Consumer Sovereignty is the freedom of spending to yield greater satisfaction. This phenomenon reflects in the ideals of capitalist producers to be forced by competitors to use their resources in the way that will satisfy consumer wants. If this concept were true, a producer would not be in control of what they produce. This will leave an industry, powerless its decisions of what and how much is to be made. In the middle of the 20th century, this concept of Consumer Sovereignty was criticized by John Kenneth Galbraith in his article ?The Non Sequitor of the Dependable Effect?. The two men had different views of consumer sovereignty.

The article Galbraith wrote deals with the concept of ?The Dependence Effect?. The Dependence Effect is where Galbraith tries to explain that in our affluent society one should not have any needs, expect those that are determined by the individual. He stresses the issue that all your needs are premeditated before birth. Those needs that are not premeditated are an extension of the controls and influences of society, which are not original in the person from the start. These needs should be eliminated from ones desires to focus on more fundamental needs.

Hayek disagrees with Galbraith article entirely in ? The Non-Sequitor of the Dependence Effect?. Hayek starts off by trying to insult Galbraith credibility by calling him a socialist; this statement is a tone setter for the article. Calling an economist a socialist is similar calling a Jew, a Muslim or a man, a Ms. You get the point! The Non-Sequitor means that Galbraith connecting influence with control is invalid. One can be influence by another, but that doesn?t mean that one doesn?t have control of their choices. If one is controlled there is no choice. This means that we do not live in the home of the free market. True, indeed, one may be conditioned by the influences of as society in which one lives, but one still has the option to say no. A slave master controls a slave. The slave has to obey the master?s rule regardless if he wants to do it or not. If the master says work, the slave has to work. An employee, however, may be influenced to stop working because he doesn?t like his boss. The employee can stop working because he has that freedom of choice. There is a distinct difference in control and influence.

The title of the paper ?the Opposing Rhetoric On Consumer Sovereignty? is clearly demonstrated. Galbraith sets himself by trying to explain how society is an affluent one. He was on the right track, but he ran out of air trying to explain the control aspect of his article. Hayek exposes Galbraith by first calling him a Socialist, then showing how ? The Dependence Effect? was an over exaggerated point.

The Hyek article exposes Galbraith?s rhetoric by dissecting ? The Dependence Effect?. Hayek argues with the statement ? That a great part of

Some topics in this essay:
Consumer Sovereignty, Effect Hayek, Ms Non-Sequitor, Dependence Effect, Effect Galbraith, Chevy Suburban, Keeping Jones, Dependable Effect, consumer sovereignty, dependence effect, sex shelter, food sex shelter, Kenneth Galbraith, food sex, opposing rhetoric consumer, rhetoric consumer sovereignty, rhetoric consumer, effect hayek, basic food, product beer, trying explain, basic food sex, dependence effect hayek, calling socialist,