NationStates Jolt Archive

This article is specifically about America, but I think it applies to Canada as well. Consumerism is so tied up with development, that we seem the think they are the same entity. Poor countries will be rich, once they adopt Western-style consumerism...more business, more production, more consumption, = prosperity for all. If that is truly the case, why have the gaps between rich and poor grown so much in the past 20 years? Why is that happening even in our own 'wealthy' nations? Why are we being taught to 'need' so many material possessions? What is that need doing to our souls (in a purely atheistic sense of the word:))?
John F. Schumaker:
On a recent visit home to Wisconsin I found myself sitting alone in a crowded shopping mall, feeling the same intangible revulsion that eventually banished me from America. Above me towered a brutish vending machine, complete with celestial chimes, rotating lights and a steely synthesized voice beckoning the assembly of dupes. A miserable young lad approached, dragging the body of his package-laden mother. He searched her eyes repeatedly until she finally fed the machine, got a Rocket Ranger toy and stuck it out to her child.

He slapped it onto the floor and screeched for still another selection. Mom stuffed in more bills until finally the boy was out of choices. ‘Well, for God’s sake, what do you want,’ she bellowed.

In a confused rage the boy bawled, over and over again, ‘I want something, I want something, I want something.’ As I watched the boy I thought that, after all these years, America is still shooting up the town, still digging its heels unnecessarily deep into the precious elements that sustain us, and still making me glad that I now live in New Zealand.

The boy seemed to forewarn of capitalism’s psychological dead end where life masquerades as a kaleidoscope of consumer choices. His was the collective voice of mindless consumerism as it has been perfected and amplified in America. It spoke too of the existential loneliness that gnaws at me whenever I return to the ‘all-consuming society’ as some sociologists have come to call America.
The rest of this article can be found at www.newint.org, back issues, issue 336, ESSAY

Poor countries will be rich, once they adopt Western-style consumerism
Well, yeah, how else would countries get rich (and I'm assuming here you mean rich in money), if not through consumerism?

But I see your point - that doesn't necessarily increase the standard of living.

Do you define your success by how many material things you possess? Or do you define it another way?

I define my own success by my ability to get paid to do a job I love (teach), and raise my children in a safe environment, with access to healthcare if we need it, and as much education as we desire. (school, but also extracurricular lessons in music or whatever...education in terms of freedom from censorship and religion etc). I define personal success by the ability to enjoy life because I don't have to work like a dog to meet my basic needs. That success of course is based purely on luck: I was lucky to be born in a developed and wealthy nation. I was lucky to have good, stable parents and a great education. I was lucky to never have been struck down by a mental or physical illness or disability, to not have died in childbirth as so many women do, to never have been a victim of serious crime and to live in a relatively unpolluted environment. Lucky, lucky me.

Very little of my success was based purely on my own hard work, as the conditions which allow me to succeed were really an accident of birth or circumstance.

It's a scary thought, isn't it?

a continued drive towards more consumption will lead to the running out of natural resources. and then we're boned. we can't simply 'use up' our environment for the sake of gaining ground (or prosperity) now.

in economics there is a clear distinction between sustainable and unsustainable growth. the difference is that sustainable growth leaves enough resources for the next generation to achieve the same level of growth as the current one. this is not what any western culture is doing - yet people are greedy and dont care. achieving sustainable growth is economically possible but would require both reducing our consumer consumption, our natural resource consumption by industry (and thus having a lower economic growth rate) while investing in (currently) expensive renewable resources.
greed is what is driving this rampant consumerism, and it is a social factor - not a human need or human nature. greed, selfishness and short-sightedness are the cause of the problem.

This makes me ponder the nature of this game. NationStates was created (ostensibly) as a marketing tool for the purpose of getting people to purchase (consume) Max Barry's books.

I have no idea why I posted that, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Well, yeah, how else would countries get rich (and I'm assuming here you mean rich in money), if not through consumerism?

But I see your point - that doesn't necessarily increase the standard of living.

Exactly. What is our definition of wealth? Is it simply based on the earning power of the richest in our nation? If that were the case, the United States would still be the first richest country in the world, since Bill Gates and the Waltons (owners of WalMart) are the two richest people in the world. The second richest country would then be Brunei, as it's sultan is the other 'richest man' in the world. Is Brunei considered a world power? A wealthy nation? Not particularly.

