|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Replacing Consumerism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Well, like I say I really see it more as a demand crisis - aggregate demand is down in the US by about a trillion dollars below the trend. Isn't that because people were spending money on the basis of believing that the assets they owned would be worth more than they have ended up being worth?
Crash writes: The appropriate response (in my country) is for the government to make up as much of that demand as it can... Classic Keynesianism. Jobs. Growth. Deficits and debts as a proportion of GDP will fall as a result of growth rather than austerity. I completely agree. But in a global economy can any nation (even one as economically powerful as the US) do this if everyone else they sell things to is engaging in self-flagellating austerity?
Crash writes: I don't know; there's issues because you live in a country that doesn't print its own money. We do print our own money. The bank of England has been engaging in vast swathes of quantitive easing recently. But they give it to the banks who horde it and won't lend. To increase Keynesian style demand the money would very arguably be better placed in the hands of the people. The last round of quantitative easing was equivalent to giving each person in the UK 3,500.
Crash writes: Pretty sure Clegg's austerity budget is a bad idea. Clegg (the Liberal democrat leader and junior coalition partner) won't thank you for describing it as his budget. Osborne is the conservative chancellor. It's his budget. And - No austerity isn't working. Unemployment spiraling. Growth non-existent and recession a real possibility. And as a result little dent is being made in the debt or deficit despite all the pain of massive cuts. As Keynes predicts......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: This is precisely the problem with consumerism. Without a continuous chain of consumption, the system falls to pieces. Everything comes crashing down the moment people start being content with what they have and happy to only consume what they need; when they rid themselves of the desire to endlessly acquire ever more stuff. The more rational the participants, the more bound a consumerist economy is to fail. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Isn't that because people were spending money on the basis of believing that the assets they owned would be worth more than they have ended up being worth? Well, no, it's because the US savings rate is up - nearly highest its been since the end of WWII. Why is the savings rate up? Because people responded to what they consider economic signals - foreclosures in their neighborhoods, people they know being laid off, closed local businesses - in a locally-rational, globally-destructive way: they stopped spending so much and started saving money. You know, in case something bad happened to them. That's the "paradox of thrift" - we can't all save money at the same time, because consumption is income. Your new "responsible" spending behavior puts me out of work, and now I can't save any money or pay a mortgage because I have no income. You're trying to make it a moral issue - an issue of responsibility - when its really not. Well, not quite true. Certainly there are people who are responsible for the economic crisis: the ratings agencies who were paid off by the owners of the securities they were tasked with rating, the mortgage brokers who committed fraud by misrepresenting the incomes and default risk of the people they were lending to, the foreclosure companies who forged signatures and illegally altered paperwork to push through foreclosures of homes they couldn't even legally prove they owned (and in many cases, didn't!) Few people were genuinely spending beyond their means. That's one of the Great Lies of the recession. Most Americans stayed within the boundaries, spent modestly, managed their equity responsibly. Many of those Americans were taken advantage of by Wall Street - sold worse (and more profitable) mortgages than they were qualified for, sold homes at artificially inflated prices - and the rest of us responded, quite reasonably, by putting away money for future rainier days. It just so happens that that was the single worst thing we could have done in aggregate.
But in a global economy can any nation (even one as economically powerful as the US) do this if everyone else they sell things to is engaging in self-flagellating austerity? Well, we're a net importer I believe, so QE can work in the US. It has already been working. EU countries are in kind of a weird situation where they have monetary union but not political union.
We do print our own money. The bank of England has been engaging in vast swathes of quantitive easing recently. But they give it to the banks who horde it and won't lend. Oh, that's right. God, I'm dumb. Why didn't I remember that the UK isn't on the Euro? I was just there last May, WTF is wrong with me? Totally agree that they should drop it into the hands of regular people. We have somewhat the same situation here where banks are sitting on enormous reserves and not lending. There's some infrastructure work going on, some direct payments to state governments (which helps keep state employees in jobs) and there's some evidence that our economy is improving, but it seems like for every three private sector jobs created, we lose one public sector job. So the economy is somewhat stunted by the shrinking public sector.
