Opposing Rhetoric on Consumer Sovereignty
...a market system would seem to be self-evident. If the producers create the “need” for their product, then the producer with the greatest effect on consumer demand would receive the greater amount of the resources needed to meet the demand that they have created. The theory of choice involves man’s needs versus man’s wants, and how in some cases, the needs are supplied more readily and cheaper than wants. An example of this is water versus diamonds. A person can go into any grocery store or super market and pay a dollar for a bottle of purified water which he cannot live without. On the other hand, valuable stones and gems such as diamonds are purchased for hundreds of dollars. Someone wearing a two-carat diamond around their neck will in no way increase their life span or even improve their quality of life. However, if given a choice of a free bottle of water or a free pair of diamond earrings, man will undoubtedly choose the earrings. Galbraith’s dependence theory critics the theory of choice by saying that man’s choices are in fact not choices at all as they are determined by the producer. A non sequitor literally means it does not follow. It is defined as the fallacy of an irrelevant conclusion. In this case it means that Hayek believes that Galbraith’s conclusion is not justified by his argument. In that case, he feels that Galbraith’s whole argument is faulty as it was built on a shaky foundation. Hayek refers to the dependence effect as a non sequitor because though he does not necessarily disagree with some of Galbraith’s arguments, he does not feel that they justify the conclusions he has drawn. He takes offense at Galbraith’s assertion that only innate desires are important. Hayek’s stand on the issue is that there are only three innate desires; food, sex, and shelter. In his opinion, how then can a person say that no other desires are important? To believe that according to Keynes is to deny that man’s cultural achievements are unimportant. He feels that there are not many needs that are “absolute.” He used the arts as his prime example. By arts the author is referring to music, painting, and literature. If Galbraith is to be taken literally, Hayek feels that he is making the point that these art forms are worthless. In other words, man has no desire to see expressive painting, listen to excellently composed music, or to read informative or entertaining literature. For obviously there is no way to justify man’s desire for these things as original to himself. He only desires these things because they are produced. Hayek then asks, how can you say that these are less important than the need for education? Public education tries to instill a taste for literature in the young. Hayek feels that in this case, the want creation by the producer is not a bad thing, and he feels that Galbraith’s argument makes the case that it is reprehensible. In addition Hayek feels that perhaps Professor Galbraith was deliberately obscure with the wording of his essay to make his argument seem plausible. In regards to the comparison I am about to make, I would like to say that Hayek is only criticizing the conclusion Galbraith has drawn. He has no opposition to the first part of Galbraith’s argument. Galbraith argues that wants are continuously created by the process by which they are satisfied. He states that all of man’s important private needs have been satisfied and that all other needs have been created and as such is unimportant. This...