What would happen if people turned their backs on consumerism?

Bob Z

What would be the repercussions if people stopped wastage and started bartering?

SkepticOne

Most likely it would not happen. If you have say computer skills but want eggs, you have to find someone in need of those computer skills but has eggs to trade. Can't see it working in the modern complex society and if it did it would still be consumerism just of a different form.

Another idea is that of a local currency. Not barter as such but a currency created by local people and only valid in the local area. A few such schemes have been started in Ireland but they don't seem to survive very long.

What do you think would happen? It is always nice if the person starting a thread puts forward an opinion of their own.

daithicarr

By consumerism i would take it to mean the desire to purchase or services in amounts far beyond peoples needs , not capitalism or a market economy where people exchange goods and services for a price.
was it one of these or both you were refering too?

bartering would probably lead to waste as well, i might not want all the apples you have produced at that moment and you have to go find other things you want to off load your apples before they go bad, there by getting goods you dont imediatly need.

Cannibal Ox

SkepticOne wrote:

If you have say computer skills but want eggs, you have to find someone in need of those computer skills but has eggs to trade.

This isn't really the problem with consumerism. Companies produce too many goods that we don't necessarily need and they produce too many goods that don't have a long shelf life. If the company that is producing those goods wants to make money it needs to convince people to buy those goods. It isn't so much that the consumer needs to turn their back, or find alternative ways of producing goods*, it's that the economy needs consumers to function, and if consumerism wants to become more 'ethical', the means by which we produce goods and the quality of goods needs to change.


*I mean, if the computer programmer had any sense, he/she would just buy some chickens

Liam Byrne

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

*I mean, if the computer programmer had any sense, he/she would just buy some chickens

What would he use to pay for the chickens ?

hiorta

If consumers made a serious effort to minimise - absolutely minimise spending - no tobacco, alcohol, gambling or other frivolous waste, reducing demand and prices and curtailing government waste, fat cats, etc., in one stroke, Ireland would be a fitter place for thye children and grandchildren.

I doubt whether there is an appetite for any real change, but only that where it is expected that others must take the pain for the present mess.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cannibal Ox

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What would he use to pay for the chickens ?

With the money he makes from working as a computer programmer? :P

Don't get me wrong, I like using money to buy shiny things as much as the next person and I don't think there is a moral imperative for everyone to go out and buy chickens but if some of what you're consuming is your own produce your lifestyle is going to be a little more sustainable then if you are relying entirely on others produce (particularly if that produce is coming from, I dunno, a chicken farm in Argentina).

That isn't really what I was trying to say though. I don't really think individuals, or small societies with relatively little cultural and economic impact like Ireland, have all that much control over how consumerism operates. Consumerism is both an economic and cultural phenomena, and an improvement, as it were, would require changes in how we produce and also in how we consume. Which'd be pretty huge. Particularly when we have new consumer societies like China and India, with very large populations, just getting into consumerism.

SkepticOne

hiorta wrote: »

If consumers made a serious effort to minimise - absolutely minimise spending - no tobacco, alcohol, gambling or other frivolous waste, reducing demand and prices and curtailing government waste, fat cats, etc., in one stroke, Ireland would be a fitter place for thye children and grandchildren.

I doubt whether there is an appetite for any real change, but only that where it is expected that others must take the pain for the present mess.

The consequences though is that jobs in these frivolous areas would disappear. Things would reorientate towards the primary production of food. Modern farm machinery would no longer be manufactured or would be unaffordable so the predominant form of labour would be manual farm work. Even if people wanted to spend money of frivolous things, then, they would not be able to afford to.

What you are looking at really is the situation that exists in much of the developing world with large numbers of people working in fields. The reason I think anti-consumerism is infeasible is that in these countries and areas where manual farm labour is the norm, people expend huge amounts of energy and take large risks trying to escape it. Wether or not it is the healthiest, people seem to crave the complex consumerist society we enjoy.

SkepticOne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wonder if consumerism has reached a sort of plateau there? A new product comes out and people just go "meh".

liammur

Spending is false ecomomics. Bertie ahern style economics. An economy should never be built around it. Take TV's. Most people probably traded in they're big old ones and bought LCD's. But how many feel the need to buy LED's? Similarly with housing, absolute madness to build an economy around housing.

skinner2x

SkepticOne wrote: »

I wonder if consumerism has reached a sort of plateau there? A new product comes out and people just go "meh".

Yeah I've gone like that, haven't bought a gadget in over 2 yrs:eek: I find myself repairing alot of my stuff with cheap parts..

Bob Z

Ok so would I be right in saying that even though Goverments give the impression that they don't want people to stop waste and tax accordingly they don't really want people to stop buying/updating tv's, radios, computers , iPods etc because it would harm the economy?

peasant

The whole world economy is built on growth.
Growth provides future profit which in turn enables current investment.
Stop the growth, nobody invests, everything stagnates

Sand

There will never be an end to consumerism - if people just purchased what they *needed*, people would eat only bread, drink only water, dress in rags, and shelter in shacks built from throw away rubbish.

People want stuff they dont *need*. Theres nothing particularly wrong with that, so long as they are prepared to work for it and pay the true cost of it. Civillisation is built on things we dont *need*. Civillisation is a place where wants become the priority.

Theres an underlying theme in the attacks on consumerism that are essentially the same <Back to working the land, subsistence existence, when men were men and women were grateful> alternative to the <corruption and decadence of wasteful, unprincipled> urbanised life. The idealistic struggle between the image of the honest, clean living farmer living within his means and from the sweat of his own brow contrasted with the slimy, corporate executive who lies and cheats his way around the big city, never truly happy or satisfied. Basic Disney movie plotting.

Its a tale as old as time - the Romans eternally yearned for a return to the simple, idealistic, imagined lives of their stern, farmer forefather and continually dismissed their civillisation as decadent and corrupt. We do the same. Its nothing new. Various revolutionary groups all throughout time have attacked modern "decadence" and called for a return to an imagined, golden age, back to basics.

