Episode 199: Ultima Ratio Plebium

May 17, 2022

Central Thesis

Advertising corrupts public discourse by creating a false sense of equality and obscuring the contempt that the wealthy have for the common person. This manufactured image contrasts sharply with the realities of financial inequality, leading to disillusionment and societal instability.

Key Arguments

• The Ultimatum Game as a Microcosm: The ultimatum game, where one person can dictate terms to another, mirrors the relationship between advertisers and consumers. Advertisers, like the offerer in the game, hold the power, and consumers are often left with little choice but to accept their manufactured desires.
• Advertisers are Liars: Jim states that advertisers are inherently deceptive, their primary goal being to convince people to act against their own better judgment. He clarifies that this is not an insult, but a description of their profession.
• The Pecora Hearings Expose Hypocrisy: The host uses the Pecora hearings to illustrate the disconnect between the image that companies like National Shitty Bank (a stand-in for National City Bank) presented to the public through advertising and the reality of their exploitative practices.
• Class Inequality is Real: The stark contrast between the lavish treatment of bank executives (interest-free loans, bonuses) and the exploitative stock purchase plan offered to lower-level employees underscores the reality of class inequality. The host refutes claims that class is a relic of the past.
• Advertising Replaces Patrician Responsibility: Historically, the wealthy felt a sense of duty to the less fortunate. Mass advertising, pioneered by companies like National Shitty Bank, abandoned this tradition, instead targeting "the person of limited resources" with false promises of financial security.

Notable Passages

• "You have to remember, though, when you're dealing with advertisers, that advertisers are liars. I don't mean this pejoratively. I mean this as a job description. Their job is literally to convince you to do something you would not otherwise choose to do."
• "When national shitty banks started grasping for a speculative market in magazine ads, Mitchell even rolled out a nationwide billboard campaign. When they presented those old training materials as their marketing position, targeting, in their words, the person of limited resources, all of whose capital and income are necessary to ensure life's future comforts."
• "When Ferdinand Pecora extracted the truth of the patrician contempt for their customers and shareholders as just being plebes, yeah, there was shock. A lot of it."
• "In life, we either have a, well, wealthy father, or we don't. We commoners can, though, one law after another, lessen the distance between those who were born with the lucky fathers and those who weren't."

Rhetorical Approach

Jim employs a historical case study (the Pecora hearings and the 1929 crash) interwoven with contemporary social commentary. He uses sarcasm, informal language, and personal anecdotes to engage listeners. He frequently interrupts himself, speaks parenthetically, and uses nicknames ("Sunshine Charlie") to create a conversational and irreverent tone. He sets up the case study using a discussion of the ultimatum game in psychology.

Connections

• References David McRaney's You Are Not So Smart (specifically, the Ultimatum Game and confirmation bias, discussed in the previous episode).
• References Michael Perino's The Hellhound of Wall Street (provides the historical basis for the episode).
• References Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash (for the phrase "the last argument of kings").
• References Previous episodes of Attack Ads (#8 "The Buck Stops Here," #81 "Pulpits, Bully and Otherwise").