:eek:Darn Republican?
Harsh.
Done, and done.
I have never had this problem. This is an economic malaise current in most of the “Have” nations which I have observed here in Canada and in the USA, and am suggesting that everyone confront it and deal with it in thir own way…or not.
Filling in some of the blanks yourself might be a useful exercise.
Perhaps I should let Exapno speak for himself, but I have to say that I didn’t see any anger there. He was pointing out – correctly, in my view – that your comments are big on meaninglessly broad generalities and short on substance, to the point of non-existence. Sort of like the rapid succession of six posts here, a machine-gun volley of one-liners that I find hard to relate to anything that was previously said.
And I kind of wish you’d stop pointing out that you’re Canadian, because there are a number of us Canucks here and we don’t think at all like you. At least I don’t. I actually have no idea what you’re even trying to say. “Stop buying stuff” is about as close as I can come to an interpretation. Or “don’t use debt”. Or something. You know what? Most of the time when I buy stuff I use the first card that I happen to find in my wallet, unless it’s a big enough purchase that an air miles credit card makes a difference. And I only buy stuff that I need. I think I’ll keep doing that.
Oh, is that what you’re saying. Well, that is… a string of words that is so ambiguous as to mean absolutely nothing at all. But I think it translates as: Why can’t everyone do things exactly the way I would like them to be done?
Actually responding to people’s posts with something might be a good useful exercise for you. Also, a string of one line drive by posts is pretty unhelpful to whatever position you are trying to convey here.
Learning to use the quote button (lower right) might be a good exercise for you. We have no idea of who or what you are responding to.
I wouldn’t go to the Elections forum if I were you. You wouldn’t like what you found there.
I’m not the OP.
I suspect the OP’s position can be summarized as “Less bread & circuses. Less guns; more butter. More smart; less stupid. Etc.”
If all the human effort and money spent making the latest Kardashian shit-show was instead spent on building a new or better school the world would be a better place.
If all the human effort and money spent on bling and fashion was instead spent on books or exercise the world would be a better place.
If all the human effort and money spent on plastic surgery was instead spent on health care for the poor or disabled the world would be a better place.
etc. And in each case gross spending and employment are preserved. We’re not doing less total economy; we’re just altering our priorities.
I’m not suggesting I necessarily agree with (my interpretation of) the OP completely.
But there are some good points here. As individuals we each have the freedom to choose to be the worst person we can be. Or to choose to be the best person we can be. Or anything in between, including ignoring the question altogether and being blown by the winds of surrounding society wherever they may lead.
I think we all agree that most folks choosing one extreme or most folks choosing the other will produce very different societies. And each of us individually have to live in whichever society that we collectively create.
The core of Progressive thinking is about each of us choosing to be our better selves, and to encourage the better natures of our fellows.
Bingeing on consumer debt to cart home as many badly-made-in-China trinkets as possible while being unwilling to afford decent roads or schools is not a Progressive ideal.
I concur with that world view, but I’d say that it’s more of a political viewpoint about how one structures and values society and its institutions. It’s tangential to a discussion of consumerism as such, but I think a political relationship does exist. The opposite ideology is the far-right Randian libertarianism that denies any collective responsibility for social institutions and services like schools, hospitals, roads, environmental stewardship, or assistance for the needy. This is the ideology of total individualism, and all taxation for a collective societal interest is regarded as theft. Schools are even worse, we are told, because they not only cost money, they indoctrinate kids at a young age with leftist ideas like sharing your toys is good, and selfish hoarding is bad.
Whereas progressive ideology tends to emphasize collective responsibilities and rights to the resources of a commonwealth. So yeah, I do see at least a tangential relationship between far-right ideology and its individualism and worship of wealth, and rampant conspicuous consumption.
That strikes me as a rather odd mix of common-sense things that many of us already do, along with some pretty nutty radicalism. No, I’m not going to live in a straw-bale house or converted shipping container while subsisting entirely on organic tofu! 
But I fully endorse the idea that the prime consideration in our choice of homes, cars, and clothing should be practicality and basic comfort rather than status and display. I think that simple principle is the sensible essence of “voluntary simplicity” – satisfying actual needs rather than symbolizing a power structure.
What you define as “practicality and basic comfort” obviously is not an objective thing, but ranges across almost every possible level of spending from above starvation to living in luxury.
What, pray tell, constitutes “practicality and basic comfort” in one’s choice of transportation? A bus pass? A car? If it’s a car, are you satisfied with a beater, an economy car, or something nicer?
My wife is in the early stages of deciding what car she’ll replace her current ride with when the lease runs out in September. A small economy car (like the one I drive) is completely out of the question. She considers cars like a Kia simply not at a level of basic comfort for her; fabric seats and a lack of heated rear view mirror just aren’t good enough. A Bentley or Maserati, however, is unnecessarily luxurious. Is she wrong? Is an Acura too high a bar for a person to justifiably want?