Consumerism isnt a problem that needs to be solved.

hiorta

""People want stuff they dont *need*.

Absolutely true.
It is also true that the Ireland of yesterday perished because of it.

The Ireland of tomorrow must change or perpetually live in a handout society, with depression, pill-popping just to get through the day.
There is no magic wand, no fairy godmother or godfather. No bail-outs. Nothing!
The buck has stopped and will remain stopped.

The future is in you own collective hands. Think of the children, for God's sake - you MUST change.

George Orwell 1982

People have already turned their back on consumerism

This lecture by Professor Elizabeth Warren shows people in the US are spending much less than 30 years ago on clothes, electronic goods, cars, food, etc. They are spending more on mortgages, health insurance and education and they are earning less in real terms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Sand

""People want stuff they dont *need*.

Absolutely true.
It is also true that the Ireland of yesterday perished because of it.

The Ireland of tomorrow must change or perpetually live in a handout society, with depression, pill-popping just to get through the day.
There is no magic wand, no fairy godmother or godfather. No bail-outs. Nothing!
The buck has stopped and will remain stopped.

The future is in you own collective hands. Think of the children, for God's sake - you MUST change.

Yeah, back to the fields with us, a good days work toiling on the land with a good feed at night - well earned and so on. We dont want to be carrying on with our souless corrupt godless materialism.

Its a very old story.

RichardAnd

during the Great Depression, impoverished farmers in the united states would often use barter to pay for services, offering produce instead of money. I seem to recall this being mentioned in To Kill a Mocking Bird where it's stated that a doctor in the town charges a sack of potatoes for delivering a baby.

the thing about barter is that it's a very inefficient means acquiring goods which is why money evolved. With Barter, if I want some bread but the baker wants something I dont' have in return, I have to find the object of his desire before I can have my bread. The benefits of money over this are profound and self evident.

That being said, barter still does happen and as the Depression proved, people will naturally turn to it when they lack money. Remember, money only works when everyone has/wants it. If you're the only one with money then you will have alot of paper you can't eat.

liammur

I saw an ad recently in the paper, went something as follows....
'I want to swap a warehouse for an apartment'

I can't think of more extreme barterism than that!

hiorta

"""Yeah, back to the fields with us, a good days work toiling on the land with a good feed at night - well earned and so on. We dont want to be carrying on with our souless corrupt godless materialism.

Its a very old story. """.........Sand

It is a very old story Sand, but it is not consumerism per se, that is the main problem. The difficulty which drains away economic vitality is interest payments, These arise through unnecessary expenditure, or premature expenditure, using money you dont yet have.
Minimise debt, with a view to eliminating it - as far as possible - and get all the benefit from your income.

This will take time and depends on just how heavy borrowings were. BUT it can be done.
As has been said, Government needs your taxes to spend and what they get depends on how happy you are to spend. If they dont get their idea of 'enough', they will have to get their thinking caps on and perhaps go after the more affluent. That, however is their problem.

The current situation leads to disaster and simply must be stopped. I suggest that by maximising your income by eliminating waste, you will have retaken control of a major function of your life, which in turn creates a positive outlook, which brings health, both mental and physical. This is a time for self help and cooperation with friends family and neighbours in as many ways as you can think of.
It is down to yourselves neither government or fatcat will care if you eat or not. Mutual support will provide help.

johnnyskeleton

Bob Z wrote: »

What would be the repercussions if people stopped wastage ?

Already happened and the response was that the government urged us to do our patriotic duty and spend spend spend.

Bob Z wrote: »

and started bartering?

Well that's a completely different kettle of fish. Barter is highly impractical when you are dealing with a complicated market place (i.e. more than say 10 items. We have hundreds of thousands of items to trade).

On a smaller scale, if people started bartering, the government would kick up a fuss because they would be denied the transaction taxes that are easily obtained by money transactions but much harder to collect from barters.

Crucially, what we need to reject is the idea that buying a lot of imported goods made by other countries will somehow magically make our country better. The idea of a consumerist society, where people do nothing but consume and work in the retail or non-export-services sector is what caused a lot of our problems.

Macha

I love the presentation of a rejection of consumerism as going "back to the fields". What a nonsensical false choice.

There are a lot of things wrong with consumerism, or rather the extremes of materialism, not just the fact that our planet simply cannot deal with the tiny privileged percentage of the population that do buy the most ridiculous things, never mind the vast majority that want to join them.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You know, they talk about the horrors of the Japanese recession, deflation and lost generation, but on the other hand if you go to Japan it is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has a massive export sector and a very high standard of living.

Saving is a good thing, especially when what you are saving on is not basic amenities such as food and electricity, but on luxuries and fripperies.

Everyone should save some money. It creates a steady economy and allows for proper investment.

liammur

'Everyone should save some money. It creates a steady economy and allows for proper investment'

Very wise words indeed. Not what the likes of dermot aherne wants to hear, but you're spot on.

mikemac

Farmers do this all the time.
I don't mean bartering animals. With paper work it's a lot more complicated then you think it would be!

But swopping tasks like the use of machienry for another piece of machienry.
It doesn't make sense for every local to have a 15,000 euro silage mower so one local has it and part payment can be labour and machinery for some other task.
Hundreds of other examples and it goes on in every area of Ireland.

Farmers do tasks for each other and no money swops hands.

I hope I haven't missed the point of the thread

Rockery Woman

ok - so if consumerism ended tomorrow and we all started bartering instead....

Well some of us have more to work with, for example people living in towns couldnt possibly live off the land, so perhaps they would barter their skills, computer programming per se.

now I need petrol for my car.... hummmm how am I gonna pay for that?? eggs, milk and some home made beer maybe?

it all seems a bit beyond me really. It smacks of communism and that never worked because its human nature to be greedy and comsume more and more!

its a nice idea but we, as a race, have lived through excessive consumerism and we will never turn our backs on it - that is my opinion!

But if anyone has ideas for its implementation - please post it - its a fascinating subject!

