As we prepare our purposefully irreverent meal for this day of thanksgiving - boiled oats and day-old biscuits - we would like to stop and make a fearless prediction which has been rolling around in our heads since about the middle of this year. We really don't have any hard data to back up our assertion; in fact, we're going to just put it right out there, that this is an intuition.
Simply put, we posit this will be the last holiday season that anyone in the United States, or elsewhere, can call normal. Note the call normal; last year saw the last holiday season which could be considered actually normal. This season, however, will be all about keeping up appearances; the show must go on, after all.
Take this Thanksgiving in the United States; 49 million Citizens are going hungry at the end of every month. Now, at last report in September, 28.4 million Citizens are on food stamps. Hmm, we sense a number problem here... but anyway, on top of that, half of all children in the U.S. will receive food aid, as well as 90% of African-American children.
Let that settle in your mind for a moment, dear Reader. Those numbers are not from Haiti or Zimbabwe, but rather the only so-called superpower in the world, the United States. Those are not good numbers to be seeing from an OECD nation; it makes us think about terms like 'third world' and 'failed state.'
This will be a failed Thanksgiving; people will max out what little credit they have remaining for the month in order to have a 'feast.' By that, we mean keep up appearances, as there are really very few people in the U.S. right now who can actually afford to have an extravagant meal, pay their bills, and have savings. Perhaps the 'recovery' propaganda has worked its magic, and most Citizens have moved into a Keynesian dreamland, where they spend now and have an economy later. We frankly think not; we posit most U.S. Citizens couldn't make a budget - and keep it - if their lives depended on it. For 49 million of those Citizens, their lives do depend on it, and they seem to prove unequal to the task.
After Thanksgiving will be the failed consumer orgy of Christmas; failed, because one cannot have an orgy if no one shows up. That's not to say that lights won't be strung and trees erected, because they will be... probably with more 'animal spirits' energy than ever. Under those trees, though, will tell the real tale. Show us an average Citizen who has lots of gifts, and we will show you someone who is nearing the end of their financial rope.
As we're writing, an ironic thought occurs to us: would it not be an expression of cosmic justice, if the attempt at summoning up a holiday shopping extravaganza is what finally topples the still-tottering U.S. economy? Think about it: maxing out credit cards for one last huzzah; blowing the savings on gifts for the kids, or Social Security cheques on the grandkids? Citizens of the United States are far too broke to enjoy the spendy, spendy ways to which they became accustomed; at this point, they should go limp, take their financial kicks to the stomach, and try to get things in order again. Instead, they will - and we mean will - go down, in vast numbers, and in flames.
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumerism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Unexpected Weakness of the Recovery
Our title today comes from a phrase ripped out of context from a recent Wall Street Journal article. The article itself is not important, but the assumption of the phrase was just too rich for us to pass by uncommented upon.
As discussed copiously elsewhere, a propaganda campaign of gargantuan proportions has been unleashed upon the world's populace. The term perception management sums it up nicely. The basic idea is that if people are confident, they will consume. If people will consume, there will be 'work' to do. It is an effort to restore society and the economy to the defined norm of 'the way things were until about two years ago.' Whatever an individual sees or experiences to the contrary (especially unemployment and homelessness), is to be disregarded in favour of the consumerist paradigm.
Almost everything you read or hear will be attempting to reinforce the notion that the recent (and thankfully over) financial and economic crisis was just a bump in the road to ever greater prosperity.
Whether there is a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the Ministry of Truth, or whether it is merely the unconscious coordination of wishful thinking is immaterial. This informational miasma is deadly and if one wants to make it through the Depression without being too battered, one had best learn to recognise the disinformation, not get sucked in, and think straight instead.
The unhappy reality is the Depression is still on and it is going to get worse - a lot worse. Incomes are still falling. It doesn't matter that stocks are recovering or house prices in Australia are hitting new highs. In terms of purchasing power, aggregate incomes are going to be falling for a long time and everyone had better get used to that fact. Tragically, the more the truth is evaded (whether deliberately or otherwise), the worse off everyone will be.
