paulsol wrote:
Look. I'm saying that the world as it is now is destined for a disastrous shortage of resources (and the conflict that that will bring) due to our relentless CONSUMPTION. We in the lucky 1st world have turned CONSUMPTION into a RELIGION. This has happened because we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that HAPPINESS = CONSUMPTION. This myth was purposely taken up in the post WWII period so as to maintain the Wests (particularly the USA) pre-eminent postion in the world.
I'd say that during the post WW2 era was the first time in in history in which the average person anywhere was able to "consume". For most of history, only the rich land owners got to have luxuries and whatnot, and for the first time, capitalism and industrialism combined to provide those things to a large portion of western citizens. This alarmed those who would like the majority of people to be poor so that they are more easily controlled, and they have invented reasons why this is "bad" in order to talk people into giving up the lives of freedom they could have for the simple (and nicely controlled) lives that the old school authoritarians want them to have. It's not a mistake that the nations which adopted political systems most strongly opposed to the "excesses" of consumption have been among the most brutally authoritarian in modern history.
But hey! You say tomato, I say tomahto..
Quote:
The problem is, ever increasing CONSUMPTION in a finite world is impossible to maintain for very long. So here we are 50 years later and half the world is obese and snowed under with ever increasing amounts of stuff they dont need, made by slaves in the 3rd world who are begining to realise that they are slaves.
Consumption is relative to available goods. Capitalism (that pesky "greed" thing) ensures that the most common method by which competition is won in the market is to bring a better product at a lower price. This requires that industrialists find ways to make things more efficiently. The net effect over time is that we're able to produce more goods while using (consuming even!) fewer resources. Less free market systems might consume less in the short term, but in the long term, they fail. One of the documents which came out of the soviet union and which helped in the decision to end their experiment with communism showed that it took on average 30 times more resources in the USSR to make the same "good" as it did in the US. That's purely the result of competition for consumption dollars. So even though they were providing vastly fewer goods and services for their people, they were actually expending *more* resources doing it. They were spending over half of their entire productive output on defense, compared to about 3-4% in the US. Less than a 5th of total GDP ends out being spent on "necessities" in the US, where the remaining amount of Soviet GDP was struggling to keep people from starving or freezing to death.
It's not a simplistic zero sum game. One of the systems actually increases the real efficiency of the equation and therefore changes the whole game. In the sort term it does seem like less consumption is better since it will stretch resources, but those who advocated such systems back in the 19th century simply could not have understood the degree to which competition and free consumption would improve the very processes of productivity themselves. They could be excused. They didn't have any way to know what would happen. What's startling is that over a century later and massive data showing just how wrong folks like Marx were, there are many who still adhere strictly to their flawed ideology and assumptions about the long term effects of capitalism.
Marx and Engels were wrong! They screwed up. Get over it!
Quote:
That process is leading to an inevitable environmental and social catastrophe.
I disagree. I think that this is what you are told so that you'll support political agendas which ultimately deny you freedom. You'd never allow it if you weren't convinced that there would be some disaster waiting for you if you didn't.
Quote:
You talk about wanting to make your own choices? Let me ask you this...How many hours do you spend at work in an average week?? I'm betting its more than the average worker spent at work 30 or 40 years ago.
Er? I'm not hourly, so that's kinda irrelevant. I work long hours when I need to, and shorter hours when I can. I actually enjoy my work, so maybe I'm not a good person to ask this question of.
Quote:
If that is the case. Why do you spend so long at work? Is it because you like working? Or because you are struggling to maintain a lifestyle that your peers can look at and say 'Wow! Look at Gbajis new car/phone/HD TV/Timex!'
Boy do you have that backwards. I live a very very simple life. I owned my last car for 15 years. I don't buy things on credit, preferring to save up to buy things instead. I don't go out to eat often, rarely go to the movies, and don't care much about what my home furniture looks like.
I buy things because I will use them and enjoy them. Not because I think I'll be thought less off if I don't own "shiny new thing". I'm not sure where you get this perception, but while I'm more laid back than most, I don't know very many people at all who do the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. I own *one* pair of work shoes, two pairs of dress shoes (one casual, one formal), one pair of sneakers, and a matching "frugal" wardrobe. I buy new clothes when the old ones are worn or stained and I'm running low of enough changes to make it through a week. Seriously.
I could absolutely afford more things. I *choose* not to buy more. I choose to save my money for things that matter, and I choose to invest most of my earnings. Remember when I said that you're operating on an incorrect assumption about "wealth"? Wealth is not about what you have in terms of things, but what you have in terms of potential. Once you spend money, it's not wealth anymore (well, usually not). This is part of the bit I was trying to touch on earlier with Smash. Those who spend every dollar they earn never become wealthy. And you are correct that most people do this. They increase their expenses to match their income. That is consumption. It's not "bad". It's just reality. Some people will spend what they have, others will invest it. Those who invest become wealthy. Those who don't, regardless of standard of living, will not. That's why it's not about luck, and that's why attempts to redistribute wealth can never really work. It always ends out back in the hands of the small percentage of the population who invest instead of simply consume.
The point though is that even those who spend it all, are still often living better lives than they'd be if we didn't have capitalism and didn't allow such free consumption in the first place. They choose to live that way. They're free to do that. It's also why it's silly to attack the rich for being rich. They are rich because they choose *not* to spend every dime they earned. It's funny that you attack consumption, yet will presumably also attack those who choose not to consume (which is everyone who is wealthy btw). Strange, isn't it? Your positions are not logical. But you've been so indoctrinated that you simply don't possess the viewpoint to see it.
Quote:
If you really want to 'make your own choices', why are you spending so much time at work? So that you can display outward signs of superficial wealth to others?
If thats the case, its a crap 'choice' you've made.
If thats the case, its a crap 'choice' you've made.
But it's not my place to tell those who want to make that choice that they can't. Do you see that this is about freedom? If someone wants to work 60 hours a week to make more money so he can spend it all on fancy window dressing for his life, that's his choice. No one is holding a gun to his head and forcing him to do that. But what you are proposing requires that we *do* take that choice away, via some sort of authoritarian process. So maybe not a gun to the head, but it's still being forced on people.
Accepting freedom means accepting that people are free to make mistakes. The second you try to make their choices for them, you've gone in the other direction.
Quote:
But don't feel too bad. Its the same crap 'choice' that billions have others have made and given the chance, will make.
Like I said. CONSUMPTION is the new RELIGEON.
Keep on sacrificing your time at its altar.
Its your choice after all.
Like I said. CONSUMPTION is the new RELIGEON.
Keep on sacrificing your time at its altar.
Its your choice after all.
Yes. But you keep trying to paint this in a "good choice versus bad choice" way, but what you're really supporting politically is a "no choice" position. I have a choice. I've made that choice. If others want to make a different choice, I don't have any problem with that, and I'm frankly not sure why you feel so strongly that you must somehow prevent them from doing so.
You talk about religion, but you're the one coming off like a fanatic.
Edited, May 4th 2010 5:46pm by gbaji