Morgan Spurlock Watch: Spurlock's Contempt for Commerce

Spurlock's Contempt for Commerce

Spurlock writes:

In 2002, the retail industry in this country spent $13.5 billion telling us what to buy, and we must have been listening, because in 2003 we spent nearly $8 trillion on all kinds of crap. That's right, trillion. How insane is that? We are the biggest consuming culture on the planet. We buy almost twice as much crap as our nearest competitor, Japan. We spend more on ourselves than the entire gross national product of any nation in the world.

It's hard to know where to start on a passage like this. It comes from a position so averse to capitalism, progress, and commerce, I'm tempted to just shrug and blow it off. Of course, I won't.

Look, every one of those transactions that made up that $8 trillion Spurlock describes as "crap" was voluntary. Each party agreed to part with something in exchange for something else he valued more. The overwhelming majority of the time, each party got what he wanted, and walked away happier than he was before the transaction took place.

Why is this a bad thing? Why should we be ashamed of the fact that we've progressed to the point where there are millions of products available that in some way make our lives better? So, Spurlock says, some may actually make our lives worse. Fine. So avoid them. Don't buy stuff. Don't buy "crap." The rest of us will crap up our homes, our cars, our offices, and our wardrobes, and we'll be happier for it.

It's all fine and dandy to don the pretense of anti-materialism. But the simple fact of the matter is, our want of stuff, our pursuit of stuff, and the genius of our forebears to generally leave the market alone has made us the healthiest, most prosperous, most comfortable, least violent society in the history of mankind. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's something to relish. It's something to wish upon the rest of the world.

Not Spurlock. He writes:

What does all that consumption do for us? Does it make us happy? You tell me. If we were all so happy, would we be on so many drugs?

We're on "so many" drugs because "so many" drugs are available to us. Thanks to capitalism.

Live expectancy in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The three biggest killers -- heart disease, cancer, and stroke -- are all dropping dramatically. This is particularly heartening with cancer, which is dropping despite our ability to diagnose it earlier. To state without context that "lots of Americans are on drugs" means nothing. We're the healthiest we've ever been. Yes, even with fast food.

Spurlock goes on:

Antidepressant use in the U.S. nearly tripled in the past decade.

Again, this means very little. Antidepressant use has risen in part because of breakthrough drugs like Prozac and its "me too" followers have been so effective, and in part because the success of those drugs have gradually eroded the stigma against depression and mental illness, meaning more people are getting treatment, as opposed to suffering in silence or shame. These, again, are good developments.

Spurlock:

We've got drugs to counteract the disastrous effects of all our overconsumption--diet drugs, heart drugs, liver drugs, drug to make our hair grow back, and our willies stiff. In 2003, we Americans spent $227 billion on medications. That's a whole lot of drugs!

It's disingenuous to say many of those conditions are caused even in part by "overconsumption," much less exclusively. Many are genetic. Many are genetic predispositions triggered by environmental factors. Frankly, the idea that the people on these kinds of drugs somehow deserve the condition they're in because they're gluttounous or greedy is pretty damned offensive. Sure, some drugs may enable us to indulge bad habits without repercussions. So what? Even conceding that that's not a desirable development (and I don't), the vast majority of medical treatments are aimed at ailments no one "asked for."

And only the most rabid of anti-capitalists could find fault with the fact that we now have drugs available to treat the ailments that have plagued us for centuries. Only a smug socialist could consider, "are life-saving drugs a good or bad development?" a question up for debate (all, of course, while selling a movie, two books, and a TV show).

Spurlock goes on like this for another five paragraphs. He blames advertising for our "excessive" consumption, our (alleged) depression, and our general ennui. He concludes with this sweeping statement:

Yet none of the stuff we consume -- no matter how much bigger our SUV is than our neighbor's, no matter how many Whoppers we wolf down, no matter how many DVDs we own or how much Zoloft we take -- makes us feel full, or satisfied, or happy.

