Individuals do not wish the economy that they claim to want.
The great weakness in the anti-consumer economy is that we are (almost totally) a consumer based economy. Very few of us make or farm anymore. We are largely involved in the selling of things to other people or the provision of services to sell things to other people.
But what happens if no-one wants those goods or services?
Take "Bob". Bob works for an internationally known large coffee house. He is a man of the anti-consumer movement. He lives in an urban environment because it is hip, buys only organic food because is of "the earth", takes the bus or his bike to reduce his burden on the world, and fully believes the world is too much driven by corporations and their ways.
But then something happens - Bob's job goes away. Why? Millions of Bob's compatriots have stopped buying the coffee of the international coffee house since they have to cut back on their own expenses somewhere because people have stopped spending less money. Suddenly Bob, arch-enemy of consumption, finds himself in the position as well as he is not competing for a job with millions of other people whose job depended on other people in turn spending their money on non-essential goods.
In the highest form of irony, a job that is available to Bob is at an international fulfillment center, where Bob can spend his time filling orders for consumers who have purchased goods, moving packages around in a large unconditioned warehouse.
For the clamor of folks who say we are too consumer based, there is a great risk that without consumers buying things, we are all quickly out of jobs.
Or, we can re-descend to a 90% farming economy. I suspect Bob will find this work even less satisfying.
Just like the people who say "oil bad" with no clue what that really means.
ReplyDeletePeople aren't taught anything... useful?... intelligent? Sad.
Well, I'm one whom many would classify as falling into the "anti-consumer" camp. My motives aren't as noble as Bob's, however, because mine are economically motivated. We simply don't have the income to be "good" consumers. I consider our poverty a blessing, however, because it's taught us to do more for ourselves or do without, rather than rely on buying everything. As a result, Dan's and my life is simpler and more sparse than most people would be comfortable with, but it also gives us a sense of purpose. And like Paul, we've learned to be content.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with the Bobs of the world, I do believe that we as a society have irresponsibly neglected our God-given duty to steward creation. I believe that to "save the environment," we would need to return to local, land-based, community economies. But that will never happen, because as you point out, most people think agrarianism would be a backward descent.
I suppose people might stop spending on a moral basis like Bob, but they also stop spending when prices and taxes go up and incomes go down. They stop spending when quality of goods becomes so poor that the items aren't worth buying anymore. Now manufacturers want to automate more. It would seem the vision is entire factories run by machines, including automated transportation of raw materials and finished products. And it only needs a couple of folks to serve the machines. I wonder who's going to buy their goods if they've automated everybody out of their jobs? It amazes me they never think of that, but then they know more than I do.
That's a really good subject TB. I call myself an anti-consumer but I still buy stuff and rely on electricity and services offered. Yes, I'm definitely trying to get away from all of that, but I'll never EVER be 100% self-sufficient. I don't think it's possible (at least for me) because I need stuff that I can't produce on my own. Plus, I kind of like indoor plumbing and the internet!
ReplyDeleteThe grasp that some people have on economics is truly scary and infuriating. I come from a family of union slobs and lifetime snivel servants and they drive me bonkers with their cluelessness. As long as they themselves are in on the gravy train, and it's not them paying for it - there isn't a leftist economic policy they would disagree with.
ReplyDeleteLinda, economics as it was originally taught is no longer practiced. A shame, really: one should know how one's money is made and where it comes from.
ReplyDeleteLeigh, good points all. Consumerism is an output of a wealthy economy. We have been blessed over the years, but there are things that I still refuse to spend money on until absolutely necessary - replacement cars for example. I try not to buy just to buy.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, of course, on "creation care" (as my trendy pastor would say) - but also correct that for most, the agricultural paradigm is considered backwards looking. As if working with your hands seven days a week tilling the soil is somehow beneath us.
Robot factories? They are already here. Those that kid themselves that their jobs are "safe" from automation - even me, eventually - are just fooling themselves. The future, barring a world ending event, is automation. One will have to specialize in non-automated friendly industry, be independently wealthy, or be in repair or programming to be successful.
Or embrace a truly alternative lifestyle, as you have.
Rain, I love indoor plumbing too. And hot showers. And ice on demand.
ReplyDeleteWe are all on working our way towards some level, albeit small, of self reliance.
Although to be honest, I think self reliance begets more self reliance.
Glen, everyone agrees with everything as long as they do not have to pay for it - or think they have to pay for it. But everyone really does pay for it, through property taxes or rent or vehicle licensing fees.
ReplyDeletePeople are short sighted. I wish we would think in 100 years goals, even if we ourselves did not get there.