 |
 |
 |
|
Consumers and Producers
We all have to produce something to have an exchange. I also object to the term consumer. It is, as you say, needlessly vague. Furthermore, it shapes the paradigm of the transaction in a demeaning way to the 'consumer' who is, in fact 'producing' cash in 'exchange' for goods/services. In theory the person had to produce goods or services to obtain the cash. In any case, the goods/services of the 'seller' should have the same value as the cash being exchanged by the 'buyer'. So, in a system where we are all producers, the meaningful relationship in the marketplace is Buyer::Seller I don't believe you should try to control how people use language. What I do want is for people to have enough self-esteem to know when they are being pigeon-holed and to reject it. To be discerning buyers so that you aren't sold junk or poor service. My feeling is that companies who don't express the value difference between 'buyers', 'partners', 'patrons', 'customers', 'users' and 'consumers' are trying to game the system. And individuals who don't recognize the difference accept the role of the modern serf, because they don't assert the value of their own production the way companies do.
|
