|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Replacing Consumerism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think a vast majority of the U.S.'s economic problems, if not all of them, can be traced to our nation's deeply rooted consumerism.
Accordingly, I don't think there is any realistic solution to the problems our economy is facing that don't involve some how lessening and, perhaps getting rid of, consumerism. The problem: I cannot also think of a quick way to do this that won't have horrible economic consequences as bad as the problems that we'd face were we to transition away from consumerism more slowly (thus allowing it to wreak further havoc on our welfare). What are our options? What's the best approach? Some no-brain stating points I can think of: EducationPolitical reform But then what comes next? Once we have the mindset and leaders in place to bring about the transition, what steps do we take? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Define "consumerism".
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think a vast majority of the U.S.'s economic problems, if not all of them, can be traced to our nation's deeply rooted consumerism. Maybe, but consumption is income. We can't all reduce our consumption at the same time. I dunno, though. Do you think they buy less in Europe, or something? My guess is that they just buy different stuff. Do you just not like the stuff Americans buy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Define "consumerism". Sure:
quote: That's something I was shown by another member and which prompted me to start this thread. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Jon,
I think a vast majority of the U.S.'s economic problems, if not all of them, can be traced to our nation's deeply rooted consumerism. It's far from just the US. You probably remember that we had some riots in Britain this summer; a lot of people, including some of the rioters, think that consumerism is partly to blame for that.
Accordingly, I don't think there is any realistic solution to the problems our economy is facing that don't involve some how lessening and, perhaps getting rid of, consumerism. Instinctively, I think think, hell yes! Consumerism is destroying our societies and our natural environment. On the other hand, I work in a department store. You see my predicament. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Maybe, but consumption is income. It's also an expense...
quote: In fact, it's become more of an expense than an income. Hence:
quote: We can't all reduce our consumption at the same time. Perhaps true. But that's something I mentioned in the OP. I specifically asked for suggestions on ways to move away from the consumerist societal model that would produce the least drastic negative side effects. I think we can all agree that change can be difficult; but sometimes change is necessary nonethelessin spite of all the difficulties.
Do you think they buy less in Europe, or something? My guess is that they just buy different stuff. Do you just not like the stuff Americans buy? I am not sure of the situation in Europe, which is why I focused my OP on the U.S. But if there is a consumerism problem in Europe, it would be worth talking about here for sure. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In fact, it's become more of an expense than an income. No, what I mean is that economically, consumption has to equal income. Consumption does equal income. They're the same thing.
I think we can all agree that change can be difficult; but sometimes change is necessary nonethelessin spite of all the difficulties. This is just a bromide. "Change is difficult but necessary" doesn't accomplish the impossible, and its impossible for consumption not to equal income.
I am not sure of the situation in Europe, which is why I focused my OP on the U.S. I guess I'm still not clear on what you think is different, exactly. Ok, houses are larger now than they were before. Does that represent a vast change in US attitudes? Or does that represent the fact that Americans are larger and taller now than they were 50 years ago and may actually need more space? Does that represent the fact that it's cheaper to build a larger home than it was 50 years ago, because of technological improvements in home construction? Isn't a larger home just a function of the market equilibrium of price per square foot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Granny writes: And I work in a grocery store! But people need some food and they need some clothes. Is two cloaks too many? Instinctively, I think think, hell yes! Consumerism is destroying our societies and our natural environment. On the other hand, I work in a department store. You see my predicament. Edited by Phat, : sub title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined:
|
I think the bigger problem that I have with consumerism is:
"Shouldn't we adapt the economy to our needs instead adapting our needs to the economy?" The way people think we should consume to get the economy working always seemed backward to me, the economy should be there to fill our need, it's not an end in itself but a tool that allows us to live confortably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Crashfrog writes: Ok, houses are larger now than they were before. And so are cars. But how would a non excessive standard be established? There will always be folks like my Dad who love Cadillacs.(Were he alive he would probably have an SUV as well. He despised "tin can" imports that would be death traps in a wreck. As far as houses go, my Dad was a home builder. He built far smaller houses than the behemoths on the market today. But again....larger houses would never be built were there no demand for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But again....larger houses would never be built were there no demand for them. And the demand for them is a function of the cost premium for a larger home. When technology (for instance, pre-fab joist systems) makes it easier and faster to construct a spacious home, it becomes cheaper to construct a spacious home. And at the margin - since people usually buy as much house as they feel they can afford - that results in people buying larger homes. Is that "consumerism"? Or is that economic actors acting rationally to maximize what they can get for their dollar? I bet your father probably prized getting as much as he could for his dollar. Did you think that was "consumerism" when he was doing it, or did you think that was just plain horse-sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
No, what I mean is that economically, consumption has to equal income. Consumption does equal income. They're the same thing. Perhaps system-wide.
"Change is difficult but necessary" doesn't accomplish the impossible, and its impossible for consumption not to equal income. Again, a nice technicality that applies to the system as a whole, but not to most of the folks living in it.
I guess I'm still not clear on what you think is different, exactly. Ok, houses are larger now than they were before. Does that represent a vast change in US attitudes? Or does that represent the fact that Americans are larger and taller now than they were 50 years ago and may actually need more space? Does that represent the fact that it's cheaper to build a larger home than it was 50 years ago, because of technological improvements in home construction? Isn't a larger home just a function of the market equilibrium of price per square foot? I think you're hopelessly confused when it comes to economic matters. But all your questions don't address the issue I raised in the OP. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
crashfrog writes: Of course, a larger home uses more water. More electricity. larger cars are harder on roads(road surfaces) and on bridges. Thus an entire infrastructure also needs to be factored in to the overall costs and benefits of the freedom to consume.
When technology (for instance, pre-fab joist systems) makes it easier and faster to construct a spacious home, it becomes cheaper to construct a spacious home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Again, a nice technicality that applies to the system as a whole, but not to most of the folks living in it. No, by definition it applies to all the folks living in it. You can take a small subset of that and trivially observe that their income and consumption may not be identical, but that's only a function of the fact that you're looking at a subset of the whole. But now it sounds like your problem isn't with consumerism per se, you just think some people should consume more and others should consume less. So, you're less concerned with the overall level of "consumerism" and more concerned with its distribution.
I think you're hopelessly confused when it comes to economic matters. I think you hopelessly have no idea what you're talking about. Rising home sizes don't a priori establish some putative increase in "consumerism." And any analysis of the rise in home sizes has to - has to - include the fact that it's cheaper to get a home at a certain size now than it was 50 years ago in today's dollars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Or is that economic actors acting rationally to maximize what they can get for their dollar? You obviously haven't paid attention to the numbers I've been citing.
And at the margin - since people usually buy as much house as they feel they can afford - that results in people buying larger homes. Again; pay attention to the numbers. They can't afford the larger houseor the TV, or the [insert other luxury item here]. Hence the debt. Read the chapter in my links. Crushing debt is one of the side-effects of consumerism, along with, among other things, decreased leisure time. JonLove your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024