If the standard for a home should be practicality and basic comfort, rather than “Display,” does that mean one should not spend money on any aesthetic considerations? You don’t NEED to paint a house, plant flowers, have wall decorations, or have any floor covering more expensive than linoleum. We could certainly save money on our house if, instead of landscaping the back yard, we simply left it as a graded pile of dirt with whatever weeds chose to grow on it. For a patio area we could simply pour a slab of concrete. It would be ugly but would be practical and not any less “comfortable” to sit on than a nice stone patio. Of course, we could theoretically spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it, too, with a hot tub the size of an SUV and rare orchids planted in gold-plated planters. What’s the “practicality and comfort” level? Are we living exorbitantly because we have three (well, two and a half, to use the term of art) bathrooms for four people, which is clearly not actually necessary and would have been considered amazingly luxurious when I was a kid? Or are we living frugally because we hardly ever buy new clothes?
We need Amateur Barbarian back to address it, since this was his hobbyhorse. Maybe if I say his name three times:
Amateur Barbarian
Amateur Barbarian
Amateur Barbarian
Let’s see if that works.
We discussed this extensively offboard. I was in the same odd position I am with heavyduty1. I don’t disagree with what he wants. In fact, I live a life that’s mostly in accordance with it. I do have a car loan – but at 0.9% it’s under annual inflation so it’s more economically sensible than paying it off in a lump. There are many ways of living soundly within the current system.
There are no ways I’m aware of to get *everybody *to live soundly within the current system. You can’t decree it. You can’t pass laws to enforce it. Immediate gratification is a sensible reaction in a world with extremely uncertain futures. heavyduty1 said he was retired; his future is short-term and probable. People 40 years younger than him have no such luxury. Why save for a future in which the robots are going to take all the jobs? Or climate change devastates the world? Or we all die from terrorism and the wars against it? Why save if it seems certain that a basic wage will be granted to all and luxuries will cost pennies because of technology?
heavyduty1 was brought up in an era in which the future was seemingly the safest, most assured, and most promising. Naturally that colors his views. I say to him as I’ve said to others here, that the 50s are the biggest anomaly of all time, the worst base from which to extrapolate. Sure, people worried about a nuclear war, or said they did. But there was no real reason to change your daily behavior, for the million to one chance, building bomb shelters notwithstanding.
Every self help program amounts to the same thing: eat your broccoli. Don’t overspend, do more exercise, drink less, count to ten, vote for Hillary. Some people do all these things. Some people do one or more at times. Some people do none. We all know the answers. The answers are extremely simple. Stop giving us answers. Start telling us how to make the entire world listen.
Do we have any model for successfully structuring a society other than one based - at least in large part - on consumerism? Communism might have its appeal, but has never proven to work for humans. If one presumes a benign and representative government, than a greater proportion of Socialism compared to capitalism might result in a better distribution of goods and services.
It impresses me that the OP is hinting at inequities in the use and distribution of resources, and suggesting that the average person does not know what is best for them. I might agree, but I’m not sure how you might address these outside of a thought experience.
Take any society: a town/city; a nation; the entire world. What are the basic goals that you feel should govern the use and distribution of resources? How “green” must production be, and what tools get you there? Do you aspire to each member of society receiving roughly equal amounts of goods and services, or do you instead ensure that each individual receives some minimal level of necessities? Do you object the same way to a rich person buying a million dollar Bugatti, as to a million poor people buying disposable plastic trash at the dollar store? Lotta good - but tough - questions.
Personally, I would love it if the entire world practiced more sustainability. Make sure EVERYONE got the minimum necessities of food, shelter, clothing, clean water, and basic health care, and attempting not to pollute excessively or otherwise destroy irreplaceable natural resources. But I have a hard time viewing that as anything other than a pipe dream.
One thing the US lacks is a shared set of values other than the acquisition of stuff at low cost. Sure, folk say the US stands for a bunch of noble things, but I’m not sure I see any real shared values to compare with that.
Everyone is already doing that, especially the “or not” part.
People can justifiably want anything - but depending on how we define basic comfort society might not give it to them. You’ll remember that after the crash a bunch of investment bankers who lost their bonuses moaned about not having the basic comforts of nannies and private schools. So, comfort is personal but I think we can define basic in some reasonably universal way. Heat and seats - basic. Heated mirror and leather seats - not so much.
I live in California and thanks to the drought we defined down basic levels of yard appearance. Some people proudly displayed their bare lawns and drought resistant plantings are good. Plus lawns of the old days now show selfishness and lack of concern for the public good. And some rich people who use tons of water to keep up their plush estates are getting publicly shamed.
I’m all for consumerism when you can afford it. And living above a basic level of comfort is fine if you can afford it. But if we are talking about the right to expect a basic level of comfort we’re not talking shag carpet.
One of the good points in the “Millionaire Next Door” book is that people who build wealth often don’t live in the best neighborhoods, because ritzy environs pressure people to have lawn services and luxury cars to sit in the driveway. In rich neighborhoods “basic” gets defined up.
So you are just noticing this?
http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html
Engineers making a plane do 2,000 mph in 1964 but we keep redesigning cars while the entire economics profession fails to discuss what we lose on the depreciation of that junk every year.
20th Century technology used to invent a new kind of slavery that just happens to wreck the planet. 
psik
You’ve been saying this for years and yet economists really do know what depreciation is.
Stuff wears out. Cars actually wear out more slowly than most things, so I’m not sure why you’re particularly interested in that - food wears out REALLY quickly. Everyone knows.