The effect of this is no more obvious than the invention of the iPhone, its applications, and the iPad. These technological devices are no more creative than a click-top pen, yet they have provided great wealth and comfort to both their users and inventors. Creativity no longer stems from a desire to do things no one has done (like making cars affordable to all consumers, bringing internet interface to the public, and flying), but is now only a means to make wealth -- usually from either tricking people into thinking they need things they seldom want or making life easier, more comfortable, or more controlled.
Let me start with two examples that are both locally applied and directly involved in my life. The first is a website called HungryBuffs. HungryBuffs provides an online interface for ordering food from delivery or takeout restaurants. The idea, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad; however, the site charges 50 cents per order. The order has to be filled in by the customer, faxed to the restaurant, and re-entered by employees. This typically takes the same amount of time for both the customer and the employee, but separates these incidents in time. People often call wondering whether the order had been placed or why it was taking so long and both answers can be explained by the different attentiveness given to a ringing phone and a ringing fax. A HungryBuffs order (once completed by the customer) takes 5-10 minutes longer than an order that has been phoned in. Customers don't have the opportunity to ask about specials and employees don't have an opportunity to offer cheaper prices on the meals selected online. A credit card number must be entered twice (once by the customer and once by the employee) instead of just once by the employee. So the real question is: What is the benefit? The answer is simple: the customer does not have to interact with humans to get their food. The transaction can be entirely mechanized on their end. Many people seem to prefer this to talking to someone on the other end. This manipulation of human weakness and isolationism earns the owner of HungryBuffs 50 cents per order.
The second example of "ingenuity" in my community is the Flatirons Meal Plan. The Flatirons Meal Plan (FMP) allows parents (usually of students) to provide their children with a food allowance. This food allowance can only be used to eat out at restaurants or shop at a select few markets. The markets sell alcohol, cigarettes, chips, ice, ice cream, and even hookahs. If students can buy cigarettes with their meal plan, the sense of control is mostly illusory. Secondly, the FMP charges businesses an 8% interest on all orders and requires a separate card terminal and line. The line is usually slow and often disconnects in the middle of transactions. Even though the price is not visibly adjusted for the FMP, the long-term cost of accepting the FMP causes prices to rise. For what purpose? So that parents can believe they have control over a certain part of their children's consumption? In all actuality, they still have no more control than if they were to have sent cash. Even if that goal was achieved, what would be the result? These college students would not know anything about handling money, formulating a budget, or being responsible for themselves in any way. The FMP also helps promoting eating out at restaurants for people who do not have budgeting skills. Could one ask for a better explanation of how our culture has become so irresponsibly consumptive?
If all ingenuity and creativity are geared towards increased consumption, has it always been that way? I don't think so. The internet was not created to sell goods or advertising space. It was created as a way for the military and universities to communicate complex information over long distances. As it gradually become more accessible to the public, it became a place where small businesses could do commerce at an exponentially lower cost. Hoorah! to that, but major suppliers gradually consolidated most online businesses and smaller businesses failed en masse in the 90s. The Wright brothers were nowhere near as financially successful as J. D. Rockefeller who did nothing creative, rather he used consolidated wealth to consolidate more wealth. Even today, the industry based on their invention is still borderline profitable. Yet, people fly with incredible frequency and trips across oceans take a fraction of the amount of time they used to take.
Henry Ford was a man who was idealized as a capitalist. Most Americans would pin him as someone who would fight for lower taxes, less regulation, and more corporate control. However, within his own company, he could have been loosely defined as a socialist. He utilized the assembly line to drive down the cost of production for his Model-T car. He focused on producing only one vehicle for all Americans to enjoy. The cost of the Model-T was $290 -- less than $3,000 in 2010 dollars. He often said that he wanted his employees well paid and products well produced so that all of his employees could afford one. His intentions were clearly noble, and they gave us the American car for Americans.
I have often mentioned how upsetting it is that the American car companies were bailed out in 2008. I wanted to see them collapse. They represented a short-term tactic of marketing and sales (and therefore production to meet the market needs) that was utterly unsustainable. After they failed to anticipate and adapt to the change in times, selective-oligarchic-"socialism" kicked in. This kind of socialism allows for no control for socialist stock-holders (taxpayers). The primary problem with this is that even after the bailout, the American automobile companies advertised using swinging trucks, fire, cliffs, and Big! Strong! Man! tactics. The cycle of advertising to create tastes and then responding to those tastes led these companies to be selling ridiculous and barely functional machines. Well, just the other day I saw a Toyota commercial with a spiral track of fire running up and up and up and this big, manly truck blasting up it with masculine disregard for reality and it made me laugh. It was basically a spit in the face to the American companies -- a way of saying "We can do it all and you can't do a thing!" Then, it went on to say that 90% of Toyota cars sold in America, were made in America. Toyota is expressing ingenuity in construction, productivity, durability, and functionality... while American car companies are expressing ingenuity in road-hogging, bone-crushing size, pretty buttons, new blinky lights, cup holders, and billions of dollars in marketing to our collective id.
So, in conclusion, I proffer my argument to anyone who believes that higher taxes will stifle ingenuity. This belief is rooted in the philosophy that those who create are motivated by money. However, I retort that we do not want these people in our societies. "Creative" ideas that come from people seeking wealth are seldom good ideas. They may seem incredibly profitable and useful in the short-term, but often provide significant negative consequences in the long-term.
