For the most part the popular media presents the issue of “consuming to be patriotic” in a good way.  The “problem” it seems is that the U.S. isn’t spending enough money post September 11.  The economy seems shaky right now and is in potential danger due to less spending.  The individuals who spend more money than usual are seen as being patriotic.  The “solution,” it seems, is that Americans need to buy more than they usually do to stimulate the economy.

Images of Christmas trees with American flags are plastered all over the television.  Advertisers are finding this to be the perfect time to push over consumption on people to make them feel guilty if they do not spend at least as much money as they did last year at Christmas time.  So the job of the media has been to make people feel good about spending a lot of money this holiday season.  The topic of consuming more than enough stuff during the holidays is innocent and even encouraged.  It’s seen as a way of fighting terrorism.  The more you spend, the more good you are doing everyone, in a sense.

Big spenders are up there with the firefighters and the police officers in the efforts to rescue people and the economy.  The media is trying very hard to make people more at ease with spending their money.  Big SUVs were the topic of criticism but are now thought to be a better purchase in the sense that they are initially more expensive and more expensive to maintain with fuel.  Even people who think of themselves as being eco-friendly are the target of commercials encouraging them to not stop spending but to buy things that are eco-friendly, such as a hybrid car or an energy saving refrigerator.

Another theme this Christmas has been “patriotic Santa.”  From car dealer commercials to cookie jar graphics of a Santa Claus dressed in red white and blue.  Advertisers are trying and succeeding at associating the American flag with consumption.  They know that people’s biggest purchases are the American flag in one form or another, which can then trigger people’s conditioned response to seeing the flag and then wanting to go buy something.  The popular media is tied to big corporations that want to sell stuff.  The media is financially supported by commercials urging people to consume.  People who spend are seen as being pro-American and people who conserve or are holding a point of view where everyone should save their money is seen as being anti-American.

In the news there has been a sense of urgency to spend causing many people to feel anxious about not spending.  People might even shop in order to feel more at ease about what has been going on in the world.  The reason, economically, that we need to stimulate spending is that we are not consuming as much as we used to and that has a negative effect on the economy so the topic this holiday season has basically been, to spend.  Spend, spend, spend.

There are growing concerns about globalization and free trade that have to do with inhumane working conditions and slave wages in third world countries.  Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) are a ploy to help developing nations get out of debt but the environmental degradation that occurs as a result is contributing to the global problem of pollution.  Perhaps the effect of over consumption on people’s lives could be seen as a loss of “meaning” in one’s life.

The people responsible are those that wish for us to consume our way out of our problems.  As a culture, we feel we need to fit in by having the latest things and companies air advertisements that prey on our insecurities.  American commercialism encourages everyone to wear the most expensive clothes and drive the nicest cars.  It not only becomes a matter of self-worth but also a reason to be accepted by your peers.

In the years of WW2, Americans were encouraged to dig a Victory Garden, ration, conserve, and sacrifice.  In our new war we are encouraged to shop.  The problem observed here is over consumption and the responsibility goes to businesses wanting to make a living and people wanting to consume their way to happiness and patriotism.  Free trade and globalization deliver that request by moving their factories to countries where they do not have to pay the workers very much money.

To put U.S. owned factories in third world countries makes economical sense because the regulations are non-existent and the workers are many.  Poor working conditions coupled with poor wages is what is referred to as sweatshop labor.  The people most negatively affected by this problem of sweatshop labor are the workers in the factories.  In many cases they have to work a 16-hour shift in a crowded factory where bosses harass them and give them warnings if they take a 5-minute bathroom break.  The sweatshop style is also applied to coffee plantations to compete with the global market.  They have extremely poor working conditions and low rates of unionization.  Some countries allow children to work alongside their parents in coffee plantations and earn, at most, two dollars a day.  Americans want lots of stuff at low prices.  Cheap labor allows us to consume even more stuff than we would have if it were made here in the U.S.  More consumption means more strain on the environment.

SAPs are forcing the global south to focus on exports and those responsible are the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  The problem identified is of an environmental breakdown due to the over consumption and misuse of resources.  The reason, economically, that we need to spend a lot of money right now is because we have been spending a lot in the past.  Another argument for “spending” is that the U.S. uses a lot of “cheap labor” outside of its borders, which will impact many other parts of the world negatively when the U.S. has problems.

One solution offered is fair trade, a demand of justice for workers and farmers.  Fair trade is based on fair working conditions as opposed to bad ones and a living wage as opposed to an unlivable wage.  Fair trade is one way that consumers can support companies with ethical standards but still get the coffee beans they want from outside of the U.S.  If it were not for fair trade, these farmers would be forced, financially, to purchase chemical pesticides and fertilizers and strip the coffee plants of their shade trees leading to an unsustainable cropland.

The alternative analysis offers us a simpler way of life by not buying so much stuff and to some it may look anti-capitalist but the reasons for consuming less can be physical, mental, and environmental health.  Aside from completely cutting off free trade, fair trade is a compromise.  The popular media has roots to corporations wanting to sell stuff, which is one reason why the popular media would not think that fair trade is the answer, much less even mention sweatshops.

Please visit , , and