Clegg (the Liberal democrat leader and junior coalition partner) won't thank you for describing it as his budget. Osborne is the conservative chancellor. It's his budget. Fair enough, I'm honestly not that up on the UK (as I think I've made pretty obvious via this series of blunders.) And you're right, this is 100% Keynesian. Textbook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is precisely the problem with consumerism. Then you may as well call it "incomeism", and note that the system falls apart as soon as people become content with what they have and stop looking for new or increased sources of income. And, you know, we could certainly move away from a system where people's livelihoods was so dependent on their employment income. We could guarantee people a certain living wage for menial, service employment. We could guarantee them a certain income regardless of their employment. Or we could focus on quality of life and guarantee people a certain level of medical care, apportioned out by need and effectiveness; a certain level of housing; a certain level of subsidized food; and a certain level of income for their retirement when they're no longer as physically capable of working. But somehow I get the feeling that you're not in favor of any of those things. My sense is that you'd prefer it, in fact, if people's livelihoods were more dependent on their incomes, and their incomes were more dependent on their ability to do things that the free market felt was valuable. How do you square the contradiction? I'm curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: You're trying to make it a moral issue - an issue of responsibility - when its really not. I don't think I am. At least I wasn't intending to. I am asking genuine questions and really appreciating your informative answers. I thought your recap of the cause of the financial crisis was fantastic. I am entirely with you on the Keynesian strategy. I totally get that there is a great deal of misinformation about the nature and size of public (i.e. government debt) that is being used to promote ideologically motivated self defeating jihads on public services and expenditure. But I was/am under the impression that there is indeed a significant debt problem of one sort or another. Whether it is banks that ultimately made bad loans, governments that are being forced to bailout these banks or people that have racked up loans on assets that aren't worth as much as they thought and generally used debt as a means of countering falling or stagnating incomes.....it seems that those of all political persuasions agree that there is a debt issue to be solved. Are you saying that this just isn't the case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But somehow I get the feeling that you're not in favor of any of those things. I'm not sure where you get that feeling from. Most of those things you mentioned sound great. But none of them really have anything to do with consumerism. They would all be excellent additions to today's society, consumerist though it be. So they don't seem like replacements for consumerism.
Then you may as well call it "incomeism", and note that the system falls apart as soon as people become content with what they have and stop looking for new or increased sources of income. Sure. It's someone's income. But whose? Who is actually raking in the cash from all that consumption? Another thing to think about:
quote: Even if you can properly distribute the income, continued mass consumption is an unsupportable affair.
quote: And, of course, resource drain isn't the only environmental consequence of mass consumption. This table for municipal waste generation per capita places the U.S. far ahead of our European counterparts, a ranking made even worse by the fact that the U.S. also falls behind many European countries when it comes to recycling. All of the developed nations in general, of course, are much more wasteful than the less developed ones.
Purchased stuff isn't all that's over-consumed in consumerist societies; environmental quality gets eaten up as well. And continued reductions in environmental quality eventually catch up to you and contribute to a lower standard of living; so much for avoiding austerity. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's good work, Jon! Now I feel like the discussion can actually start.
Have you heard of "medium chill"? That might be the sort of "anti-consumerism" you're looking for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Have you heard of "medium chill"? That might be the sort of "anti-consumerism" you're looking for. Such a lifestyle is unworkable for most people. Very few working class people can choose how many hours they work.
quote: quote: The system is biased in favor of consumerism. For everyone to live at the 'medium chill' requires an extensive overhaul of the current system. Moving away from consumerism is not a choice that each individual can make. This is why I have been using the term 'consumerism' in connection with words like 'society', 'economy', and the like: It is not an individual problem but a group problem and so must be addressed at the group, or societal, level. So it is not enough for each individual to simply choose a life outside of consumerism because not every individual can choose a life outside of consumerism. A fix requires system-wide changes that I can, quite honestly, only imagine a government body being capable of bringing about. I'm just not sure what all those changes might be, and that's where the question in the OP comes in. And the article you linked to brings up another very important point that I have not yet mentioned:
quote: Every time a company successfully advertises a product to someonesuccessfully convinces that person that their product will make them happier, that company ensures that person's continued misery until they can consume that product. Consumerism is fueled by misery, and those who benefit most from consumerism are ever so pleased to give it to you. I'm not sure how any rational and informed individual could not possibly acknowledge that this is a real problem that needs attention. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not sure how any rational and informed individual could not possibly acknowledge that this is a real problem that needs attention. Now that you're doing the work of presenting an argument substantiated by evidence, instead of relying on your interlocutors to present a rotating series of propositions for you to simply shoot down, I find that I'm in more agreement with you than when I started. It's certainly the case that system-wide reform is needed. I think those reforms start with Federally-mandated vacation days, establishing a 36-hour workweek as the norm, decoupling employment from health care, and so on. But I think there's a space for people to normalize the "medium chill" simply by living it. That creates the social pressure from people who want to live that way but see the system standing in their way. I'd be interested to know about reforms that you would support. Earlier I presented a list of progressive agenda items identified as anathema not only by current movement conservatives, but by all mainstream conservative figures since the beginning of the intellectual conservative movement with Burke and Oakeshott. You seem to have embraced them. I'd like to know how you square that sort of thing with your conservativism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'd like to know how you square that sort of thing with your conservativism. I'd like to know what gives you the impression that I am at all conservative on any of the matters being discussed in this thread.
