Attempted firebomb of times squareFollow

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..




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!



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.



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.




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.



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.



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

Victor Lebow 1955. Journal of Retailing.

Ring any bells?

Edited, May 5th 2010 1:34am by paulsol

Yes. Wonderful. You can cherry pick a quote from a guy who said things about capitalism which happen to tie into your argument. So what? It's not like he magically knew "the truth" and spoke it, or something. He expressed an opinion which happens to benefit a position you hold.

Some of us don't believe that this is the problem you claim it is. We also believe that no matter what the retailer might like us to do as consumers, we are ultimately in charge of our own decisions. Certainly it's better for the options to be there than not, right? What's missing is any sort of assessment of the overall effect on the status and condition of man as a result. While we may abhor meaningless consumption, the reality that it's accessible very clearly has driven massive innovation over time.

If such excessive consumption helped lead to the development of such monumentally useful things as computers, and cell phones, and the internet, is that a bad thing? You can today buy a machine which does things undreamed of just a generation ago. You hold a device in your pocket which allows you to instantly talk to anyone on the planet. How did that happen?


The problem with your position is that you can't just take the good and leave the bad. Capitalism is not directed, that's its virtue. Because of that, it'll result in products we might not have planned to make when we started on the journey (or could even have conceived). A necessary component of that is a whole lot of stuff that is not so groundbreaking or important. And if retailers selling people crap they don't need helps fund the important stuff, I personally have no problem with it.


I guess I just keep coming back to the same question: Why do you think this is bad? Can you provide an alternative method which would reasonably provide similar positives without as many negatives? Remember, I don't find the fact that people can choose to buy things they don't really need a negative. It's their choice, right? To me, increased choice is always a good thing. But I'm honestly curious how you think we should do things. I've mentioned the whole communist regime thing in a semi-tongue-in-cheek way, but I honestly don't know where you think we should be in terms of economic systems, or to what lengths you think governments should step in to stop the horrible excesses you seem to think is going on around you.


What is your solution? It's easy to attack the other guys position, so why not tell me what you want, instead of just railing against what you don't want?

I keep having to look at the top of the page to remember what thread this is...

I guess I just keep coming back to the same question: Why do you think this is bad?

I think its bad because...

1. The products being produced are by and large junk inasmuch they are of poor quality. They have, almost by definition, no future. The majority of goods bought today in WalMart will be in a landfill within 6 months. They have been made with planned obsolescense built in. $20 power tools anyone?

2. They are made from resources that are finite. Plastic is made from oil. Most everything we buy is made at least in part from plastic. When we no longer want it, we throw it in a landfill. We treat it as though it is disposable. As though oil is an infinately availiable resource. Its not. When our domestic landfills are full, we export our waste to 3rd world countries who are desperate for our money. they throw it in the nearest river or swamp where it slowly exudes poisons into the environment. Computer waste to India is a good example.

3. Those resources are extracted in the cheapest ways possible, with little thought given to environmental concerns, leading to localised environmental disasters and horrendous health risks to the people doing the extraction and processing. These people are often the poorest of the poor. They have no escape from their poverty, nor do their children. Extraction waste is usually dumped in the nearest river.

4.Conspicuous consumption in developed countries leads to a percieved race to 'keep up'. This leads to mass frustration amongst the people who inevitably fail to keep up. This leads to feelings of desperation amongst those who (in their own minds) fall behind. Desperate people end up feeling hopeless and go on to make stupid decisions. Society as a whole suffers from increaed rates of robberies, burglaries, muggings and random violence as the 'failed' lash out in their frustration.

5.For those of us lucky enough to work for our money there is an alternative. This involves working ever harder at the expense of our families friends and health to buy momentary relief from the feelings of falling behind.

The cycle goes like this....

Work all day > Come home knackered > Switch on TV > Watch shows and music vids full of beuatiful people having fun consuming shiny stuff with their friends > commercial break. Buy shiny new stuff here!! Be happy!! Implication being that you will be unhappy until you own *insert random shiny here* > go to bed tired and frustrated > Go to work even longer tommorow to buy shiny thing > purchase shiny thing > enjoy shiny thing until bloke next door gets shinier thing > shine wears off your shiny thing > Go to work all day > Come home knackered > etc etc etc...

This is so obviously a destructive system for all involved, including the utter pointlessness of it for the end user (the one who is supposedly benefitting from the 'choices' availiable) that once it become clear in your mind, it becomes as equally as stupid as smoking cigarettes.




I don't find the fact that people can choose to buy things they don't really need a negative.
If people choose to buy **** they dont need thats up to them. Sure. But to base your whole reason for existence around it is futile at best.

It's their choice, right? To me, increased choice is always a good thing.

I agree. Choice based upon knowledge is always a good thing. Based upon ignorance tho'? Not so much.

But I'm honestly curious how you think we should do things.

The first thing I do is behave in the way that I believe to be right. To set an example if you will. In the last 5 years, I (we) have cut our (roadside) waste by 90%. I keep chickens and compost everything. We buy local. We discard (or avoid altogether) packaging at point of retail eg. My boy lurves sushi. When I get sushi, i take my own reusable containers to bring it home in. I exchange labour for goods. Last week i helped a friend out with a retaining wall, he gave me a trailer load of firewood. We buy food as raw ingredients and in bulk. eg 50kg sacks of organic flour. We bake all our own bread, make our own muesli. Milk comes from a farmer up the road in a 10 litre bucket once a week. We grow and preserve our own food as much as possible. I buy locally caught fish. We dont buy food in tins. If i buy a power tool (for example) I buy a top quality one with an ability to get serviced and repaired locally. I don't buy a cheap one that I'll throw away at the first sign of trouble. I don't buy clothes because they have a 'label'. I do buy second hand when possible. That includes clothes, books and anything else that I need.

