Greetings and Felicitations,

Conspicuous consumption

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. The want to have more than everyone else so you can appear better off than everyone else. It doesn't matter how much debt you have to incur. It doesn't matter how much waste you produce. It doesn't matter how many people suffer because of your wants.

In the end its all gonna collapse unless people start considering the long term effects of what they do. The other day on the news I heard an economic advisor refer to seven years being a long term plan. Seven years! Seven years is not long term. It is not even close.

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.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Personally, aside from my mortgage, I don't have a lot of debt. I have a good job with a nice salary. I buy what I want when I want it.

I'm not sure what to think of your characterization of what drives the "American system". Certainly there are those who buy more than they need, and sometimes go overboard when they buy what they want. Frankly, I don't see a problem with that. If they can pay cash, good on 'em. If they can absorb the monthly nut with financing, there's nothing wrong with that.

Should people who can afford to have more than others be denied that? Should those who've worked hard to put themselves in a position where the can buy anything they want have their salaries reduced to keep them from spending?

If the American people didn't spend money for a single day, the effects would be felt. If they stopped for a week, I'm gonna' guess that we would grind to a tragic, screeching halt.

Essentially, I'm not entirely sure what you think the American people should do...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

yes, I dropped a blurb from the "affluent society " a seminal work written in 1958, in a post yesterday, in short rampant consumerism became the reason for growth, a false growth were nothing was created, just distributed rolling over almost everything before it.

as far as your blurb -

I agree but its not politically acceptable to say so, nor practicale because you are then painted as a greedy elitist.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Greetings and Felicitations,

It has always been a consideration of mine but I think your post brought it back to the forefront of my consciousness.

I agree that it's not politically acceptable to say. Neither side of the standard parties will ever admit the realities of the situation. The Green party does but their tendency towards anti-science and anti-technology run directly counter to mine.

I think that living according to needs and not wants is infinitely practical not to mention sustainable. However, it would require major changes in attitude and mentality. The economic system would need revamping, too. The proutist have done a great deal of work within this concept system.
I am still learning about their system - PROUT: Progressive Utilitization..

I always find the comparison of those who want a more equitable sharing of resources with being greedy to exemplify searching for a rational to explain why a person doesn't like something.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Greetings and Felicitations,

PROUT: Progressive Utilitization..

Its not about stopping buying things. It's about analyzing one's needs and deciding to take care of those needs and then considering the needs of others before considering your wants.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Interesting read. I find I'm very much in agreement with the Progressive Utilization philosophy except I find that a bizarre name for it. But it's rather odd that you would center on a factor of human consumptive behavior as the centerpoint base for this thread.

While I certainly agree that we would be better off if people engaged in more realistic and needs-focused, or even fun-focused, consumption instead of consumption to flash status or provoke envy, I am at a loss to see how you would bring about that change in behavior. There have always been grades of status in human society and a certain subset of the population has always been interested in pursuing high status, and a part of that is showing proof of high status to others so as to gain followers and intimidate enemies.

This is the alpha-beta social game, and in fact while I find it distasteful it serves a positive social purpose. A human society, in order to take collective action of any kind, must be mostly composed of followers (betas). A few people need to be leaders (alphas), and a few others need to be creative individualists who stand outside the status game (gammas), but if everyone was a gamma society would descend into chaos and could get nothing done. In terms of survival, the function of a gamma is to provide innovation and call for change when circumstances require it, and, in a modern civilization, to innovate constantly and so drive technological, scientific, and cultural change. It may be that modern civilizations need, and therefore have, more gammas than traditional societies or precivilized societies did, but gammas are still in the minority and honestly we should be, because the bulk of a society's efforts at survival are not innovative, and mostly require the efficiency that comes from having a few leaders and a lot of followers.

It seems to me that rather than attacking conspicuous consumption, we need to attack the unsustainable wealth gaps that afflict today's economy. Making sure that everyone's needs are met is important, but there are more practical ways of doing this than trying to change so fundamental an aspect of human nature as status display.

So, let me get this straight:

Let's say I earn $1,000.00. Before I spend any of that on something I want, I should concern myself, first, with what someone else needs?

If I can satisfy my needs with $500.00 of that $1,000.00, and can spend the other $500.00 on something I want, are you suggesting that I shouldn't buy what I want if someone else "needs" $500.00 worth of something?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You first.

__________________

Do you even realize what you're saying????? If I work to meet my NEEDS and there happens to be some left over for my WANTS, you're saying that I should give MY hard-earned money to someone else instead of enjoying it myself???? OMG!!!! How incredibly ridiculous!!!!!

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

My recreation is a need. My fun is a need. If I don't have that, I become less productive.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Must be that hi-grade hydoponic stuff at work.

__________________

Too true, sisters! Why am I supposed to give even more of my hard earned to some lazy good for nothing who doesn't want to work?

In the UK, that's the way of it - far too many lazy bastards who won't work and expect the taxpayer to support them.

Anyone who wants what I have can do what I do. WORK!

__________________
"On my signal, unleash hell."

Greetings and Felicitations,

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.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Greetings and Felicitations,


I already do.

I can give you a list if you would like.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Greetings and Felicitations,

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.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________