I'd be interested to know about reforms that you would support. Well, some are easy. For stuff that is just pure waste to begin with (a lot of packaging, grocery bags, 'disposable' Xs, etc.) an extremely high (triple digit) sales tax on these items would likely rid them from the world in no time. Of course, if people are extremely bent on consuming these items, they might just drive themselves further into debt to do so. So perhaps they need to be banned altogether. For other things, I'm not as sure. Which is why I started this thread. I'd really like to hear folks' thoughts on this.
Federally-mandated vacation days, establishing a 36-hour workweek as the norm These are some things discussed in that PDF I've been quoting from. According to a poll cited by the author, almost 50% of folks polled said they would give up 100% of future raises in exchange for more time off work (p. 8). So people really value their free time. And what's more, the results indicate that these people are overall rather happy with the money they are already making and are less interested in making (and spending) more money than they are in having more free time. But when the only choice they have is to work more and make more money, or lose their job, their hands become tied. But I think we also need to fix marketing and advertising as well. I have to agree with Buzsaw that people are, by and large, sheepleeasily manipulated, swindled, coerced, etc. Most marketing preys on this weakness and is just down-right filthy. We already, for example, have strict limits on advertisements for tobacco and alcohol because of the products' perceived ill effects on human welfare. It wouldn't be too difficult to set limits on a company's advertising in different media; for example, Coca-Cola can only have so many ads per X number of pages of news print or X number of minutes of television. I certainly think this crap has ill effects on society's welfare too... just 'cause it don't 'cause lung cancer is little reason to let it go unchecked. Oh, and speaking of television, who in the fuck needs 500 channels? JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'd like to know what gives you the impression that I am at all conservative on any of the matters being discussed in this thread. I dunno, I guess. I thought you were one of the "EvC conservatives." There aren't honestly all that many so I feel like I can name you all. Am I full of shit about that? If so I apologize.
For stuff that is just pure waste to begin with (a lot of packaging, grocery bags, 'disposable' Xs, etc.) an extremely high (triple digit) sales tax on these items would likely rid them from the world in no time. Of course, if people are extremely bent on consuming these items, they might just drive themselves further into debt to do so. Love it. (For what it's worth I reuse grocery bags as trash can liners and for the cat litter box. But even so a dime a bag sounds like a great idea. I love that IKEA makes you buy bags.)
But when the only choice they have is to work more and make more money, or lose their job, their hands become tied. I think decoupling health care and employment will help with this. Currently companies feel like they have to hire full-time or not at all; there's not really a mechanism to hire a guy for a few hours of work. The fixed costs of adding a new employee mean its easier to just make a current hire work a few more hours.
Oh, and speaking of television, who in the fuck needs 500 channels? Not me. I cut the cable. Now it's just Hulu and Netflix and a lot less TV time, in general. I don't know how to roll back the advertising, though. It's a bit of a red queen's race - if you're a marketer, you have to expose people to more and more ads just to stand out from the background noise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
crashfrog writes: *Ahem.* There are some of us who believe that by seniority we have the right to have the opportunity to work a few more hours rather than letting part time (and cheaper) workers take over. Don't throw gasoline on that fire! The fixed costs of adding a new employee mean its easier to just make a current hire work a few more hours. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
*Ahem.* There are some of us who believe that by seniority we have the right to have the opportunity to work a few more hours rather than letting part time (and cheaper) workers take over. Don't throw gasoline on that fire! I understand why you might feel that way, but I don't see the logic of it. What is the basis for a right to any particular number of hours, and more specifically to overtime hours. Why shouldn't the most efficient employee be assigned to any given work task rather than the most senior employee? If seniority doesn't translate to being more efficient, why should management respect seniority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
NoNukes writes: What is the basis for a right to any particular number of hours, and more specifically to overtime hours. Why shouldn't the most efficient employee be assigned to any given work task rather than the most senior employee? Because in the long run, seniority is fairer than favoritism, which often happens. The most efficient employee often turns out to be cheaper than the senior employee. The better a store manager controls expenses(such as labor) the bigger their bonus. Having a union is a check and balance against this type of favoritism. Less money always equals greater efficiency in the corporate labor world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are some of us who believe that by seniority we have the right to have the opportunity to work a few more hours rather than letting part time (and cheaper) workers take over. Don't throw gasoline on that fire! I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to introduce a value judgement. Certainly one of the reasons its easier to give more hours to an existing employee than to make a new hire for 8 hours a week is because you get pushback from existing employees who want the hours. I don't think that's right or wrong, I'm just explaining why American companies generally increase productivity by increasing hours worked by existing employees instead of increasing the size of their workforce. I think seniority is a flawed system, for the most part, but I certainly see the fairness problem involved with taking seniority away from workers who very patiently endured the disadvantages of being at the bottom because they knew, eventually, they'd be at the top. Pulling the rug out just as they get there is bullshit, I agree. Like I say, part of the problem with the critique of "consumerism" is that you might just as well call it "incomeism", but looked at it that way, it's no longer about people buying things they don't really need, it's about the money in the pockets of working people.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024