SkepticOne

Rockery Woman wrote: »

Well some of us have more to work with, for example people living in towns couldnt possibly live off the land, so perhaps they would barter their skills, computer programming per se.

This is the problem. If you are a computer programmer you need to find someone that has what you want e.g. sausages AND who needs a bit of programming done. This is why money was invented. In a pure barter society, a highly specialist job like computer programmer would cease to exist. Only generally useful skills would remain e.g. farming.

Macha

Er..I think there are a few ideas of what consumerism is floating around this thread.

In the OED, the economic sense of the word means " A doctrine advocating a continual increase in the consumption of goods as a basis for a sound economy."

You can reject consumerism but still use money.

I suppose the confusion is in the original post, which seems to conflate a rejection of consumerism with a rejection of money.

ei.sdraob

Sand wrote: »

There will never be an end to consumerism - if people just purchased what they *needed*, people would eat only bread, drink only water, dress in rags, and shelter in shacks built from throw away rubbish.

People want stuff they dont *need*. Theres nothing particularly wrong with that, so long as they are prepared to work for it and pay the true cost of it. Civillisation is built on things we dont *need*. Civillisation is a place where wants become the priority.

Well said we theoretically dont need art for example, yet our world would be so much poorer and blander without great painters and musicians for example ...


Anyways my own take on growth, most of the worlds population is extremely poor and has plenty of room to grow, and yes most of them want the livestyle we have, im not sure why some people have romantic views of a "simple" life in the old days, i recommend yee spend a day or two working at a farm minus modern equipment

Tipp Man

As Taconnel has pointed out there is a huge difference between consumerism and bartering and are not really related at all

For my own point of view, and I don't know if it is the recession that has caused this or is it that i am getting a little older and wiser, but I am certainly cutting down on what i would call completely unnecessary expenditure.

In the 2000's I spent money as well as the next man or woman and enjoyed what some would say was a good quality of life. Regularly I would wander down Grafton Street and drop a few hundred euro on clothes that essentially I didn't need, for a while i owned over 20 pairs of expensive jeans. That for me is what consumerism is and it is a complete waste of my money. My new outlook on consumer spending is if i need something then i buy it, if i don't then stay clear. So I needed an iphone so i bought it, however I am don't need to have 20 pairs of jeans so now i only have 5.

I would also disagree with Donegalfella (which i am surprised at as i usually would find myself with a similar viewpoint) assessment on Japan, as Johnnyskeleton says they still have a very high standard of living and are still one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Maybe they have copped onto the fact that you don't need to spend every last penny before you next paycheck arrives. Germany is another country with a strong saving mentality and it hasn't done their standard of living much harm either

I also think that consumerism needs to be taken in the situation of the person that is doing the spending. If i earn 100k and spend 100k on things that i don't really need then thats a completly different thing to earning 50k and spending 100k on things i don't really need. IMO it's ok to be a consumerist (is that even a word??) if its your own money, if its on borrowed money then its nuts

And that applies across the board to governments, companies and individuals IMO

Cannibal Ox

Sand wrote:

There will never be an end to consumerism - if people just purchased what they *needed*, people would eat only bread, drink only water, dress in rags, and shelter in shacks built from throw away rubbish.

People want stuff they dont *need*. Theres nothing particularly wrong with that, so long as they are prepared to work for it and pay the true cost of it. Civillisation is built on things we dont *need*. Civillisation is a place where wants become the priority.
...

Consumerism isnt a problem that needs to be solved.

That's all very conservative, isn't it

Just because a person thinks consumerism isn't the be all and end all of human civilization doesn't make them a luddite or a puritan. Consumerism was invented in the twentieth century as a by product of mass production, an increase of the popular availability of capital, and it spawned the fine professions associated with public relations. The scale of consumption is directly related to the scale of production and the possibility of the population to consume.

Saying that people have always wanted things they don't have is a little redundant. I don't strictly need an ipod, and nor did the Pharaohs strictly need the pyramids, but the difference lies in the scale and the object of consumption. Beethoven didn't compose for the proletariat, nor did Leonardo paint for the peasant, but the classical object of consumption was a tiny section of society that controlled capital, because the greatest profit was only possible through that section of society. The modern object of consumption is the people, partly because we have the means to produce for the people, but also because the greatest profit is to be made from the people, but that profit is only possible if capital is widely available.

Hello Mr. Irish Property Bubble, how are you doing? There is a kind of circular insanity in consumerism, factories produce too many goods, people need to buy those goods for the factory to be profitable and for the economy to function, but the people need money to buy those goods, they have salaries but not enough credit to buy everything that is produced, so banks make money more widely available, but that money is only available if the economy functions, and the economy can only function if the factories are producing successfully. If any link in the chain breaks....bye, bye.

If consumerism is the pinacle of human civilization, and if we can't do better then consumerism, then I am going to go live with the birds and the bears and the donkeys, because frankly, it's pretty stupid.

ei.sdraob

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

That's all very conservative, isn't it

Just because a person thinks consumerism isn't the be all and end all of human civilization doesn't make them a luddite or a puritan. Consumerism was invented in the twentieth century as a by product of mass production, an increase of the popular availability of capital, and it spawned the fine professions associated with public relations. The scale of consumption is directly related to the scale of production and the possibility of the population to consume.

Saying that people have always wanted things they don't have is a little redundant. I don't strictly need an ipod, and nor did the Pharaohs strictly need the pyramids, but the difference lies in the scale and the object of consumption. Beethoven didn't compose for the proletariat, nor did Leonardo paint for the peasant, but the classical object of consumption was a tiny section of society that controlled capital, because the greatest profit was only possible through that section of society. The modern object of consumption is the people, partly because we have the means to produce for the people, but also because the greatest profit is to be made from the people, but that profit is only possible if capital is widely available.

Hello Mr. Irish Property Bubble, how are you doing? There is a kind of circular insanity in consumerism, factories produce too many goods, people need to buy those goods for the factory to be profitable and for the economy to function, but the people need money to buy those goods, they have salaries but not enough credit to buy everything that is produced, so banks make money more widely available, but that money is only available if the economy functions, and the economy can only function if the factories are producing successfully. If any link in the chain breaks....bye, bye.

