There is nothing wrong with Consumerism

[Taverner]

Consumerism is good. It is what oils our economy. There has never been any effect but a positive one when it comes to Consumerism.

Credit Spending, however, is a different story. And Consumerism + Credit Spending is what led us into where we are now.

But Consumerism itself - especially in a world where cash was always on hand, and wages were high, and there were plenty of jobs - this is good for America.

[MercutioATC]

1. Thanks for explaining the difference.

...and you're absolutely right. Consumerism is good, it's the irresponsible spending that's put us where we are.

Yet another hazard of dumbing down a populace.

[wuushew]

2. Of course it is bad!

99% of the crap we buy ends up in landfills.

How about planning a society where the goods and services manufactured are in accordance with the resources that can sustainably be harvested from nature?

[BeFree]

9. Indeed

That is the problem with the consumerism we have now... it is unsustainable.

We are not leaving the world in a better shape for our descendants. We will be cursed by those that come after us for our ill-advised ways.

But it is never too late to do the right thing, eh?

[Taverner]

14. Sounds good to me

Did you know that with hemp oils you can make all of the items you could out of fossil fuels?

And they are biodegradable - just need enzymes to take care of the discards.

[stuntcat]

28. I've heard

About hemp I've heard nothing but great things! I hope it'll be a big part of us switching to smart consuming.

[Raineyb]

58. Too bad TPTB are afraid that it will get smoked and won't let anyone grow the stuff. n/t

Regards

[stuntcat]

26. that's the biggest mark it makes

people's happiness and richness are important but they're both temporary, the waste lasts and lasts. I wonder if we'll balance these things before I die, that would be neat to see :)

[Taverner]

27. You and I don't value those things

I am a minimalist myself

But if we had consumption with production, we would have a winning hand, no?

[ItNerd4life]

52. Well then, why are you using a computer? It's not from nature and not sustainable.

I'm confused by what you are saying.

[wuushew]

55. I have never bought a new computer

I use the parts that my relatives discard as they upgrade.

How much less wasteful do you want me to be? I don't have children and I don't own a house so if I committed suicide, my spot would likely be filled by someone more wasteful.

[brentspeak]

3. Wrong. A consumer-based economy is an economy doomed to failure.

As we are seeing right now.

[Deja Q]

5. Under certain qualifiers, I might agree.

Poorly build products or pre-planned obsolescence -- these are not always good things.

[Deja Q]

4. K&R

And having been in a debt problem once, I'll be upfront in admitting my own errs.

[sandnsea]

6. Unsustainable consumerism is not good

It destroys the planet and pits people against each other. It obviously does not create happiness.

Commerce is good. Control over ones production is good. Even credit is good.

Rampant soulless consumerism, is not.

[Taverner]

15. Ah but you are describing an extreme

[sandnsea]

22. I am describing reality

When the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, for starters. And has destroyed 96% of its own Old Growth Forests. And has fisheries collapsing. And ships going through the northwest passage. Caused by over-consumption.

[Taverner]

23. But you just identified the problem - overconsumption

Not consumerism

[sandnsea]

24. The consumerism mentality

is overcomsumption. It is quite different from traditional commerce.

[Taverner]

25. Not really - overconsumption is merely a byproduct of consumerism

It does not have to be - and in fact the more you shorten the path between buyer and seller the better off you are

[sandnsea]

29. Then you want a production economy

Where the wealth is based primarily on production - not capitalism and commercialism, i.e. consumerism. In a production economy, wealth will not be made by middle men and salesmen and investors and the rest.

[Taverner]

30. I beleive in a hybrid production-consumerist economy

Work. Buy. Sell.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. "consumerism" strongly implies maximizing consumption.

Conservation is the opposite of consumerism.

[Taverner]

36. There are ways to maximize consumption without over consuming

[wuushew]

40. How? List specifics

By what process is the United States going to abandon through deliberate social engineering one of its defining characteristics?

[Taverner]

50. We got California to quit smoking through "social engineering"

And besides, Ethical Consumerism is a learned trait. They learned it in Europe. We can learn it here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. You need a refresher on "maximizing"

If you optimize something, it implies balance against other factors. Maximizing one's income, for instance, does not suggest that family life is a legitimate competing value.

You maximize only one thing.

[marketcrazy1]

7. true

but the rub is that cash is no longer "always on hand" with a negative savings rate America lives on credit, and high wages?, REAL wage growth stopped decades ago and their are no longer "plenty of jobs", checked my local Sunday paper, there is a scant 1.5 pages of job listings! last Sunday there were NONE! and it will only get worse! we are a consumer society in a service oriented economy this equals disaster!! forty years ago near 80 percent of our GDP was generated by manufacturing and 20 percent through the service industry NOW those stats are reversed! over 70 percent of our GDP is generated by the "service" industry! 70 percent!!! we have "out sourced" the bulk of our manufacturing base and it will take decades to rebuild it! we are SO screwed!!

