Conspicuous consumption - The root of America's Economic Problems - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Cato · #46 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

If someone else is going hungry or living in substandard conditions you should want to help them before buying something that you just want and don't need. Yes, this is the basis of PROUT as I understand it.

I don't expect any of you to accept it. In fact, I expect just the opposite.

Then why would anyone work for more than they need? What motivation would they have to do so?

Cato · #47 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Depends on what you use for recreation. The majority of things that people in the Western influenced countries use for recreation are nothing more than things they are taught to use by the doctrine of conspicuous consumption.

I choose to take my recreation in things that aren't based on consumption but instead personal improvement directed towards my intellect and my spirit.

So, instead of using your extra money (money you don't "need") to buy things and services which employ other people, you choose to deny them the opportunity to do so? Why do you hate the people who work in the entertainment industry?

Cato · #48 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The brutal hard fact is that the US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe consume a greater share of the worlds resources per capita than those in poor and developing nations. Given that there really are a limited QTY of resources available for everybody and the rest of world seeks to mimic the wealthy consumer world - the choice is to consume less or wage war to prevent them from consuming more. They want cars, widgets, and beef. Are we really going to say no?

Andrew

We also produce vastly more than the rest of the world. Should we reduce our production while we're reducing our consumption?

Stapo · #49 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

People can talk about bad investments, bad mortgages, the rates of taxes, whom to tax, government regulations and bailouts but everyone ignores the source of the problem. The American system is driven not by need but by want.

Its time to start asking the important question -- What do you need? Utilitarianism got it wrong. The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

Honestly I believe you took the wrong turn, when it comes to the core reason of the current situation.

It's not about people seeking to live above their wants or needs, it's all about people living according to their means.

For far too long, just too many got too much credit and used it to simply satisfy their needs/wants.

This brought never seen unbalances into the system, those have to be corrected and hopefully the bailouts won't spoil the necessary correction.

That's what have to happen and not a hypothetical rant about someone else's needs outweighting my wants, especially if I can pay for them without bogus debt/financial unbalances.

Si modo · #50 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapo

Honestly I believe you took the wrong turn, when it comes to the core reason of the current situation.

It's not about people seeking to live above their wants or needs, it's all about people living according to their means.
For far too long, just too many got too much credit and used it to simply satisfy their needs/wants.

This brought never seen unbalances into the system, those have to be corrected and hopefully the bailouts won't spoil the necessary correction.

That's what have to happen and not a hypothetical rant about someone else's needs outweighting my wants, especially if I can pay for them without bogus debt/financial unbalances.

[Emphasis mine] I think that is the most concise summary of the situation I have seen. Quite elegant in it's simplicity as truths usually are.

Norrin Radd · #51 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

I wouldn't know. I've never been in that position. In fact, neither have you. Only MOST of what you believe is wrong.

When the Court makes a ruling and it is 5-4, the majority is always right and the minority always wrong. If the Court later reverses that ruling, it's right again and the previous Court that ruled differently is wrong. Insofar as "right" and "wrong" even have any meaning here, which really they don't.

That's because we are not talking about questions of fact. There is no objective truth to what the Constitution means. It's very much a matter of opinion and interpretation.

Naturally I'm able to think for myself, and certainly I'm entitled to opinions on the subject, but my opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's, and it's less authoritative than the Court's. When I disagree with the Court, the Court wins. Likewise, when you disagree with the Court, the Court wins.

There are a number of rulings that I consider bad law and would like to see reversed, but until they are, they remain the law of the land. That's reality. At any given moment, the Constitution says whatever the Justices say it says. And the Justices do not consider welfare to be unconstitutional. As it happens, I agree with them. The language is there, and the interpretation is a valid one.

I'm familiar with the texts you would present to say otherwise. However, I'm also familiar with their context. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton were presenting these arguments to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. The arguments addressed fears of anti-federalists that the proposed Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. The three men were not necessarily being honest (Hamilton in particular), and their arguments are not necessarily valid. In some ways that they would have denied, the anti-federalists were right.

Hamilton (I think) also argued that a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary because the Constitution gave only limited powers to the federal government anyway, and that by spelling out the rights of the people against the government a Bill of Rights implied that no other rights existed. Do you think that argument was valid as well?

So, you are saying that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means and they are always right, even when they are wrong?

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

baaaaaaaaaaa.

baaa,

baa.

You are pathetic.

Andrewl · #52 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cato

We also produce vastly more than the rest of the world. Should we reduce our production while we're reducing our consumption?

I don't see how it could work otherwise. Our economies need to shrink, become less active in general. Growth needs to be redefined. This will happen regardless. Our reaction to it will determine how smooth the transition is.

Andrew

Cato · #53 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I don't see how it could work otherwise. Our economies need to shrink, become less active in general. Growth needs to be redefined. This will happen regardless. Our reaction to it will determine how smooth the transition is.

Andrew

So, we need to put a bunch of people out of work, produce less things, so the things that are produced become more expensive, so we can ... sorry, I'm a little lost here, Andrew. I just fail to see the benefit in putting a bunch of people out of work. How do they then provide for their needs?

