About Cartesian Doubt


My most recent lecture involved a myriad of rhetorical questions. Why do we so willingly accept paying off debts such as mortgages and student loans? Why do we continue to go to a job which is hated by the majority?
Those who refuse to conform to this restricted style of living have two sides of the board to fall on. They are either brandished mad people; or are lucky enough to be admired. If you are willing to play this mental lottery of sanity, you could end up somebody like Sophie Calle. Or, a safer version of this liberated form of person comes in the form of Mary Blair.
Both artists in their own right (French and American respectively), Calle in particular rails against society. Calle, in an artistic creation of Cartesian Doubt, questions everything in life. Studies it and could ultimately baffle anyone who tried to challenge her way of thinking. Calle's more famous studies involve finding a lost address book, and by interviewing everybody inside, built up a suitable mental image of the man in question.
Not restricted to just one place, Calle once flew to Italy, following a man who had no idea he was an intricate part of her new interest. Calle's life is liberated, and in no way restricted by places, people or even time.
This form of living has been a goal of society's for centuries. The romantic revolution during the 1800's, held the belief system that people should be free; and not restricted by cities and industry.
Mary Blair (an artist that designed and heavily influenced Walt Disney's 1951 version of Alice in Wonderland) creates scenes, animals and people that appear to have no sense of physical being. The tree's are the color they want to be, the people are any shape and size, regardless of how people want them to appear. Her sense of style and idealism brings to light the apparent rigidity of normal life. Blair's world is freeing, shape shifting and exciting; (The perfect choice for Lewis Carroll's Wonderland) but also a life that most of us, symbolically, would desire.
So why aren't we all as creatively free as we'd like?
To bring the example into popular culture, Lady Gaga, a well known figure in the music industry is often noted for her insane sense of style and belief system. Yet she is rarely if ever criticized; since her extraordinary amount of talent over rides this.
So do we need to have something going for us? A streak that enables society to overlook the non conformity because we make up for it in other areas? Maybe if you're extraordinarily talented you just can't fit in by rule of thumb. So does that make the rest of us-the crowds and the general public, undeniably average?
Probably. In fact most definitely. But why is this depressing? Everybody has the chance to achieve what they want in life.
And besides, without us, the talented would have no one to shine for.