Much of the mainstream press has played the rising opposition to Senate confirmation of Ben Bernanke as a case of misplaced populist rage. The fact that the opposition within the Senate began with that chamber's left (Bernie Sanders) and right (Jim Bunning) seems to confirm the premise that it's only the fringe that opposes his reappointment as Fed Chairman. The Boston Globe, for example, recently profiled Sanders and his case against Bernanke under the remarkable headline, "Sanders a Growing Force on the Far, Far Left." (I've always thought of the far, far left as Chairman Mao and Che Guevara. Bernie is a European style social-democrat.)

It scarcely needs to be said, but capitalism inherently breeds inequality. So much so that today, the world's of the poor and the rich are so different and diffused that humanity can barely be called one species.

Take the recent debates at Copenhagen as a prime example of the problem; the calls for the developed world to help the developing world was a great macro example of what happens daily between those that have and those that don't.

The 'haves' are set on keeping their advantage (which we keep telling ourself is unchangeable human nature) and 'the have nots' are set upon bridging the gap- done with a belief that they have an inherent right to do so.

The part of human nature we don't like to publicise to often though, is that those that have will always fight tooth and nail to keep the perks of their position often disregarding any morals, ethics or compassion.

Time and time again we see it, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam and last week, crappy climate change deals that try to preserve the status quo as much as possible.

But what if the status quo shouldn't be protected?

What if the status quo is the real problem that needs solving?

Do words denote meaning or does meaning denote words? If I don’t have a word for something, does it exist? Or must I have the word first to bring it into being?

The word ‘consumer’ is first noted in 1535 – just as the religious revolution of Tudor England was being launched. The counterpoint of ‘consumer’ and ‘producer’ is at the heart of the development of capitalism and reflects the dynamic which has got us into such bad strife today.

Economic growth demands increasing consumption but increasing consumption is killing planet earth. There is, however, hope. In the Japanese language, there is no word for ‘user’ that well known recipient of goods and services in a market economy. The Japanese prefer to call consumers ‘the persons who live”. Persons who live cannot also be persons that kill. So let’s get rid of the words ‘users’ and ‘consumers’ as we go about the ethical reconstruction of our world and celebrate a new word to describe our participation in a new political economy.

How about ‘sustainers’?

To the demographic of young people whose youth extended throughout the early 2000's you would be, like myself, one of the first generations to be exposed to the consumer sensation of the Japanese money-maker, "Pokémon".

The lesson behind these cuddly creatures is fairly straight forward; you catch them, you raise them, you trade them, you win... somehow. However, after vast reflection and confusion regarding the nature of our obsession i have come to the realise that it was a scheme to make us into baby capitalists.

Think about it: you (the stockbroker) after exploring a strange and magical world (the market) where you're invited to to obtain small creatures (shares). After time your Pokemoney becomes even stronger and is further consolidated in the face of another Pokemon. After seeing the results of one, you gather more because you "must catch them all". And the outcome? (nothing it's a cartoon about Japanese monsters).

What we are witnessing right now is the end of an era: the death of turbo capitalism, writes RENATE OGILVIE.