Stapo · #54 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I don't see how it could work otherwise. Our economies need to shrink, become less active in general. Growth needs to be redefined. This will happen regardless. Our reaction to it will determine how smooth the transition is.

Honestly I don't know how and why you believe that "we" have to shrink or redefine growth.

Our economies don't have to shrink, they just have to adopt, which means being technological more advanced than the rest and so to survive in a globalised world with billions of new players!

There is no need/basis for a doomsday gameplay.

Andrewl · #55 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapo

Honestly I don't know how and why you believe that "we" have to shrink or redefine growth.

Because growth is limited. Growth as it is currently defined means the infinite increase of material wealth. In a world with finite resources there are limits to that sort of growth.

Quote:

Our economies don't have to shrink, they just have to adopt, which means being technological more advanced than the rest and so to survive in a globalised world with billions of new players!

Our economies will shrink, and we will adapt. Technology ultimately only serves to increase the rate at which we extract and consume finite resources. The effect is only to speed up the inevitable.

Quote:

There is no need/basis for a doomsday gameplay.

It won't be doomsday. It will just be a transition from one way of living to another. Life goes on. We do have choices though. We could try to reorganize now before too much damage is done.. but we will probably just fight instead. The change is going to happen whether we want it to or not. No techno-jesus is going to save us.

Andrew

Andrewl · #56 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cato

So, we need to put a bunch of people out of work, produce less things, so the things that are produced become more expensive, so we can ... sorry, I'm a little lost here, Andrew. I just fail to see the benefit in putting a bunch of people out of work. How do they then provide for their needs?

You misunderstand. A bunch of people are going to be out of work anyway, and a bunch of people already are. There are limits to the growth of material wealth, that is unavoidable. Se we can choose to transition away from that model or try in vain to hold onto it.

Andrew

Stapo · #57 (**permalink**) 09-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Because growth is limited. Growth as it is currently defined means the infinite increase of material wealth. In a world with finite resources there are limits to that sort of growth.

There are only limits, if you believe that finite (or alternative) ressources can't be used more effectively and that mankind can't adjust to new circumstances.
Apart from that economic growth is (for the individual/society) not soley about pure material wealth, it's also about better working conditions, free-time or more general about the quality of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

No techno-jesus is going to save us.

Save us from what? Please elaborate and be more specific.

EagleSeven · #58 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008

What scares me is our neighbors. They're wonderful people, but they took out a home-equity line of credit, and have been using it to pay regular recurring bills that they cannot afford. They don't know how much longer they can hold their lifestyle together, especially since that line is shrinking. They are the rule, not the exception.

Multiply by 300 million people, and you get the meltdown of the financial system. QED.

Cato · #59 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Because growth is limited. Growth as it is currently defined means the infinite increase of material wealth. In a world with finite resources there are limits to that sort of growth.

That's simply not true, and I can prove it with a very simple example: Ebay. Suppose you have a lime green VW Bug which you value at $3000. It's not very valuable to you, so you put it on Ebay. I see it, love it, want it and gladly pay $3000. I wouldn't sell it for $10,000. Wealth has just been created - $7000 extra. The veracity of this point is proved when someone comes along and offers me $11,000 for the car. I'll sell for $11,000. Wealth has just been created again. "Wealth" and "growth" are infinite, bound only by the wants and needs of consumers.

Even if you don't accept this example, your position fails to take into account the fact that we haven't even scratched the surface of the resources on this planet, much less the resources of others. The resources of this planet (and others, should they be needed) are limited only by the creativity and ingenuity of us - the people using them. Don't forget this is the same planet where some guy sold ordinary rocks as pets and created vast sums of wealth.

Quote:

You misunderstand. A bunch of people are going to be out of work anyway, and a bunch of people already are. There are limits to the growth of material wealth, that is unavoidable. Se we can choose to transition away from that model or try in vain to hold onto it.

You're talking about putting vast quantities of people out of work permanently. Let's assume we reduce production and consumption to simply needs. Well, the only thing people need are food, water, clothing, and shelter. We produce all at an astounding surplus and with minimal human labor compared to the output. It takes very few people to make everything every person on the planet needs. What do we do with the other people? Once they're no longer working, how do they provide for their needs?

Andrewl · #60 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapo

There are only limits, if you believe that finite (or alternative) ressources can't be used more effectively and that mankind can't adjust to new circumstances.

Efficiency creates demand. The more a efficient a technology, the higher the demand for the resources it consumes.

Alternative resources (solar, wind, hydro, nulcear, geothermal) are all fine and good, but together they do not add up to a fossil fuel based economy as we know it.

Humankind does and will adjust to new circumstances. I have no doubt about it.

Quote:

Apart from that economic growth is (for the individual/society) not soley about pure material wealth, it's also about better working conditions, free-time or more general about the quality of life.

That is not how banks and politicians measure growth. They define it strictly by consumption and production.

Quote:

Save us from what? Please elaborate and be more specific.

People always say technology will save us. I.e., it does not matter that resources are finite, because technology will develop that will somehow change that. To me this position is the equivalent of the christian waiting for the second coming.

Andrew

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode