The Dictatorship
I’ve spent decades studying overconsumption. This Netflix doc still depressed me.
Marketing used to be about identifying consumer needs and making a product or service that satisfies those needs. Not anymore, according to the timely new Netflix documentary “Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy.” As Americans across the country vie for the best Black Friday dealsNic Stacey’s documentary offers a sobering look at a culture that has become obsessed with consumption and the companies that fuel that obsession.
I thought I was cynical enough about the role of big business in our capitalist doom spiral. After watching “Buy Now!” however, I am now even less hopeful that business can be asked to break the devastating cycle of sell, buy and discard.
After watching ‘Buy Now!’ however, I am now even less hopeful that business can be asked to break the devastating cycle of sell, buy, and discard.
In 1970, pre-eminent economist Milton Friedman told The New York Times that the unbridled pursuit of profit should adhere to the basic rules of society, both legally and ethically. But Stacey has now convinced me that business is no longer conforming to the “basic rules of society” — neither legally nor ethically.
The film begins by arguing that big business has no conscience. That’s not a new idea. Business history is replete with stories of ethically bankrupt companies. But the film structures its thesis via “five rules of profit maximization.” These rules, it argues, have made it so we simply cannot trust businesses to act in the interest of greater good.
The first rule of the doc is “sell more.” Encouraged by people like Friedman, industry has become very adept at creating an unending stream of buying opportunities. The fast-fashion industry is a good example (think online clothing companies like Shein). A recent study estimated Shein creates 1.3 million new items every year. And as has been well documented, many of these items end up in landfills or piled up on the shores of countries like Ghana. Out of sight and out of mind. Amazon’s one-click buying button is another example of a savvy convenience that encourages us to pull the proverbial trigger, over and over and over again.
The second rule of profit maximization is “waste more.” Examples of our throwaway mentality are clothes that quickly shrink, stain and tear, appliances that don’t last, and phones whose limited battery life practically requires regular replacement. In 2022, the United Nations estimated that 5.3 billion mobile phones would be thrown out by the end of the year.
Sadly, business is complicit in all of this, with some companies making it difficult or simply not cost effective to repair their products. Some companies may even design their products in such a way that makes repairs impossible. This “planned obsolescence” is a particularly damaging aspect of the consumption cycle. But perceived obsolescence is also part of this problem, wherein constant style changes and “updated” product designs render early models obsolete, even if they technically still work.
The third rule of profit maximization is “lie more.” I found this portion of the film to be particularly depressing. Businesses lie to us constantly, from the now scientifically dubious theory that drinking wine every day is inherently healthy to the myth that recycling is both widespread and effective. My doctoral dissertation was on ecologically conscious (green) consumer behavior. But those recycling labels on products are more about making us feel better than anything else. We are being overrun, to the tune of 400 million tons of plastic waste produced a year. And it’s getting worse.
The third rule of profit maximization is ‘lie more.’ I found this portion of the film to be particularly depressing.
Companies, the film argues, are experts at “green washing,” lying about how their products are recycled after use. Coca-Cola is currently being sued by environmental activists who claim its sustainability claims are all just another marketing ruse. The Center for Climate Integrity, a fossil-fuel accountability advocacy group, published a report in February alleging that companies have known for decades their claims about recycling were simply false. And yet they kept telling us the exact opposite. The evidence is as clear as it is disheartening.
As the documentary continued, I began to feel the need to join a 12-step program for wayward marketers. But the pain was not over yet. The film’s fourth rule of profit maximization is “hide more.” Electronic waste recycling? Don’t even ask. Meanwhile the images of 20-foot-high stacks of clothing piling up on the beaches of Ghana were repulsive. This country of 30 million people receives approximately 15,000,000 pieces of used clothing every week. There’s a giant collection of plastic and other garbage floating in the North Pacific Ocean. This “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” has a cute nickname, but an ugly punchline. We are poisoning our planet.
The film’s fifth and final rule of profit maximization is “control more.” Businesses must control the narrative. Employees who don’t follow along are as disposable as the tons of plastic we throw away every day. Repeat the lie enough and hopefully it becomes reality. Never apologize. Never confront the consequences of your actions. Hide the garbage, push the plastic into the ocean, ship the rags and old phones to Africa. Keep calm and consume on.
