By TOM BRIGGS
Don’t you just love the way government regulators, presumably on the side of consumers, allow blatant slight-of-hand merchandising by giant food and commodities corporations? Regulators such as the Product Safety Commission, will call back thousands of a product, such as an automobile, for some supposedly unsafe component, such as an airbag. Sounds like they’re really concerned for your safety. Right?
But paper towels, for example, often come “4 to a pack”with “one free” Too good to be true, because the individual rolls are getting smaller and smaller. They can put ten rolls to a package with “4 Free Rolls!” while making the individual rolls that much smaller. Notice also that the quality of paper towels in getting worse and worse. Wonder why consumer groups are not harping on that one. The Bureau of Consumer Protection lets big companies get away with all kinds of deceitful techniques that fool the consumer. A closer look will probably reveal a shell game involving many products similar to the numbers game they play on packs of cigarettes. Is it 25 per pack? 27? 28? I suspect that ounces and other standard measurements will soon all be arbitrary.
I’ve noticed the decline in shirt quality down through the years. You now have to pay €60-€75 and upwards to get a decent shirt. Flannel and cotton shirts (if they are actually made with those fabrics) in the price range of €15-€50 are too often made with extremely thin fabrics , are poorly tailored and lose their shape after a few washes as well. What would one of those flannel sweaters of the kind worn by athletes in the early 20th century cost now? Probably €300.
It’s been said that cars are lighter weight now so as to be more energy efficient. It’s more likely that cars are lighter because the materials they are made with are crappier. Seems more and more parts are made with plastic. Lots of amenities like plastic “chrome”, pressed cardboard lining, thin cheap alloy. Autos, in my opinion, have a much more generic, even alien look, as if they were designed by computers. Are we headed for the “state car” for the proles? Where has design elegance gone? And don’t you just love the way that the whole back “bumper” area has to be replaced because of a minor dent?
I remember when a low to medium priced flannel shirt was actually a flannel shirt. It had a certain thickness, and lasted many years. Now some shirt manufacturers have the temerity to produce pocketless shirts for the same price as the shirts with pockets that they have replaced. Consumers just blindly go along, as if accepting that it’s “the new fashion”. I guess the trend is towards very low quality clothing for 95% of the population and very good quality for the remaining 5%. Since there will be no middle class, this projection makes perfect sense. Just like Orwell described in 1984. Better to tap into a market of some 4 billion than waste your efforts and promotional resources on a mere 300 million.
Maybe all this is off the beaten path of “Marxism”, but somehow the dots are connecting: I suppose the long term goal of the power elite is to increase their power a hundred fold by tapping into third world markets as fast as possible so that those who don’t even know what ‘paper’ towels are, can buy them, and a whole slew of other products. If this means redistributing wealth from the west into these poor regions, so what? Someone has to be left standing in the New World Order’s game of musical chairs.