[Xipe Totec]

8. Welcome to GD!

[Journeyman]

10. Herbert Marcuse and a host of other social theorists would disagree. . .

Consumerism, Marcuse held, is a form of social control. Our democratic condition is undermined, he argued in One-Dimensional Man, by the authoritarian system fostered by rampant consumerism.

When corporations seek to dictate the general public's perception of freedom by generating false choices of products which promise to bring us happiness, we enter what Marcuse referred to as a state of "unfreedom," a situation in which "consumers act irrationally by working more than they are required to fulfill actual basic needs, ignoring the psychologically destructive effects, ignoring the waste and environmental damage it causes, and also by searching for social connection through material items."

"It is even more irrational in the sense that the creation of new products, calling for the disposal of old products, fuels the economy and encourages the increased need to work more to buy more. An individual loses his or her humanity and becomes a tool to the industrial machine and a cog in the consumer machine. Additionally, advertising sustains consumerism, which disintegrates societal demeanor, delivered in bulk and informing the masses that happiness can be bought, an idea that is psychologically damaging."

You can argue the core of Marcuse's precepts. You can wonder at the mitigating effect "cash only" may exert upon the debilitating effects of a consumer-based society. But you can't ignore the ultimately restrictive social effect and definitely negative ecological impact the pursuit of mindless consumption is pushing us toward. What the solution may be is a topic for debate. How we should proceed should be a priority for political policy makers. That a problem exists, however, and needs resolution, should be self-evident.

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/

[Taverner]

16. Yes, but he's wrong

Sustainable Consumerism is the only thing that can rise all boats at this time.

Keep in mind, I am a socialist at heart, and an anarchist in the very long term.

Commerce is not the enemy.

Phony ways to pay for said commerce is - so wouldn't lots of jobs with high wages and lots of work be the solution?

[datasuspect]

56. i think you might try reading marcuse first

before you blurt out that he is "wrong."

the subject is more nuanced than the cereal box thumbnail sketch you have presented.

[treestar]

39. Imagine how little we might have to work

If we didn't "have" to have all this junk.

In this century, it might require very little work just for food, clothing and shelter and basic entertainment.

And we could let more people participate. At present we seem to think someone has to be left out so we can have more (the Chinese, Mexicans and the Indians come to mind, and for right wingnuts, the American poor).

[Juche]

11. It depends

Consumerism that is unsustainable environmentally is not good. Also a good deal of consumerism exists because corporate entities have figured out how to mainpuate our fears, vulnerabilities and emotional hang ups to get us to buy their products.

We have alot of wealth in the US, 15 trillion. We could be using that money for more important things like providing basic education and healthcare to everyone on earth; universal healthcare that you can't lose or be excluded from; more scientific & medical R&D; building a green infrastructure and other agendas. Hell, $300 billion a year would probably cover all of that.

Consumerism isn't necessarily bad, but there are more important things we can do with our wealth than buying things we don't need because we are bored or because our deep seated emotional hangups have been manipulated.

[bemildred]

12. "More stuff", as a purpose in life, is pretty empty.

And ecologically it's a bad thing. So while I applaud efforts to improve life, I don't think simply having more stuff without some qualifiers as to what sort of stuff it is, is the right measure. The real needs of people are food, shelter, clothing (maybe), and security. Then you are free to play.

[Taverner]

17. As a purpose it is futile

But I never suggested it as a purpose

I go for the "reduce suffering" mantra myself, as a purpose in life

But Consumerism is not the enemy that has been wreaking havoc on our lives - its the credit that has spun out of control, the lack of good paying jobs, the hostility towards living wages - those are the enemies.

[bemildred]

19. Well, there has been some good stuff too.

And food security has a great deal to be said for it. But OTOH there is a lot of trivial meaningless crap sold at very high prices. Not being discriminating is never intelligent or efficient or prudent.

[Taverner]

20. No it is neither intelligent nor efficient

But it does answers the public's needs

The trick is a way to make the waste into a viable regenerative product in some way

We as humans need waste for some fucked up reason

Make it harmless, and reduce the suffering involved with it

[bemildred]

21. The public needs what it is told to need.

This is obvious. Humans for thousands of years, 99% of the life of the species, somehow did not need all this crap. We could tell them something different.

[Taverner]

37. Yes, but trust me we can never go back to a horse and buggy at this point

Nor would it be a good idea

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Consistent With Maslowe

Self-actualization is a proven psychosocial need, but if controlled consumerism were the norm, people would get past comfort and luxury more quickly and end up being happier, because they would quit defining themselves based upon possessions and accumulated wealth.

I like your reasoning, and i don't disagree with some of the counterpoints here, but i don't think humans are evolved enough, yet, to abandoned Maslowe's hierarchy.
GAC

[anaxarchos]

13. I recognize that....

You are quoting Reagan, right?

Also, "Greed is good", and "Success means having more stuff"...