Bullshit. Tell me, would you be happier with or without your iPod? Do your sunglasses with UV protection make being outside better or worse for on eyes? Do you get more or less enjoyment from the added features producers sometimes add to DVDs? Are you better off with the quality and durability of a DVD picture, or with the grainier, less-lasting properties of VHS? Would you prefer to spend August in D.C. with or without air conditioning? In any case, even if you opt for the less efficient, less modern, less rational answer to any of these questions, that's fine. No one forces you to enjoy any of these conveniences. You may still live like a Luddite in America.

The funny thing is, people like Spurlock can only make silly arguments like these because capitalism has saved them from more dire concerns -- starving to death, for example. Or dying of malaria. Or struggling to make sure his kid lives past the age of ten. Or making sure he has enough meat cured to last until April. There are a few billion people around the world who still don't have the luxury to bitch about the overabundance of life-saving drugs, too many flavors of ketchup, or bemoan the fact that Viagra -- God forbid! -- lets old people continue to enjoy sex well into their eighties.

They don't bitch and moan about too many choices in the toothpaste aisle because they're busy trying not to starve to death.

Wanna' know why we don't have to worry about starving to death anymore? Because of capitalism. Free markets. Consumerism. Consumption.

Our responsibility is not to feel shame for our consumption. Our responsibility is to bring the beauty of markets and the miracle of "overconsumption" to the people who need it.

July 06, 2005 in Socialist Sympathies | Permalink

Comments

This guys use of statistics is dubious. What exactly is "the retail industry", anyhow? Does it include grocery stores? Yeah, damn those corporate whores, convincing us we need to eat.

Posted by: dagny | July 06, 2005 at 09:49 PM

This is the most debateable article you've posted thusfar, because it's not actually a criticism of his methods, it's a criticism of his ideas.

There are clear arguments to be made on both sides of the materialism debate. Clearly, many individuals are able to be as happy or happier without as many material possessions as they would normally make do with--but some are not. As you mention, consumption and purchasing are voluntary; but advertising does have an effect on the consumers.

The best part of this particular debunking is the illustration that his statistic, again, is wrong. Just because $8 trillion was spent on purchases does not mean that all of those purchases are frivolous and contributing to that culture of consumerism he is discussing.

To be honest, I believe your blog would be seen as a more credible resource if you stuck to debunking bad sourcing, poor statistics, and logical fallacies presented by Spurlock rather than actually engaging the main points in debate.

For example, if you look at your previous post citing the "ill effects" of Splenda, it does not matter who you are or how you feel about Spurlock's work, you can read your post and realize "Hey, Spurlock is full of shit." In this post, you raise very valid points--but they're quite debateable and really are about the nature of sociology and psychology rather than Spurlock in specific.

Cheers.

Posted by: Aaron | July 06, 2005 at 10:37 PM

Clearly, many individuals are able to be as happy or happier without as many material possessions as they would normally make do with--but some are not.

This proves the point. *Having* choices is better than not having them. People then can choose whether to buy and what to buy on their own as makes them most happy.

The thesis that some people are made less happy by having choices doesn't make sense for healthy people. Some people have psychological issues, I suppose, that could cause them problems, but that is hardly cause to reduce choices.

Materialism as such (by which I assume you mean accumulating possessions and not philosophical materialism) might be debateable insofar as whether *having* more stuff is necessarily good, buy as you note yourself that is a personal choice and to deny some that choice because others might abuse the abilitiy to choose is simply wrong.

Posted by: John Jenkins | July 06, 2005 at 10:54 PM

" least violent society in the history of mankind"

Really ? Haven't you guys started the most wars by any country on the planet ?

Posted by: anonymous | July 06, 2005 at 11:48 PM

"Really ? Haven't you guys started the most wars by any country on the planet ?"

Considering the US has only been around for 229 years, probably not.

Posted by: 404 - Name Not Found | July 07, 2005 at 01:32 AM

From an old Agitator commentor, I have to say that this site is awesome. I love to see someone shove it right up that self-righteous prig's ass. Good show, Rad.