James A. Roberts is the Ben H. Williams professor of marketing at Baylor University, where he has been a member of the marketing faculty since 1991. He has published approximately 125 articles in numerous academic journals and at conferences around the world and is the author of two books, “Shiny Objects” and, most recently, “Too Much of a Good Thing: Are You Addicted to your Smartphone?”
The Pentagon has told Congress the war in Iran cost $29 billion through mid-May. Outside experts think the real number could be two to three times higher — and so far, the Defense Department hasn’t explained why.
The conflict has led to the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with more than 50,000 American troops stationed in the region. Nearly four months after the war started, the U.S. has fired thousands of munitions, dramatically depleting weapons stockpiles.
Defense Department officials told lawmakers that the war cost $11.3 billion over the first six days of fighting, and later estimated that approximately $25 billion was spent by the middle of May. But experts on defense spending say that number likely undercounts the real total by tens of billions of dollars, with independent assessments ranging from $50 billion to $100 billion.
Munitions were the single biggest expense in the department’s projections. But outside experts note that the Pentagon’s public estimates left out the cost of repairing damaged assets and resupplying stockpiles to prewar levels. Asked for a more detailed accounting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers: “When it’s relevant and required, we will share it.”
That response has drawn bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said the Pentagon is not being transparent about how the war is being funded.
A comprehensive analysis released Friday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a national security think tank, found that munitions alone likely cost $25 billion, with long-range precision munitions and anti-missile munitions, like Tomahawks and Patriots, carrying the highest price tags. Repairing and replacing damaged military assets — along with rebuilding damaged U.S.-affiliated bases and facilities throughout the Middle East — could cost anywhere from $11 billion to $14 billion, according to the CSIS analysis. Separately, the Congressional Research Service reported that at least 42 fixed-wing or unmanned U.S. aircraft have been damaged or destroyed since the U.S. launched its strikes on Feb. 28.
The toll has been just as steep on America’s weapons reserves. The United States has now burned through one-third to one-half of its most critical munitions stockpilesraising fears that the country has entered a “window of vulnerability” that could compromise its readiness for a future conflict elsewhere.
“The problem is for a conflict in the Western Pacific against China,” said Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at CSIS’ Defense and Security Department. “We were low on all of these munitions before the war, and of course now we’re even lower.”
The long-term price tag may be even harder to pin down, according to Linda Bilmes, a public finance expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School. She notes that the Pentagon’s estimates left out veterans’ healthcare and disability benefits entirely.
“The amount of disability benefits — just disability benefits — that we owe to veterans from the Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf and Vietnam wars was $7.3 trillion. That doesn’t count healthcare,” Bilmes said. “So these things are really expensive. We expect that at least half of those who are serving now and who are continued to be deployed will qualify automatically for benefits.”
Bilmes also argues that no full accounting of the war’s cost can ignore its ripple effects on American consumers — particularly through rising oil prices, which could carry consequences for the broader global economy.
As of Thursday evening, Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates in its Iran War Energy Cost tracker that the total consumer burden as a result of the war with Iran is more than $60 billion — about $458 per household — driven largely by the jump in fuel prices.
Bilmes argues that no full accounting of the war’s costs can ignore that hit to household budgets — or the larger risks the war poses to the economy. “It’s certainly possible that we see stagflation or other long-term economic consequences from what has happened in the past three months,” Bilmes said.
Priya Sridhar is the Pentagon correspondent for MS NOW.
As President Donald Trump and Iran move forward with a memorandum of understanding to end the war, many congressional Republicans are expressing unease about what the emerging deal means for the United States.
But several Republicans have also expressed concern with what the agreement means for another country: Israel.
Several Republicans told MS NOW they are particularly distraught with a provision calling for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” — language they fear could constrain Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah.
In recent weeks, Israel has continued strikes on southern Lebanontargeting Hezbollah there. Israel even struck Lebanon after the memorandum was announced.
When MS NOW asked Republicans on Thursday if the Iran deal was good for Israel, GOP lawmakers expressed a number of worries.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., took issue with the fact that Israel seemed to have been cut out of the negotiations, saying he’d like to find out what the Trump administration’s “thought process” was on that.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, similarly took issue with Israel getting cut out — going so far as to suggest that Israel should perhaps ignore the deal.
“They’ve got their own interests at stake, and you know, I would encourage them to continue to take the fight to Hezbollah,” he told MS NOW.