And if "consumerism" is "good" and real wages are falling, then how is it fueled but through consumer credit (bad) and declines in home equity (bad)?

Which just about gets us to the present...

[marmar]

18. But unmitigated consumerism (fueled by easy credit, no doubt) has brought the environment.....

.... to the perilous state it's in now.

[amborin]

31. consumerism=pollution, global warming, wasted resources, landfills full of waste, etc....

Americans, especially, are hooked on commodities....shop til you drop is a common mantra.....what good is all that stuff? it diverts our focus away from the experiences that really count

[readmoreoften]

32. Okee Dokee.

[Qibing Zero]

33. Except that our consumerism fuels neoliberal policy and wastes resources

I know I'm a dirty hippie, but I tend to think in terms of what's better for the world rather than what's better for America. :shrug:

[Taverner]

38. Yes, you are right - our flavor of consumerism does

That does not mean it has to though

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Yes, there is.

Consumerism shouldn't even be an -ism. People consume to survive. In contrast, "Consumerism", with a capital "C" is inherently bad. A citizens only purpose in a consumerist society is to maximize his or her consumption of the earth's treasure.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

A sustainable economy is possible, but not until consumers see and bear the externalized costs in damaged health, damaged quality of life and degraded environment.

[gollygee]

41. Consumerism is not a good thing

Our society is built around buying, using, and throwing away stuff we don't need. That is bad for our society and the world.

[joe_sixpack]

46. Consumerism may not be all that positive, but

our economy right now is based on it. You can't employ millions of people to just manufacture and sell the basics of life. Multitudes of people will find themselves out of work if the populace reverted to a logical and more traditional attitude of thrift, frugality and embraced delayed gratification and less materialism. Although it would be much better in the long term if that shift happened, the short term would be disasterous. The government is at a loss as to how to accomplish the balancing act and that's why their laughable attempts at "fixing" this crisis are making things worse.

[shoeshock]

42. nothing wrong?

nothing wrong with consumerism so long as we dont deplete anything of vital importance like energy, raw materials, and natural resources :D

[Taverner]

51. All of these can become renewable

Energy needs to be cheap, available and renewable. Raw materials need to be recyled and reused. And Natural Resources need to be conserved. None of these measures are anti-Consumer.

[The2ndWheel]

57. If it's cheap, it won't be conserved

Not that any form of energy is cheap. Unless we privatize the profits within our economic system, and socialize the costs to the rest of life.

[TexasObserver]

43. Yes, there is. It creates demand for crap - cheap, foreign crap.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. I Like Your Last Paragraph

If we have a robust middle class and good productivity by having good people who get paid well (therefore properly incentivized to work hard and diligently) the economy roars.

Credit issues only arise when the middle class is squeezed. Poor people aren't the credit problem. They have a hard enough time getting SMALL loans because of low income.

The credit issues arise when the middle class is kept down to redistribute wealth upward. Then the middle class, who have become used to living a fairly comfortable, although not luxurious life, can't adjust quickly enough to their wages stagnating or trickling downward. (The real motivation of trickle down economics. Make WAGES trickle down!) They then overextend some, because they don't realize that the monied classes are distorting the potential of the american dream they still see in their minds.

Nice post.
The Professor

[Taverner]

49. EXACTLY

Many of you who disagree with me would find that they would end up agreeing with me if they read this take on it

[derby378]

47. I have to ask - are you a consumer or a citizen?

The government tends to look upon us as consumers. The market addresses us as consumers. Hell, even we look upon ourselves as consumers. But what does a consumer do? By definition, he consumes. Some refer to him as a "useful eater," yet another mouth to feed that is nevertheless necessary for our nation's well-being.

A citizen, on the other hand, is someone who is at least halfway-inclined to make the security and future of this nation their personal responsibility. And if that means freeing himself of the need to purchase every last electronic doo-dad and wear every latest fashion trend, sic transit gloria mundi.

There's nothing wrong with being a citizen who consumes - it's just a matter of how your self-perception first identifies you.

I want to be a citizen. Not just of the United States, but of the whole world.

[Taverner]

48. I would like that too - but as long as we depend on a growth-measured economy

We must be consumers as well as citizens

[ItNerd4life]

53. Agree completely. Consumerism within moderation creates jobs and healthy economy.

It's the long term approach.

[raccoon]

54. Plenty of stuff isn't good for the environment. nt

[wuushew]

59. kick

:kick:

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. How old is consumerism? About two generations, best case the early

1950s

That is not our economy, nor has been our economy forever

I suspect it will go away as resources become far more precious

Just a little history from time to time

[Selatius]

61. Consumerism is bad if is coupled with no cultural beliefs.

Blind consumerism unanchored by any cultural code of ethics is very sterile way of life for people too devoid of experiences beyond things that require the transaction of money. What you say is true, but it is only partly the truth of a healthy society that honors human life, human dignity and not simply the pursuit of material wealth and the objectification of humans as numbers on spread sheets or as "target audiences."