October 31st, 2000
GDP and Childhood
By Ralph Nader
Mothering Magazine
Parents have growing concerns about the commercial influences upon theirchildren these days. And rightly so, given all of the violententertainment, and the ads for beer, cigarettes, and junk food thatbesiege young people from morning to night. What parents do not realize,however, is that the nation’s economic experts regard these influencesas progress. To them, our children have become a kind of fodder forAmerica’s economic machine.
Consider: which would be healthier for American children today—toconverse with their parents, do homework, and play outside, or, whileeating junk food, to play video games and see a violent movie? Most ofus would probably choose the first, but if you’re an economist or acorporate executive, the answer would probably be junk food and videogames.
Why would anyone want children to see violent movies instead of spendingtime with their parents? Why would the commercial media applaud whenthis occurs? The answer is, of course, money. Children don’t spend anywhen they talk with their parents or do homework. But when they spend alot to see a violent movie or pig out on junk food, that’s good forbusiness.
It is also good for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Economists and themedia have enshrined this measure as the benchmark of America’s economichealth. The entire political establishment, from the president on down,uses the GDP as the barometer of whether things are getting better orworse. Increases in the GDP are seen as economic progress. Decreasesbecome economic disaster—“recession” or worse. Much of our nationaleconomic debate revolves around the GDP. But when you cut through themumbo-jumbo, a simple fact emerges: what the GDP counts as good canreally be bad.
The commercial state of childhood in America is a sad example. It hasbecome largely a multi-billion dollar state of seduction and buying,dedicated to increasing the GDP. Advertisers continually barragechildren with ads with the aim of turning them into demanding demonsuntil their parents give in. This corporate sowing of intrafamily strifeis misery for parents, but it’s great for the GDP. The more corporateadvertisers turn our children into product-obsessed little nags, themore the nation’s cash registers ring, and the more the newspapersherald the juvenile market’s “stunning growth.” The economic beancounters break out the champagne as advertisers drive another parent toexhausted desperation. When kids gorge on junk food, demand big-dollarsneakers and pants, gobble up CDs and videos, the GDP takes a big leap.
Those ads have side effects as well. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expertin the psychology of mayhem, has linked violent entertainment—in ads,video games, and the like—to school shootings. Big business isdeliberately desensitizing children to violence and pain. Of course,this creates work for child psychologists, grief counselors, along withorders for much equipment such as metal detectors, which are anotherboost to the GDP.
These problems cascade upon one another, in chain reactions of socialproblems and economic gain. When Anheuser-Busch uses child-enticingcartoon images of frogs and the like in Budweiser beer ads, they lureyoung people to drink beer, which probably contributes to more carcrashes, date rape, and eventually to alcoholism. Car crashes alone area $100 billion industry in America, and treatment for alcoholism addsbillions more.
When McDonalds and Coca-Cola saturate children with ads, they sell moreBig Macs and big Cokes. Childhood obesity goes up—records show thatAmerica has the fattest children in its history. No problem. We’ll justgive them some pills and counseling and that will make the GDP go upsome more. The dental industry gets a big boost as well. So whileparents fret, the experts cheer. A nation obsessed with the GDP startslooking at its children mainly in terms of how much money they spend.Children become resources to mine and sales quotas, not young beings tonurture.
Even schools have enlisted in this gold rush. Channel One is anin-school marketing company that uses a so-called TV news show as acome-on to get about eight million children to watch ads each schoolday. Children become a captive audience for ads showing expensivesneakers, junk food, and soda pop. That’s what is called “education"today, and there’s a grim candor to the whole situation. We are tossingchildren and childhood onto the bonfire that keeps the GDP warm. But thebusiness media looks at the result and gushes at the economy’s upwardpath.
It’s time for reporters and experts to stop parroting narrow-channeledeconomic textbooks. They need to develop better indicators of economicperformance that don’t portray the impairment or destruction ofchildhood as economic gain. We ought to treat the sale of addictiveproducts like cigarettes to children as costs not gains to the economy.Childhood obesity, hyperactivity, the corporate sowing of strife in thehome should similarly be subtractions from the nation’s economicperformance, not additions to it. It’s time to get our nation’s economicindicators straight—and protect our children from corporations thatprey on them for profit.