As discussed copiously elsewhere, a propaganda campaign of gargantuan proportions has been unleashed upon the world's populace. The term perception management sums it up nicely. The basic idea is that if people are confident, they will consume. If people will consume, there will be 'work' to do. It is an effort to restore society and the economy to the defined norm of 'the way things were until about two years ago.' Whatever an individual sees or experiences to the contrary (especially unemployment and homelessness), is to be disregarded in favour of the consumerist paradigm.
Almost everything you read or hear will be attempting to reinforce the notion that the recent (and thankfully over) financial and economic crisis was just a bump in the road to ever greater prosperity.
Whether there is a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the Ministry of Truth, or whether it is merely the unconscious coordination of wishful thinking is immaterial. This informational miasma is deadly and if one wants to make it through the Depression without being too battered, one had best learn to recognise the disinformation, not get sucked in, and think straight instead.
The unhappy reality is the Depression is still on and it is going to get worse - a lot worse. Incomes are still falling. It doesn't matter that stocks are recovering or house prices in Australia are hitting new highs. In terms of purchasing power, aggregate incomes are going to be falling for a long time and everyone had better get used to that fact. Tragically, the more the truth is evaded (whether deliberately or otherwise), the worse off everyone will be.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Impossible Task
Pity the poor American Consumer. She has to buy a new car to restore automobile production. She has to buy cheap plastic crap to jump start world trade. She has to buy a new house to revive the housing market. And all this on a shrinking income, and with significantly less credit available.
Any way you look at it, near-term recovery seems improbable. Lurking in the background are any number of serious problems which make any kind of lasting economic growth seem remote: resource constraints; massive financial and contractual liabilities; stocks of capital which are being run-down instead of maintained; government diktat which allocates scarce resources to non-productive use - to name a few.
Against this backdrop, we ask: Is collapse - economic and social - inevitable? Sadly, we have to answer, yes. Inevitable, not because of technical incapacity to adjust to new economic realities, but because of lack of will to do so.
The fact of the matter is that people want things to go 'back to the way they were'. Political leadership reflects this. If people wanted to move on to the future as it needs to be, the leadership would reflect that.
Over 35 years ago a book called Limits to Growth was widely read and discussed. It modelled the overshoot and collapse of Industrial Civilisation which would occur in the 21st Century unless remedial action were taken. The World was warned, but few listened. Instead, population continued to explode; economic growth and expanding materialism were taken for the end-all of human existence.
Now the very crisis that Limits to Growth foretold is upon the world, and yet actions which could be taken even now to ameliorate the effects of the impending decline find voice only on the margins of society. The mass of people and its leaders are, in the words of Mr. James Kunstler, attempting to sustain the unsustainable.
Exactly what is unsustainable? Simply put: A growing population with an economy that requires growing flows of money and physical goods. An affluent, comfortable lifestyle for all is sustainable only when it can be maintained on ever-decreasing flows of resources - i.e., continuously more efficient.
Speaking of new cars, Mr. Obama wants 14 to 15 million new cars sold per year to replace those "old clunkers." Time to go shopping!
Any way you look at it, near-term recovery seems improbable. Lurking in the background are any number of serious problems which make any kind of lasting economic growth seem remote: resource constraints; massive financial and contractual liabilities; stocks of capital which are being run-down instead of maintained; government diktat which allocates scarce resources to non-productive use - to name a few.
Against this backdrop, we ask: Is collapse - economic and social - inevitable? Sadly, we have to answer, yes. Inevitable, not because of technical incapacity to adjust to new economic realities, but because of lack of will to do so.
The fact of the matter is that people want things to go 'back to the way they were'. Political leadership reflects this. If people wanted to move on to the future as it needs to be, the leadership would reflect that.
Over 35 years ago a book called Limits to Growth was widely read and discussed. It modelled the overshoot and collapse of Industrial Civilisation which would occur in the 21st Century unless remedial action were taken. The World was warned, but few listened. Instead, population continued to explode; economic growth and expanding materialism were taken for the end-all of human existence.
Now the very crisis that Limits to Growth foretold is upon the world, and yet actions which could be taken even now to ameliorate the effects of the impending decline find voice only on the margins of society. The mass of people and its leaders are, in the words of Mr. James Kunstler, attempting to sustain the unsustainable.
