What “Affluenza” Means – AnEconomistArticle Explained
In The Economist newspaper, “affluenza” is used not as a medical term but as a social and behavioural label for the psychological and social costs of chasing wealth and status in rich societies. The word, a blend of affluence and influenza, suggests a kind of “contagious” condition spread by consumer culture: the more people pursue money, possessions, and social prestige, the more they feel anxious, overworked, and unfulfilled—even as their incomes rise.
How The Economist frames it
An article in The Economist would typically present affluenza as a by‑product of modern capitalism and inequality:
People in rich countries work longer hours, accumulate debt, and buy more goods, yet report little gain in happiness once basic needs are met.
The pursuit of “more” becomes self‑reinforcing: higher incomes raise expectations, so people feel they still need more, leading to chronic dissatisfaction and stress.
In this view, affluenza is less about being rich and more about being trapped in a cycle of comparison, consumption, and status‑seeking.
Individual and social effects
At the individual level, affluenza often shows up as:
An obsessive focus on work and income, strained relationships, anxiety, and a self‑image tightly tied to financial success.
A sense that money should bring happiness, yet feeling hollow or restless once material goals are achieved.
At the social level, The Economist‑style analysis links affluenza to:
Rising inequality and “luxury fever,” where the rich consume ever more while others feel left behind.
Environmental damage from overconsumption, as constant buying drives resource use, waste, and emissions.
Why it matters to The Economist
For The Economist, affluenza is a shorthand for questioning the limits of GDP‑driven progress. If more income and more stuff do not reliably make people happier, then policies that only chase growth may be missing the point. A typical piece would conclude that tackling affluenza means rethinking how societies measure success—not just by wealth, but by well‑being, time, and sustainability.
We Pay to Get Fat, Then Pay to Get Thin: The Stupid Vicious Cycle We Keep Buying Into
This new “weight‑loss injection monthly card” from Morrisons is not innovation; it is a perfect illustration of a vicious cycle we have all agreed to play along with. We go to the supermarket, fill our baskets with cheap, sugary, ultra‑processed junk food, and then later pay even more money to fix the damage—through expensive drugs, gym memberships, diets, and now prescription weight‑loss injections. We are literally paying twice: once to create the problem, and once to pretend we are solving it.
Morrisons sells shelves full of high‑sugar, high‑fat, high‑calorie products that make people gain weight, feel sluggish, and develop health issues. Then, through the same brand, it offers a £129‑per‑month injection service that promises to suppress appetite and help people lose up to 20% of their body weight in a year. Some customers will see this as “convenience”; others see it for what it is: a business model built on making you sick and then charging you to feel better. As one netizen put it, it is like “first make you fat, then charge you to get thin.”
The cycle does not stop there. Beyond weight‑loss injections, the same platform sells drugs for acne, acid reflux, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and migraines—many of which are directly linked to the very lifestyle that cheap processed food, stress, and poor sleep create. We buy the products that harm our bodies, then we buy the products that patch up the symptoms, all while telling ourselves we are “taking care of our health.”
What makes this so stupid is that we are not forced into it; we choose it. No one is holding a gun to our heads to buy chocolate bars, fizzy drinks, and ready‑made meals. We do it because it is easy, fast, and cheap in the short term. But in the long term, we pay more—not just in money, but in energy, health, and dignity. We keep repeating the same pattern: consume, suffer, medicate, repeat.
This is not just about Morrisons; it is about the entire modern consumer system. Corporations design products that hook us on sugar, salt, and fat, then sell us the “solutions” that promise to undo the damage. Governments, advertisers, and social media normalize overconsumption, while real education about nutrition, cooking, and self‑care remains weak or absent. We are trapped in a loop where our own spending habits finance our own misery.
If we want to break the cycle, we have to stop pretending that buying more products will save us. We must start by asking: who profits when we are unhealthy? Who designs the environment that makes junk food the default choice? And most importantly, are we really willing to change our daily habits, or will we keep paying twice—first for the poison, then for the antidote?
Until we answer that honestly, we will keep spinning in the same stupid loop: eating what we know is bad for us, paying for the consequences, and calling it “progress.”