Is wealth based on the total earning power of all a nation's citizens? The country with the MOST rich wins?

Or is wealth based on a nation with the largest percentage of its population being able to afford the basic necessities of life?

Is consumer power king? We who consume the most are the richest? Or just the greediest? Is it a race to see who can consume the most, in the least amount of time? If so, we surely are winning.

Is it a race we really want to be running?

I would judge a nation wealthy by how well it meets the needs of the majority, not the minority of its population's. NEEDs, not WANTS. Things like access to clean water (which millions don't have), education, healthcare, basic foodstuffs, shelter, safety from military conflict...basics, not extravagances. Who cares which country buys the most televisions?

This makes me ponder the nature of this game. NationStates was created (ostensibly) as a marketing tool for the purpose of getting people to purchase (consume) Max Barry's books.

Did you 'consume' that book? I know I didn't *looks around guiltily*.

the real question is not whether rampant consumerism is a problem (nobody's voted its a good thing yet at time of writing and it is becoming a pressing issue in the media) but what can be done about it?

i reckon a social change is needed to educate people that greed, while advantageous to the individual, is unhealthy to the whole. we need to get accross to people that having more 'things' is not necissarily a good or desirable thing.
take a leaf out of the Buddhists' book:

To achieve nirvana one must extinguish the belief in a separate self that gives rise to cravings, desires, and attachments.
The path to enlightenment includes loving-kindness and compassion, moral conduct, charity, wisdom, and meditation.
from beliefnet.com i think

Is consumer power king? We who consume the most are the richest? Or just the greediest? Is it a race to see who can consume the most, in the least amount of time? If so, we surely are winning.

Is it a race we really want to be running?

I would judge a nation wealthy by how well it meets the needs of the majority, not the minority of its population's. NEEDs, not WANTS. Things like access to clean water (which millions don't have), education, healthcare, basic foodstuffs, shelter, safety from military conflict...basics, not extravagances. Who cares which country buys the most televisions?
there is the UN Human Development Index which charts economic factors such as Gross Domestic Product with 'quality of life' indicators, such as percentage of population who are literate, access to clean water (necessities, like you say), etc...
but this still places a lot of emphasis on economic factors - fuelled by consumerism. it does not take into account having un/sustainable economic growth, which is what all this boils down to imo.

incidentally, the country with the highest HDI (when i studied it a couple of years back) was Sweden i think - not the USA (2nd)

Not even in times of abundance is one's worth determined by one's possessions. - Jesus of Nazareth

Well, consumerism is being pushed on us as an economic model of development. What we are seeing, however, is that people who really mean well (parents who want better for their children than what they had) are passing on the wrong messages to the next generations. Look at how many toys kids expect these days...and often receive. Does it make them happier? More content? Smarter? Healthier? More likely to succeed? I don't know about you, but my kids are more excited by the boxes than what's inside. They play with a toy for a while, then it gathers dust. I had few toys as a kid, but I still had more than my parent's did...do I feel neglected because my kids have more than I did? No! I played outside...I had friends, I had an imagination, and I always had my books:).

We are teaching our children that spending sprees are the way to deal with sadness or difficult times. It gets us high, and then we crash. I can honestly say, things mean less to me now that I can afford them. When I was broke, in University, an electric tea kettle was a really big deal to me...it cost more than I could afford, so I saved up. It was a big deal, I was excited when I bought it. Now, I could afford to buy a new one each week and not go broke...but the one I have now doesn't hold any value to me anymore. The same goes with most of my possessions. I have them...so what? Will I miss them if they're gone? Not likely.

We don't need to 'teach kids the value of money', we need to teach kids that money only has the value you invest in it. Things outside of money are much more valuable...things like family, like relationships, like life. Money is just a tool, not an end. I could spend extra hours working a second job, my husband could do major overtime and we could be making a lot more money. Would it be worth the time we would miss with each other and with our kids? Would it be worth it to retire early and 'finally enjoy life'? I'd rather enjoy it now!

If cutting down on what we consume means more for the rest of humanity, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that's not going to do the trick alone. We have to push to get the model of consumerism off the table and replace it with one that focuses on needs, not want. Let's get all our needs met first, and I mean that globally, before we start indulging in our wants.