If consumerism is the pinacle of human civilization, and if we can't do better then consumerism, then I am going to go live with the birds and the bears and the donkeys, because frankly, it's pretty stupid.

Its interesting that you chose to live in London which was the centre of the worlds biggest empire based on trade and yes consumerism, an empire that was started of the back of the East India company trading (such fine necessities as tea ) and eventual taking over India

Yes consuming goods/services with money you dont have (debt) is a bad idea (hello Irish government and our ever mounting debt) as seen with people enslaving themselves to the banks in order to own property (and now wanting a get out of jail free card)

But to say that we roll-back centuries of trade and innovation in order to live a "simpler" life toiling in the muck, I dunno now ...

I think in this thread we are talking about several scenarios and hence confusion:
* spending money you dont have and cant afford to repay = BAD
* spending money you dont have but can afford to repay = DEPENDS on your ability to repay under stress
* spending money you dont have to invest in something that would yield a greater return = DEPENDS how you feel about investing/speculating/gambling
* spending money you have on things you can afford = WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?
* living on bare necessities while sitting on a mountain of wealth = GET A LIFE scrooge
* living reasonably within means while having savings for bad day = GOOD

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are we not in the middle right now?

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know you're in favour of free choice no matter what the consequences but I'm afraid the reality is that there are physical and environmental limits to what is possible. Ignoring them, no matter what your economic philosophy is a recipe for disaster.

Dismissing those who point this out (as you regularly do) as bossy people who dare tell others what to do is getting tiring. As for state control of the economy, well point out one economy that a state does not intervene in. It doesn't exist - it's a fantasy. I don't care if liberalism isn't compatible with ecological limits - just add it to the list of flaws with liberalism. Ugh, I knew this was going to happen. I'm done.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

on the flip side I am prevented from consuming high grade water and healthcare, go figure!

One factor that I didnt see brought up here is demographics which is a factor in the Japan situation and will be a factor in the US later in the decade. Older societies spend less on stuff and save for future healthcare.
Having being to Japan I was rebuked once by a Japanese work collague for spending €300 on a weekend trip, apparently I could have bought a handbag for that:D

Sand

@hiorta

The difficulty which drains away economic vitality is interest payments, These arise through unnecessary expenditure, or premature expenditure, using money you dont yet have.
Minimise debt, with a view to eliminating it - as far as possible - and get all the benefit from your income.

Youre talking about usury...the bible and the koran banned and looked down on it.

Theres nothing wrong with borrowing money, assuming you can pay it back and are willing to accept paying back the interest on top so you can enjoy the benefits "early". The lender obviously also has to be smart enough to judge if you will be able to pay him back too. Its obviously better to be debt free, but if a man wants to make a living as a taxi driver, he first has to have a car to earn his living by. If hes asset rich, great...otherwise he needs to borrow capital to invest.

Borrowing money to blow on 84 inch LCDs, immense amounts of coke and weekends away in Spain isnt going to be as productive...but thats your lenders problem.

I suggest that by maximising your income by eliminating waste,

Unfortunately, that leads to a regression of economic sophistication and a return to "Year Zero" style stuff. Do you really *need* a proper haircut? Wouldnt you better just to chuck a bowl over the noggin and start shearing away in front of the mirror every few weeks?

Now of course, the hairdresser will go out of bussiness. And youll lose the hairdresser as a customer, so your own income will decrease in a ripple effect throughout the economy as all the people employed and skilled in the wasteful, decadent services and industries are abandoned. But think of the money youll save! When you die you will have the finest coffin money can buy! A fine reward for a life of spartan existence!

At the end of the day, civillisation occurs when *needs* have been met and wants are now the priority. We want silly magazines, movies, art, clothes, music, fancy food and haircuts, internet, discussion over meaningless strawmen like "consumerism", and we are willing to work for it so we can pay for it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Nothing wrong whatsoever with buying what you want, so long as you are willing to work for it and pay its true cost. Nothing.

Consumerism is not a problem that needs to be solved.
@taconnol

I love the presentation of a rejection of consumerism as going "back to the fields". What a nonsensical false choice.

There are a lot of things wrong with consumerism, or rather the extremes of materialism, not just the fact that our planet simply cannot deal with the tiny privileged percentage of the population that do buy the most ridiculous things, never mind the vast majority that want to join them.

Consumerism is a straw man. Its really an attack on urbanisation, modernism, the same as it has always been since the dark old days when Cato was shocked and appalled at the concept of Roman men learning to dance. Or spending vast sums on such ridiculous things as villas in the country. Complete with oyster beds. Oyster beds of all things, what lunacy!

Back in the 18th century, young rich noblemen would embark on grand tours of Europe, living large, mixing up sight seeing and art with prostitution, drugs and drinking. That was somehow romantic. Now cheap airfares mean dirty low bred commoners can embark on their own grand tours of Europe. Suddenly its boorish and consumerist.

You know, whose to say whats ridiculous? I might think the things you spend your money on are ridiculous. In fact, its probably a certainty that I would. But its your money, you earned it, and you spend it how you see fit so long as you are willing to pay the true cost of what you are buying. The true cost being the important point.

@johnnyskeleton

Saving is a good thing, especially when what you are saving on is not basic amenities such as food and electricity, but on luxuries and fripperies.

Saving is a good thing in that it offers a source of capital that can be invested in future productivity/wealth. Too much saving is a bad thing in that no one invests, because theres no one spending to justify investment. Balance is important. Spending is a good thing too. No spending, no incentive to invest...productivity collapses, wealth falls off a cliff.

The Japanese problem is that they have lost confidence in their future. They are old, getting older. They are saving because they have lost faith that future generations will be able to support them. Given theyre unwilling to have more children or to increase their labour force by welcoming immigration, whilst they grow older and greyer, they are probably right to lose faith in their future.