This is all stuff that can be done by anyone. Except for perhaps keeping the chooks if you live in an apartment :)

All this has meant that Between my wife and I, we work a total of 30 hours a week between us in paid jobs. the rest of the time we are at home, with our boy or pursuing the things that really interest us. Surfing for my part.

The second thing I try and do is tell people that they don't have to work 40, 50, 60 hours a week. Cut out the pointless consuming of shinies and its amazing how quickly you can make your life more satisfying by not spending every waking hour coveting some PoS that you saw on the telly last night.

Of course its up to them wether they want to listen, or wether they want to continue charging around in the hamster wheel of consumption.

I've mentioned the whole communist regime thing in a semi-tongue-in-cheek way, but I honestly don't know where you think we should be in terms of economic systems, or to what lengths you think governments should step in to stop the horrible excesses you seem to think is going on around you.

Governments are the problem imo, not a solution. They need to get back to looking after roads, borders, maintaining food standards and safety and maintaining a health and social services system that looks out for the weakest who cant look after themselves. (Not those who cant be ***** to look after themselves). They need to stop working for business and stop equating wealth and prosperity with cashmoney.

What is your solution? It's easy to attack the other guys position, so why not tell me what you want, instead of just railing against what you don't want?

See above.

Brownduck,

/nods at everything you just said.

Brown,

Me extreme? That's kind of like calling someone who's against illegal immigration a racist.

Locked,

I never said that.

How does it feel having to create lies in a transparent, and failed, attempt to make yourself look witty?


Oh that's right you're a liberal democrat. You don't feel morally obligated by concepts like truth.




Edited, May 5th 2010 11:45am by knoxxsouthy

Don't try and confuse him with the facts, sir.

Moebius,



or proper grammar.



Edited, May 5th 2010 11:59am by knoxxsouthy

Samy,

I understand you are typical liberal who creates lies as a means to attack his opponent.

Brownduck,



Believe me I understand you all are so far beneath my genius it makes you feel stupid, which you then predictably project back to me.

You gave a wonderful list of reasons why people should conserve and be frugal and all that other stuff. But I think you're still blending consumerism with capitalism, as though all those things wont happen unless we use a capitalistic economic system. They will. They'll just occur in different ways is all. Pollution occurs in command economies, and is arguably *worse* under such systems. Consumption of resources over time will occur regardless of economic system. Once we opened the industrial genie bottle, we set ourselves on this course as a species. You can't close that, and should not confuse the economic system used with the use of industrial processes in the first place.

There's a difference between what individuals choose to do, and what societies choose as an economic system. I tend to agree that people make poor choices. However, I believe that they have a right to make those choices. I've also seen no evidence that alternative economic systems will make things "better" in any real way. Different? Yes. Better? Nope...



This comment was somewhat content-free, wasn't it? Where did the issue of ignorance come from? And what does this have to do with capitalism? Capitalism does not cause consumerism. People want things whether the economic system being used makes them more or less easily obtainable. You aren't going to change human nature, you're just going to artificially block their choices and therefore change the result. I don't see the benefit to doing that.



Ok. But that's not what is implied when you support a political position opposed to capitalism, is it? One is a system. The other is individual choice. You speak of setting examples and encouraging people to do the right thing, but then talk of blaming "capitalism", which suggests you'd support government action to limit said system, which in turn limits peoples choices. If you truly think it should be about people's choices, then let them choose!


And no. Letting them choose to legislatively restrict capitalist processes isn't the same kind of choice. That's imposing one groups position on another. If that's what you want, then say it. Don't dance around with these hippy-dippy claims of letting people do what they want, and just encouraging them to do the right thing. Say you want an authoritarian government to take control of the economy and mandate that people recycle, and re-use containers and bags, and bake their own bread and use freshly grown organic products, and place limits on the amount of petroleum products they can use in a period of time and all the other stuff you quite obviously really do want to have done.


It just seems disingenuous when you say one thing, but quite clearly support a political agenda that goes well beyond that position.




I'm honestly curious if you *really* want it to be up to them as individuals. You say this, but I don't think it's much of a limb for me to go on to assume that you'd be in support of legislation imposing some of these things on the population if they came along.



You get that you're just replacing the big businesses with big government when you do that. You were almost there. Then you lumped in health care and social services. I just believe that you can't take that step without ending out on a slippery slope that leads to more more more, and becomes just as destructive as the worst failings of unbridled capitalism.

A lot of people have this quaint idea that if you use government to provide for some minimum amount of stuff for people, that they'll be content with that and stop there. But this pretty much never happens. Not without draconian government power being involved. There never does seem to be an end to what the people will come to expect government to provide from them once enough of them come to assume that this is the government's purpose.




Well... I was really asking you what economic system you'd prefer. I get the whole "encourage people to make better choices" bit, but then why rail against capitalism? Clearly, your position can't stop just at that, right?

Edited, May 5th 2010 12:53pm by gbaji