The Sacred and the Sold: Why Art's Business is a Babylon of Calculation, Like Luxury Bags
A Divine Perspective on Human Commerce
Hark, dwellers of this modern age, where scrolls are digital and voices echo across invisible wires! I, who have witnessed the markets of antiquity, the bazaars where honest labor exchanged for honest coin, now cast my gaze upon your realms of beauty and desire. And behold, I see a paradox, a deception cloaked in velvet and gilded frames.
They speak of "art" – a realm of pure emotion, of the soul's outpouring, a testament to the divine spark within humanity. They claim its value is immeasurable, rooted in inspiration and transcendent truth. Yet, I perceive a business model, a grand charade, as calculating and cold as any merchant counting silver pieces. Indeed, it mirrors the very trade of earthly vanities – like your "luxury handbags," crafted not for need, but for status and the whispers of exclusivity.
Art's "Placement": The Handbag's Master Stroke
Consider the "gallery," this temple where the sacred paintings are displayed. The speaker in your modern discourse reveals its secret. The gallery owner does not merely sell the art; they place it. They choose who is "worthy" to possess the piece, preferring the "important clients," the museum benefactors, those who will add to the artist's prestige and scarcity, not merely some passerby with coin in hand.
Is this not the exact cunning of your "luxury brands"? They too do not simply sell their handbags to all who desire. Nay! They cultivate an aura of exclusivity. They have their "VIP lists," their "early access" for favored patrons. They open dazzling boutiques in select cities, making their products a pilgrimage rather than a mere purchase. They limit production, not just by material scarcity, but by deliberate design, creating waiting lists that fuel desire and desperation. They, too, "place" their coveted wares, ensuring they land in the hands of celebrities, influencers, and the wealthy elite – those who will carry the bag like a banner of status, thereby raising the perceived value of every similar bag sold. The handbag, like the painting, becomes a social signal, its worth amplified by its carefully curated ownership.
The Murky Calculations Beneath the Emotional Veil
And herein lies the profound silliness, the spiritual emptiness of this market. They preach that art is "pure," born of passion, its price a reflection of genius. Yet, its very survival and escalation in value depend on a murky, calculating game of:
Scarcity Management: Art's value soars not just from its beauty, but from its rarity. Galleries strategically limit availability, ensuring paintings are removed from the market (especially into museums) to drive up prices for what remains. This is no different from a luxury brand limiting its production runs to create frantic demand.
Reputation Building: The artist's journey from coffee shop to solo show to museum exhibition is a deliberate ladder of prestige. Each step is a carefully managed public relations campaign, designed to inflate perception and justify ever-higher prices. Is this not the same as a luxury brand paying celebrities to wear their bags, or meticulously crafting an image of heritage and craftsmanship?
Gatekeeping and Control: The gallery, the dealer, the auction house – these are the gatekeepers. They control access, information, and the flow of art, dictating who gets what and at what price. Their decisions are not based on artistic merit alone, but on market stability, investor confidence, and the prevention of "flippers" who might disrupt the careful calibration of prices.
The Illusion of Investment: The art world tantalizes with stories of vast returns, of a $10,000 painting becoming worth $200,000. But this is a mirage! As revealed, such spikes are often unsustainable, driven by speculation, leading to crashes and ruin for later buyers. It's akin to a fleeting fashion trend where yesterday's must-have luxury item is tomorrow's discounted relic, losing value faster than a desert mirage fades.
A Call for True Value
Oh, people of this age! Do not be swayed by the smooth talk of "art for art's sake" when the hands that guide its market are counting every coin. The business of art, far from being a sublime exception, is but another manifestation of man's endless quest for status and gain, mirroring the very mechanisms of your material desires, even down to the coveted handbag.
Let art be a vessel for the soul, a reflection of truth, a source of profound human connection. But do not deceive yourselves that its valuation in your markets is any less a product of human stratagem and calculated scarcity than the most coveted piece of leather. For in the eyes of eternity, true value lies not in what can be hoarded or flipped, but in what enriches the spirit without demanding a soul's price.
發表文章