@Cannibal Ox

Just because a person thinks consumerism isn't the be all and end all of human civilization doesn't make them a luddite or a puritan. Consumerism was invented in the twentieth century as a by product of mass production, an increase of the popular availability of capital, and it spawned the fine professions associated with public relations. The scale of consumption is directly related to the scale of production and the possibility of the population to consume.

No, it really wasnt. Like I have pointed out, the Romans were consumed with living up to the imagined example of their stern, hardliving forefathers (apparently one of them shoved his hand into a fire and held it there just to, you know, show what a hard bastard he was) and constantly pointed out the corruption and frivolty of the latest generations and their taste for indulgence...dancing, music, wine, drugs, foreign cults. This contrast between the dissapointing present, and the back to basics past has been behind every Year Zero movement...from the surprisingly puritan Russian Communists, to the Killing Fields, to the Nazis, to the Fascists, religious cranks and survivalist movements, the modern Jihadist rejectionism of the urban, decadent West (The "Great Satan" references the seductiveness of western society) and as far back as Augustus Caesar, first emperor of Rome who destroyed the decadent, corrupt late Republic in the name of bringing back the old Rome, where men were men and women were stern matrons who spoke only when spoken too.

Time and time and time again the constant struggle between civillisation and all its opportunity for privacy, and thus corruption/decadence vs. the imagined example of some sort of reset, back to clean living, back to basics, back to needs and a spartan existence.

Its not new. The strawman now is called consumerism. But essentially, theres are people who are really, really, really infuriated that someone, out there, right now might be thinking about buying a complete set of garden gnomes. Garden gnomes of all things! For whatever reason they imagine themselves (patriotism/enviromentalism/saving your soul/paternal autocracy) they really think they ought to be able to determine what you should and shouldnt be able to spend your money on.
I'm a little saddened someone might pay to go see Jedward live, but if someone wants to do it, and is willing to pay the true cost (which includes a portion of their hope and soul) then grand, I'll get over it.

Hello Mr. Irish Property Bubble, how are you doing? There is a kind of circular insanity in consumerism, factories produce too many goods, people need to buy those goods for the factory to be profitable and for the economy to function, but the people need money to buy those goods, they have salaries but not enough credit to buy everything that is produced, so banks make money more widely available, but that money is only available if the economy functions, and the economy can only function if the factories are producing successfully. If any link in the chain breaks....bye, bye.

Regarding this...theres some sort of common mistake that the Irish property bubble was some sort of accidental thing, that somehow those bloody eejits, the common people of Ireland, were let out with daddys credit card and look at the mess they made. Now we need Daddy State to come back in and put some order on those reckless children.

The Irish property bubble was very deliberately crafted and built by government policies, both in tax breaks, economic policy and planning laws. Land in itself isnt worth much more than it produces. Planning permission makes it expensive. Guess who controls that? Who incentivised property contruction through tax breaks? Who failed to regulate, indeed encouraged, the reckless lending of the banks and the rampant explosion of credit in the Irish economy that rushed right into the industry incentivised by the government?

I look back at the last ten years, and the last thing I think Ireland needs is the government (or any other authority that might as well be a government) trying to determine what we should and shouldnt spend our money on. Them telling us to invest in the property ladder and "helping" us get on the first step didnt work out so well did it?

Apply the true cost, let the individual work out if he is willing to work enough to pay it. Feck anyone elses opinions.

Macha

Sand wrote: »

Consumerism is a straw man. Its really an attack on urbanisation, modernism, the same as it has always been since the dark old days when Cato was shocked and appalled at the concept of Roman men learning to dance. Or spending vast sums on such ridiculous things as villas in the country. Complete with oyster beds. Oyster beds of all things, what lunacy!

No it isn't a rejection of urbanisation or modernism and to conflate the two is quite odd. In fact, urbanisation is a very sustainable method of living and I would be in favour of it. As for modernism, well that depends on your definition of modernism or progress, if that's what you mean by modernism. Dancing really has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see.

Sand wrote: »

Back in the 18th century, young rich noblemen would embark on grand tours of Europe, living large, mixing up sight seeing and art with prostitution, drugs and drinking. That was somehow romantic. Now cheap airfares mean dirty low bred commoners can embark on their own grand tours of Europe. Suddenly its boorish and consumerist.

No, it's the very simple fact that all that travel is having a detrimental effect on the environment. Nothing to do with value judgements on the people or where they go or what they do. Remove the environmental impact and I have no objections.

Sand wrote: »

You know, whose to say whats ridiculous? I might think the things you spend your money on are ridiculous. In fact, its probably a certainty that I would. But its your money, you earned it, and you spend it how you see fit so long as you are willing to pay the true cost of what you are buying. The true cost being the important point.

Well, there we agree (*faints in shock*). My issue isn't really so much with people buying stuff, it's the system surrounding how all these things are extracted, manufactured, transported, and disposed of. Sort that all out and I really would have nothing to say on the matter other than more power to everyone if that's what makes them happy.

Personally, I consider myself lucky that I don't need a lot of "stuff" to make me happy, meaning I don't put myself under financial pressures in terms of my career, loans, mortgages, etc. But then some people don't see it that way and that's fine by me. (Although I would point out that once a certain level of GDP is achieved in a country, meaning that needs are met, happiness does not increase in that country even if GDP increase further: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356885) The idea that more stuff means more happiness is certainly not a universal truth, given a certain level of comfort has been achieved. I have read further research that demonstrates experiences, rather than objects, tend to make people happier. I can try to root it out.

Although I reserve the right to call certain purchases ridiculous, not so much in relation to the object itself but more so, again, to do with the system that produces them. If we take the humble Playstation, it contains a material called tantalum, which comes from coltan. Approx 80% of the world's coltan is in DR Congo. The launch and ensuing popularity of Playstations and other consoles led to the price of coltan skyrocketing, and in Congo, this led to children being forced down mines according to the UN. Congolese children being forced down mines so that other kids can play a games console. I find systems like this ridiculous, not the concept of someone wanting and buying a console. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.