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus | July 07, 2005 at 02:17 AM

Well...assuming the trend continued in 2004, the $8 trillion spent on "crap" presumably includes the $10.5 million that Supersize Me made at the box office...

And who knows how much was spent on the DVD...

Posted by: Brian Hawkins | July 07, 2005 at 03:14 AM

Well, that example DOES hold true, since 'Stupid Size Me' IS actually crap.

I think it is also worth pondering/investigating: what does Spur[ious]lock do with all the millions of dollars he made? Does anyone know? Does he wear a burlap sack as clothing? Does he get around on a homemade wooden bicycle? Does he only eat nuts and berries that he found in the woods? If not, then, well, he contributed to that 8 trillion dollars worth of "crap". Which makes him nothing more than a hypocrite.

Posted by: Evan Williams | July 07, 2005 at 09:58 AM

Let me say, first, that I'm not by any means a Spurlock "fan." However, I think the people that criticize him most are the ones that are missing his point. It seems to me that he is not attacking consuption, per se, nor capitalism, nor any other idea pertaining to free markets. What he's condemning is what he says plainly, "disastrous effects of all our overconsumption."

See that? OVERconsumption.

Spurlock is disgusted by materialism as an attitude, not capitalism as a system. Arguing that the massive dependence upon pharmeceutical "happy pills" is a good thing (even if it's a result of capitalism) is a little too much for me to swallow.

Posted by: Jacob Morse | July 07, 2005 at 01:22 PM

the thing is, people assume that more prozac = more depressed people. i'm not saying that's necessarily false, but look at it from this angle: imagine there is a (relatively) fixed number of depressed people in america at any given year. if that's true, then more prozac = fewer depressed people. i'm not saying that's the truth either, but it's an interesting thing to think about.

-sam

Posted by: sam | July 07, 2005 at 02:56 PM

Let me get this straight. It's ok for there to be crap in the world, but it's not ok for Spurlock to write a book you think is crap?

You can't have it both ways. Just be happy that other people are happy reading Spurlock's book and that's that.

Posted by: Josh | July 07, 2005 at 03:55 PM

Josh, I don't think anyone has said that Spurlock shouldn't have the right to publish whatever he wants. Hell, he could write a book claiming to be the 1,000 year old grand Emporor of the planet Nebulon V, and he'd be free to sell it if he could find a publisher willing to print it. Capitalism allows him to do so. Hey, it worked for Carlos Casteneda!

But the flip side of the coin is that people like Radley have the right to point out flaws and inaccuracies in such a book. Or, in this particular case, to offer counter-arguments to his reasoning. That's also capitalism. That's an important part of capitalism, because his actions allow other people to be better educated consumers when they see Mr. Spurlock's book on the bookstore shelf.

Posted by: CSIXTY4 | July 07, 2005 at 06:54 PM

Has Spurlock ever ACTUALLY said that he wants government intervention? Maybe he has, I don't know. If you want to be presenting facts, Radley, I applaud you for it. But you're just as guilty of a attacking strawmen as Spurlock if you're attacking him as a communist/socialist when he's never actually called for government intervention.

Posted by: Jimmy | July 12, 2005 at 11:02 AM

Give me time.

Spurlock calls for a host of legislative remedies in his book.

In fact, at one point, he writes that he "prefers legislation" to other ways of fighting obesity.

I'll get to it.

Posted by: Radley Balko | July 12, 2005 at 11:59 AM

I have a neighbor who is constantly attacking American consumerism for its terrible effects (she's not from here, she's from Europe). Yet she loves to shop at D.I. (it's a local non-profit thrift shop that sells donated clothing and other goods for very, very cheap) and brag about what wonderful deals she got and how EVERYONE should be doing that instead of shopping at Nordstrom. I have tried in vain to get her to understand that if we all shopped at D.I. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THERE. It's the very people shopping at Nordstrom that allows her to get her fantastic deals. Some people just don't realize how easier their Luddite lives are because of us non-Luddites.

Posted by: Adam Ruth | July 19, 2005 at 08:51 PM