Like many other Republicans, Cornyn also took issue with the memorandum’s provision calling for up to $300 billion in reconstruction money for Iran.
“Unfortunately, now Iran is going to have hundreds of millions of dollars to support its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah,” Cornyn said.
And Cornyn’s Texas colleague, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, was similarly concerned about forking money over to Iran.
“History demonstrates that sending billions of dollars to a theocratic lunatic who wants to murder us is a really bad idea,” he said.
Other Republicans were just as blunt with their criticism.
When MS NOW asked Rep. Don Bacon if the preliminary agreement was positive for Israel, the retiring Nebraska Republican was succinct: “No it is not.”
“Protecting … Hezbollah is not in Israel’s interests. The administration appeared desperate to get Iran to sign,” he said. “The MOU favors Iran significantly. They got their way with Trump.”
Bacon added that the U.S. had “significant military successes” against Iran.
“But Trump wanted an immediate deal too desperately and frittered away success,” he said.
Beyond the Lebanon provision, some of Israel’s top GOP allies are citing a tenet of the memorandum that says the U.S. “further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal,” which experts say could allow Iran to say it drove the U.S. from the area.
Asked if he was concerned the deal may not be positive for Israel, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded in a text message: “Super!”
He said the clause about the U.S. retreating from Iran was “the most astounding.”
“Wow,” he wrote. “I am sure that Iran interprets this clause as the removal of U.S. forces from bases and facilities in the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states. Has there been a greater strategic defeat? As they say ‘The Devil is in the details.’”
And while Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., expressed concerns about what the deal means for Israel, he also took issue with the potential political fallout for Republicans domestically.
“I want to protect Israel for its own sake,” Tillis said. “But there’s also a compelling political reason not to send the message that we’re no better than the Democrats, who have, by and large, let their left wing turn their backs on Israel.”
The concerns are surfacing as the administration finally sends members of Congress the MOU, giving lawmakers their first official chance to review the 14 points.
Israel itself has received the memorandum with a great deal of skepticism, with Axios reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the deal is a mistake.
But the White House is carefully warning Israeli leaders to choose their words carefully.
On Thursday, when Vice President JD Vance was asked about some of the pushback on the deal from Israel, he warned that “Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this point in time.”
“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.
The spat is putting Republicans — who have long sided with Israel — in a potentially uncomfortable spot.
One of Israel’s most outspoken defenders in Congress, Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, notably gave the White House some breathing room when asked whether this was a good deal for Israel.
“Israel isn’t a party to the MOU, and I believe they will act in their best interest,” he texted MS NOW. “My focus is on whether it is a good deal for the United States.”
“A final deal could be bad for Israel; it could be great for Israel. Same is true for America,” he said.
Rather than outwardly cross Trump and the White House, many Republicans seem intent on deferring to Israel’s leaders.
“Israel is going to make their own judgment on that,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V. “I don’t have a comment on that.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. — who touts himself as a “vocal supporter” of Israel — said he wouldn’t want to “assess another country’s security interests.”
“So I just defer to them on that,” he said.
Other Republicans are preaching patience.
When MS NOW asked Sen. Lindsey Graham if this was a good deal for Israel, the South Carolina Republican pointed to the forthcoming 60 days of negotiations before a final agreement.
“It depends on how it all ends,” he said. “If it ends with a deal to contain Iran, it’d be a good deal for the region. If it ends where Saudi can go back to the peace table with Israel, it’d be a good deal. We just don’t know yet.”
“The MOU is not going to change history one way or the other,” Graham said.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was similarly willing to let the process play out.
“I would like to see the Israelis give the agreement 60 days to try to work,” he said. “And if it doesn’t work, we can go back to bombing.”
Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.
“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.
“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.
President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.
“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”
Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.
Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.
“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
- The Pentagon says the Iran war cost $29 billion. Experts say it’s far more.
- Republicans raise concerns that Trump’s Iran deal could come at Israel’s expense
- The clock is ticking on an Iran talks. Here’s what still has to get done.
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Mamdani boosts congressional slate ahead of primary election
- Meta faces calls for Congress to probe scam ads targeting seniors
- Congress lays out path for final passage of housing bill
- AIPAC looms large ahead of New York primaries
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Medication abortion restored in Missouri following court ruling
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words