One final point I would make is that modern consumerism does depend a lot on manufactured demand.

Oh and just on the "as long as s/he can pay for it" well..some things are irreplaceable such as ecological services of atmospheric regulation. So I wouldn't consider it an option for someone to destroy these just because they have enough money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's amazing how you just take what you want out of what I wrote. I never said any of that but you read it that way. And taking any argument to its extreme and attacking that is just lazy debating. I'll debate this with Sand but not with you - sorry but I consider it a pointless exercise.

Valmont

taconnol wrote: »

It's amazing how you just take what you want out of what I wrote. I never said any of that but you read it that way. And taking any argument to its extreme

Taking an argument to its logical extreme is the best way to tease out contradictions and inconsistencies. If you subsequently avoid that issue then the lazy debating is much closer to home.

Macha

Valmont wrote: »

Taking an argument to its logical extreme is the best way to tease out contradictions and inconsistencies. If you subsequently avoid that issue then the lazy debating is much closer to home.

It helps when your "logical extreme" is a strawman.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Ah yes the think of the children card

@taconnol

In Europe in 19th century child labour was everywhere and children worked in mines and factories of the industrial revolution towns

notice how increased trade and the very same "consumerism" that leftie environuts have such a problem with, lifted all boats over the years since

does inequality still exist in places like lets say the UK? yes there are rich and there are poor, but notice how the "poor" no longer have to starve or send their children to work in the mines

increased trade makes everyone better off (and "consumerism" creates demand which fuels trade), as a citizen of the most open country in the world tradewise you should appreciate the fact and look around and reflect


If you want to help people of Congo <insert poorer country of the week> then let them trade on an even field and let them into the EU/western markets (why of course the local farmers etc would scream murder)

Cannibal Ox

Sand wrote: »

@Cannibal Ox
No, it really wasnt.

Economists, Sociologists, Psychologists, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, Capitalists, and Communists, politicians, CEOs, and unemployed wasters of every colour, stripe, and creed agree that consumerism is a phenomenon of the late 19th and early 20th century, as a consequence of the industrial revolution, the establishment of the factory as a means of production, the creation of the technological means of mass production, the establishment of higher wages, the expansion of credit to the wider population, and, not to forget, the various forms of organizational theory and practice, like Taylorism and Fordism, or the various forms of public relations and the branches of the disciplines of psychology, sociology, and economics established specifically to deal with how we can mass produce products, how and why people will consume excess goods, and how we can convince people to consume excess goods. And globalization too. That's pretty important. In other words, consumerism does not simply mean consumption, as has been previously pointed out. Maybe you know this, and think the Romans had factories and market relations executives, but you don't seem to acknowledge any of this, and I'm not sure we can have a conversation on this unless that part is sorted out first.

On the next part about Romans, Fascists, and Soviets, it appears to me that what you've attempted to do is generalize a point across history to create a rather neat little dialectic between those who want progress and those who don't and a grand, sweeping narrative of the triumph of progress. In the process, you managed to take a piece of 1,500 year old hearsay and apply this dialectic to an incredibly complex civilization in the shape of Rome, a civilization that underwent numerous political, economic, and social incarnations, decided that the Soviets, despite their stated desire to implement an economic program through various Plans that would supersede American levels of production, were puritans, that the fascists were somehow backward looking, despite Hitler's plan for every Aryan owning a volkswagon to drive down the autobahn in, Mussolini's well documented friendship with corporations, and the various cultural fascist outlets that emphasised technology and the glory of the coming utopian future, and, most importantly, that the struggle that has marked history has been that between

Sand wrote: »

...civillisation and all its opportunity for privacy, and thus corruption/decadence vs. the imagined example of some sort of reset, back to clean living, back to basics, back to needs and a spartan existence.

Indeed. The entire history of mankind can be reduced to two rival factions in society. Where have I heard that kind of logic before? That's right! Communism! I really don't think what you've tried to do works. And nor do I think it's particularly effective to try and lump people who don't believe consumerism is the be all and end all of civilization as despising civilization and yearning for an agrarian golden age.

On the rest of it, I never suggested that people shouldn't consume, I don't care what gnomes they want to buy, nor did I say that the state should decide what is and isn't produced, nor did I say that people don't have a responsibility for the crash in Ireland, and nor did I advocate for some agrarian golden age. I did, on the other hand, point out that consumerism and the economic system constructed around it isn't particularly good, that a change in how we produce will change how we consume, I'm not particularly against ethical and sustainable business practices if businesses choose to implement them because if the consumer wants their product, they can get it, if they don't, they don't, and, finally, if consumerism is the be all and end all of civilization, it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for civilization.

Sand

@Tacconol

No it isn't a rejection of urbanisation or modernism and to conflate the two is quite odd. In fact, urbanisation is a very sustainable method of living and I would be in favour of it. As for modernism, well that depends on your definition of modernism or progress, if that's what you mean by modernism. Dancing really has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see.

Well, consumerism is often a strawman which is defined to criticise consumption. If you ask yourself, what is "consumerism" its hard to define. Its not something you can touch. Or taste. Or smell.

If we ask ourself what modernism, or civillisation is, its defined by what is useless...art, music, dance, fashion, high literature. None of this is useful. We like it. We want it. But we dont need it.

Urban living is defined, even within the above genres, as being dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, seductive. Rural living is defined as close knit communities, honest, moral, proud, stern. It has always been thus. Right back down to Babylon in the bible. Disney movies are simply the latest expression. Its no mistake that even Clark Kent was raised amongst the honest folk of rural Middle America before he travelled to Metropolis to redeem the Big City.

The reason is that to live within an urban enviroment, you have to look the other way, not poke your nose into other peoples business, live and let live. You dont like a certain crowd? Fine theres a thousand other places you can hang out in. In a rural enviroment, its different - everyone has the same locals, everyone needs a lift home, everyone needs to get involved in each others bussiness. Its a strenth at a distance, but its also a place where people need to satisfy community norms more than they would have to in the city where nobody knows you and thus nobody gives a ****.