Did you 'consume' that book? I know I didn't *looks around guiltily*.

Nah. I prolly will eventually, though. It's the consumerism! Agh! ;)

there is the UN Human Development Index which charts economic factors such as Gross Domestic Product with 'quality of life' indicators, such as percentage of population who are literate, access to clean water (necessities, like you say), etc...
but this still places a lot of emphasis on economic factors - fuelled by consumerism. it does not take into account having un/sustainable economic growth, which is what all this boils down to imo.

incidentally, the country with the highest HDI (when i studied it a couple of years back) was Sweden i think - not the USA (2nd)
You're right...basing this index on economic factors alone is inadequate. There are so many statistics flying around out there, but no one has managed to really bring them together. A lot of this has to do with ideology. Some feel that social and environmental factors are important, others do not. There is no agreement on what the statistics mean or how to use them.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
In what sense? Good for business? Good for the soul? Good for the world? Good for you or good for me? Too vague....

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
I think you mean:

Greed, for lack of a better word, is god.

Join the new religion. Services are held at McDonalds morning, noon and night:).

Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
:mad: im usually open minded about other people's opinions, but this is one of those cases where i wholeheartedly disagree. greed, if unchecked in its current form, will consume us all. we'll destroy our future for short-term, greedy gains. greed is bad.

:mad: im usually open minded about other people's opinions, but this is one of those cases where i wholeheartedly disagree. greed, if unchecked in its current form, will consume us all. we'll destroy our future for short-term, greedy gains. greed is bad.
Ah, but most capitalists believe that greed is the best motivating factor in the development of a strong economy. They will point to socialism and say that because greed is factored out, socialism is inherently inefficient, while capitalism is inherently efficient. Greed is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, "Those who want the most, will work the hardest to get it, and gain the most".

Like all theories, rosy in thoughts, ugly in practice.

What I never cared for was "Blind Consumerism". We all need to consume at least ot some degree and other than that I don't see anything really wrong with it.

Some say consumerism is the new religion and like the golden bull of old, we traded one "god" for another.

Ah, but most capitalists believe that greed is the best motivating factor in the development of a strong economy. They will point to socialism and say that because greed is factored out, socialism is inherently inefficient, while capitalism is inherently efficient. Greed is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, "Those who want the most, will work the hardest to get it, and gain the most".

Like all theories, rosy in thoughts, ugly in practice.
yeah i understand the problems with socialism and am not necissarily advocating it. nor do i advocate capitalism. problem is, i'm not sure what would be better :headbang:
beginning to get an idea though...

that is what marx thought kind of. He felt that the working class was being exploited by entrapenuers and created socialism. Dont know if it has been tested. I believe that the kid acted that way due to american propaganda and his mother spoiling him (wat a brat).

Ah, but most capitalists believe that greed is the best motivating factor in the development of a strong economy. They will point to socialism and say that because greed is factored out, socialism is inherently inefficient, while capitalism is inherently efficient. Greed is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy, "Those who want the most, will work the hardest to get it, and gain the most".

Like all theories, rosy in thoughts, ugly in practice.

i am a mercantilist anti capitalist. I perfer government owning all buisnesses and believe that the workers should get more then the owners. I believe that because the workers do all the work while the top just organize if they do something. Exploitation is bad. Damn the rich. Lets be like the french and go on a revelution every time they disagree with something.

Of course we need to consume to some extent. We NEED food, we NEED water, we NEED shelter. These needs can be met through consumption as long as we have the ability to meet the prices of these goods (through work or otherwise). However, we also need love and security, and these are not commodoties to be bought or sold. We can't buy them. We can approximate them (pay bodyguards, pay people to 'love' us), but we can not meet these needs materially.

Our needs can not all be met materially. This shouldn't surprise us. What SHOULD surprise us is the extent to which this is ignored by the neoliberal economic model. Economics is about economic factors (clearly), but we need it to also include social and environmental factors in order to address our non-material needs. One way of doing this would be to change the way we measure wealth, and conversely, poverty. It should somewhat follow the way we measure development: development is not based solely on GNP...it includes things like the infant mortality rate, unemployment, political freedom, the gender gap, the gap between rich and poor, education, health and many other factors. Socioenviroeconomics, NOT economics.

Blah...I'll get back to this another time. Have a great night everyone!