Letter to the LA Times

By Allen Kolmes---
I recently wrote to the LA Times about something I read in last Sunday's opinion section.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allen30-2009aug30,0,2592815.story
The topic was somewhat esoteric, not something that I am normally passionate about. What set me off was not so much the content (with which I do disagree) but the extreme vacuousness of the argument. The published version is here--
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
Unfortunately, I did not keep it within the 150 word limit, so the better part of my letter got chopped off. Here is the original:


In her opinion piece, “Chew on This,” Charlotte Allen voices her disdain for a certain genre of social criticism that concerns itself with the actual cost, as opposed to the immediate monetary price, of the things we consume. However, while she clearly thinks these people are misguided, nowhere in her article does she actually explain how or why.
The lowering cost and increasing abundance of food and other goods in the modern economy has no doubt been a boon to humanity-- at least to those living above the subsistence level. However, behind the apparent—in terms of immediate ability to pay—affordability of food, furniture, clothing, gasoline, and all other consumables are substantial hidden costs. The decreasing price of commodities is often the result of corporations making great efforts towards paying as little as possible to the people who make and move the products they sell. Things are also often apparently inexpensive because the true costs—resource depletion, pollution of the air and water, etc, etc, are often passed on to future generations rather than being paid for by our own.

There is an ever increasing body of commentary devoted to discussion of these issues. This obviously annoys Ms. Allen. She would much prefer that we just enjoy the party and not worry about how it may be affecting the neighbors.

Ms. Allens argument can be summarized as follows:
1. I like things to be inexpensive.
2. If there are hidden social or environmental costs, I don’t want to know about them.
3. Nor do I care.
4. People who worry about such issues clearly have a screw loose.
This is an argument better suited to AM talk radio then the Op-Ed page of a major newspaper. I am sure there is a case to be made against the social critics in question. But it is nowhere to be found in this article.