Consumerism is defined by its critics as being the systematic process of encouraging want for stuff we dont need. Even the ill defined nihilism within Fight Club defined modern, materialistic, consumer existence as "working jobs we hate, for **** we dont need"

Civillisation is **** we dont need. Its the bubble of unreality, guarded by the rough men Orwell referenced. With urbanisation comes civillisation (or perhaps they come together given the two are so interlinked) and with those comes **** we dont need - people buying complete sets of garden gnomes. Which is totally ridiculous, but its a mark of our advance that people can stop thinking about where their next meal is coming from and start worrying about that next accessory to complete their garden.

Every "revolutionary" political system (Nazism, Fascism and Soviet being merely the latest major ones Europeans have encountered) have involved a rejection of the corrupt, wasteful and above all urban present and some return to an imagined golden, rural, age when men were honest, women modest and children polite. Even Augustus Caesar, perhaps the most revolutionary figure in the late Republic, advertised his destruction of the Republic as being a "back to basics" renewal of old traditions.

This is probably best expressed in Schindlers List when the SS camp guards are sorting the Jewish prisoners into groups of those who have essential skills and those who dont. Chaim Nowak is left to ask almost rhetorically, : "Not essential? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. I teach history and literature, since when it's not essential?" Its not essential in societies which reject corrupt, decadent civillisation and embrace a back to basics ethos. Societies which are only concerned with power and violence and subsitence extistence...needs, not wants.

No, it's the very simple fact that all that travel is having a detrimental effect on the environment. Nothing to do with value judgements on the people or where they go or what they do. Remove the environmental impact and I have no objections.

So long as true cost of their travel is imposed, whats the issue? I fully accept and agree that cheap airtravel has an impact on the enviroment, but if carbon taxes are factored into the charges to fully reflect the cost of enviromental cleanup then whats the issue? I certainly would not like to see a solution where cheap air travel was banned for the people whose dreams extend only to a wild weekend in Spain but was retained for people on "important" bussiness, like conferences on the bolivian spider monkey.

I mean to be clear, I remember talking to Typedef or similar where he said he wouldnt have any problem with war so long as no civillians died. Given the amount of firepower being thrown around modern battlefields and the willingness of combatants to fight from and amongst civillian urban centers, that essentially means that Typedef is wholly and absolutely against war in all and any circumstances. Admirable, but unrealistic. By the same measure, travel other than by rowboat or walking is going to involve enviromental impact - if we allow for that, then the simplest solution is charging the true cost of travel.

(Although I would point out that once a certain level of GDP is achieved in a country, meaning that needs are met, happiness does not increase in that country even if GDP increase further: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1356885) The idea that more stuff means more happiness is certainly not a universal truth

Id fully agree, but I amnt going to judge too much on it - I certainly roll my eyes at the idea that someone can make a career as a journalist selling rumours and invented stories in celebrity magazines to morons, but hey, if morons are willing to work and earn enough to afford being dripfed ****e...power to them. Theyre keeping journalists, photographers and magazine printers in work feeding their need for gossip and vaccuous living through others. I waste my time debating nonsense on the internet so Im not in a position to criticise.

Materialism is fairly neutral. Its not an absolute good, its not an absolute evil. The problem with criticism of consumerism is that is considers materialism to be a problem that needs to be solved - its not. Not everyone is going to wander off to Tibet to find God or some bull**** neo spiritualism that might as well be called God. Some people are going to be satisfied with finding out what Miley Cyrus is up to. Whatever.

One final point I would make is that modern consumerism does depend a lot on manufactured demand.

Of course, to a certain extent. Companies spend money on brands and advertising because it works. We instintively want the good stuff. Successful advertising imprints that it is the good stuff. But that again, has always been true. I think the most telling defeat of revolutionary attitudes in modern society has been the commercialisation of the spirit of revolt...the revolution will be commercialised. Previously **** was sold on the basis that if we drank it we would be keeping up with the Jones. Now we are sold **** on the basis that if we drink Sprite we will be somehow sticking it to the man. Cos the Jones are really indepandant free spirits who dont take **** from anyone these days.

Once you get past *needs*, all demand is manufactured.

Oh and just on the "as long as s/he can pay for it" well..some things are irreplaceable such as ecological services of atmospheric regulation. So I wouldn't consider it an option for someone to destroy these just because they have enough money.

We determine access to scare resources on some abstract level. If it wasnt money, it would be political favour, religiousity, charisma, or simple military power. Money tends to be a fair enough determinant in that you have to earn it before you can spend it in most cases. Sure, theres enough people out there with more money than sense, but Ivor Calley is a Senator, Father Brendan Smith was a priest, someone thinks Gerry Ryan was popular and Gerry Adams thought killing people was a good way to achieve his aims. So, yeah, money tends to be a fair enough determining factor.

How that money is earned is another story.

Sand

@Cannibal Ox

Economists, Sociologists, Psychologists, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, Capitalists, and Communists, politicians, CEOs, and unemployed wasters of every colour, stripe, and creed agree that consumerism is a phenomenon of the late 19th and early 20th century, as a consequence of the industrial revolution

Then theres two courses of actions

1 - Stop posting because clearly all matters of opinion have already been decided by Economists, Sociologists, Psychologists, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, Capitalists, and Communists, politicians, CEOs, and unemployed wasters of every colour, stripe, and creed. On everything. Ever.

2 - Dare to dream that when everyone is thinking the same, someone is not thinking. So hence we can post our own thoughts.

I think you truly underestimate the sophistication of Roman industrialisation. Thee Chinese were *this* close to industrialisation. If consumerism is the purchase of "**** we dont need" then people have been doing it as long as civillisation/urbanisation has allowed the specialisation and economic sophistication possible to do it. Its no mystery that the Romans are attacked as being overly corrupt and decadent - theres was a previously unkown sophisticated economy with specialisation, branding, and high quality. Globalisation, Roman style, involved cities being fed by farmers living hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and high quality goods being transferred by the same trade routes. Sound familiar?

People stopped needing to worry about living off the land because they could rely on trade bringing them food, so instead they could specialise into producing goods that they could trade for food and vastly more importantly, stuff they wanted from across the Medditerranean world. Economic sophistication, urbanisation, consumerism - the spread of high quality, commonly available goods to the lower classes. The Roman Empire was destroyed because consistent waves of barbarian invasions disrupted and ultimately destroyed the interdependant spider webs of commerce on which the Empires economy rested. What would happen in Dublin if the power shut down tommorrow and didnt come back on? What if the water stopped? Thats what happened when the Empire stopped paying the wages of the border garrisons and the raiders stopped the provinces paying their taxes to a central authority that has stopped paying for garrisons - civillisation isnt natural...its artificial, its contructed, deliberately planned for.

As a mark of the sophistication of Roman industrialisation, the pollution released into the worlds atmosphere, as measured by those taking samples from the Artic ice cores wasnt matched until the 19th century. By comparison, society until that point was medieval - subsistence exitence.

I know you believe consumerism is some modern production, but lets face it, the attack on it is, the consumption of "**** we dont need". My point is that we have been doing this whenever it has been possible to rise above subsistence agrarian existence. The last time that was possible was the mid-late Roman Empire. The next time it was possible was post industrialisation. Coincidence? I think not. Its important to point out that in the 1300-1400 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and its economic sophistication and the industrialisation of Europe, there were still high quality goods being produced to satisfy the wants of people...but these were for the nobility/clergy...specific, limited classes of people who got high quality goods. Whereas the majority of people got poorly made crap.

The mark of the Roman Empire and Industrialised Europe was that cheap, high quality goods were made available for the common people. Not nobility. The peasants. Theres an entire hill in Rome thats artificial. Its made from all the pottery that was discarded as being substandard and thrown away because it was rubbish. Every single piece would have been of far higher standard quality than anything delivered to common people up until the 19th century.

Consumerism is just the latest strawman for an attack on the economic sophistication (i.e. urban civillisation) that allows for high quality goods to be supplied to satisfy wants...not needs.

Seriously...you really think people *changed* after the 1700s? That they were some sort of alien race? That people before then were homo non-consumerist and people today are homo comsumerist? People have always been the same...they have always wanted things they dont need, and others have criticised them for wanting stuff they dont need. The only difference is that previously nobility and clergy lived in palaces and cathedrals, and now anybody can live in high quality housing due to the sophistication of our economy/civillisation.

So yes, the critique of consumerism is nothing new. Cato hated it too, so at least its critics are in good company. ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

On the next part about Romans, Fascists, and Soviets, it appears to me that what you've attempted to do is generalize a point across history to create a rather neat little dialectic between those who want progress and those who don't and a grand, sweeping narrative of the triumph of progress.

Well, if youre going to generalise the past two centuries as being consumerist, I guess I can be forgiven for a generalisation or two?

Either way, I dont consider the current level of economic sophistication to be any more permament or eternal than the Roman era was. Lets face it, were already seeing discontent within the people who are seeing their jobs going to China. And unfortunately the Chinese and Indians arent accepting that they are going to be our low cost manufacturers/lenders whilst we acts as the high cost thinkers/borrowers.

I think youll find that if the underlying level of economic sophistication was to regress, if Dubliners suddenly had to start worrying about growing food, generating their own power, their own clean water, their own clothes...well suddenly, almost coincidentally, consumerism would fall off. Almost as if one was merely a function of the other...

For the record, the Soviets were puritans. Seriously. They were more prudish than youd think. Certainly more than I would think. The creation of Ivan, the honest, patriotic, brave, and simple peasant who destroyed the Nazi invader was a propaganda creation. The Russian soldier "society" was deeply ironic, cynical, bitter, deepy patriotic (in a Russian sense as opposed to a Soviet sense), very brave, but with a sense of humour that was very much anti-establishment. Most Russian soldiers were peasants who deeply resented the collectivisation of their farms. Many more werent "Russian" at all but various ethnic nationalities within the Soviet Union. When the Soviets ethnically cleansed the Crimea, more than a few recipients of the Soviet militarys highest honours were stuck on the trucks sending the people to Siberia. Totally offtopic, I would very seriously reccomend reading Ivan's War by Catherine Merridale - Its not so much an account of WW2, but rather of the men and women who fought it for the Soviet Union - their society and reasoning, their change in attitudes, and the very cynical betrayal of their hopes by Stalin - one of the most disturbing chapters is the letters men wrote to Stalin encouraging him to lighten up, that this war meant something, that everyone had fought for a new and better future...how cynically that utterly naive hope was betrayed, and how veterans were coerced into co-operating with Stalins history of the war. Into becoming the faceless Ivans of history. As one of the veterans of the siege of Lenningrad put it, "Everyone could know that we were heroes for enduring the siege, but no one could know why we were heroes".

The Fascists were backward looking - they looked back to rekindling a Roman Empire, an imagined age of glory and stern patriotism, rejecting the dissapointing present.

As for the Nazis - they invented an entire mythological past to avoid confronting the present. An Aryan race? Seriously? They condemned jewish civillisation as decadent and corrupt, despite the contribution of Jewish Germans to German civillisation. They embraced the concept of brutal violence, might makes right, the master race and slave races beneath them... practically a Spartan/Helot divide (which is how much in the past they were). Whilst the Red Armys behaviour to civillians in Germany and Eastern Europe was reprehensible, it was merely the demonstration of what the Nazi philosophy of might makes right/ warriors over civillians meant. Atrocities, murder, brutality - a rejection of civillisation.

Were the Nazis somehow technologically advanced? And hence modern? Maybe. Could you ever consider the Nazi regime ever creating the personal computer? Opening the a forum for the free exchange of ideas like the internet? If not, wouldnt they, and any other totalarian anti-civillisation movement, simply be for retaining technological advancement for a chosen obligarchy, whilst the common people get lower class goods and services? No better than medieval times?