Exactly what is unsustainable? Simply put: A growing population with an economy that requires growing flows of money and physical goods. An affluent, comfortable lifestyle for all is sustainable only when it can be maintained on ever-decreasing flows of resources - i.e., continuously more efficient.
Speaking of new cars, Mr. Obama wants 14 to 15 million new cars sold per year to replace those "old clunkers." Time to go shopping!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Analysis of 1929 Depression Survivors' Advice
As the 2007 Depression continues, we expect that still-living survivors of the 1929 Depression will be getting more air-time. In our mind, it is sad that an economic calamity had to occur before these people's well-tested advice is given its due. The frugality and thrift which is so deeply ingrained in the individuals would have prevented much of what is occurring today - if only the greater public would have listened.
But that is neither here nor there; we want to discuss both the advice that these survivors offer (taken from two articles), and some inherent problems. First, the advice: in this article from The Ledger, one individual recommends a 20% personal savings rate; another says not to buy things one cannot afford. The most interesting insight, at least to us, is the thought that the young of the United States, having lived with nothing but a knee-jerk consumeristic lifestyle are in for a serious shock, at the very least. All in all, we recommend this article; it's interesting to hear the perspectives of these survivors, and their advice is never out of style.
On the other side of the coin is the bad advice, as seen in this otherwise excellent article from Utica Observer-Dispatch. One of the survivors says that the 1929 Depression was completely different from this 'recession,' but fails to suggest how or why (as an aside, she gave corollaries and outcomes of the 1929 Depression, not causes). The general thrust of the article seems to us to be that "the government is prepared;" “I don’t think [a Depression] could happen again” said one interviewee.
These two articles highlight some inherent difficulties in turning to 1929 Depression survivors: these people are old. There are sharp-as-a-tack survivors (we know one), but that term does not describe every survivor. A not-insignificant number of these survivors are not in as full of command of their faculties as they once were. This has a number of implications.
First, even when the advice survivors give is sound and useful, they cannot defend why it is as such; to them, it is only the way things must be done. Because of that, these survivors come across as a bit senile at best, or outright loonie-tunes at worst, from the perspective of later generations. It is easy enough for one to dismiss well-defended advice; it is infinitely easier to dismiss advice without supporting argument.
Second, because of the loss of facility which comes with increasing age, many of these survivors probably have to rely - at least in part - on what they hear and read, rather than anything they actually remember. The post-1929 Depression mantra carries with it a healthy dose of Franklin Roosevelt worship, and Herbert Hoover bashing. Both of those Presidents have similarly damaging policies; Roosevelt's was remarkable for being aggressively un-Constitutional. This loss of first-hand memory allows for retroactive continuity: the 'memories' of the survivor are clouded by the rhetoric of later generations defending the expansion of the Federal Government.
And finally third: these survivors can only reflect the point-of-view of persons who didn't die during the 1929 Depression. Almost all survivors came from fairly well-off families; they owned their own home, they could hold some jobs, they could buy and grow some food. There were many more families which had none of the above, and many simply died of stress and starvation. The survivors who speak today do so through a bias: they were comfortably-off before the 1929 Depression, and so had a cushion between death and survival. They did not see the absolute horror that the 1929 Depression brought to the United States.
We expect the 2007 Depression will bring similar horror. The only question, in our minds, is when.
But that is neither here nor there; we want to discuss both the advice that these survivors offer (taken from two articles), and some inherent problems. First, the advice: in this article from The Ledger, one individual recommends a 20% personal savings rate; another says not to buy things one cannot afford. The most interesting insight, at least to us, is the thought that the young of the United States, having lived with nothing but a knee-jerk consumeristic lifestyle are in for a serious shock, at the very least. All in all, we recommend this article; it's interesting to hear the perspectives of these survivors, and their advice is never out of style.
On the other side of the coin is the bad advice, as seen in this otherwise excellent article from Utica Observer-Dispatch. One of the survivors says that the 1929 Depression was completely different from this 'recession,' but fails to suggest how or why (as an aside, she gave corollaries and outcomes of the 1929 Depression, not causes). The general thrust of the article seems to us to be that "the government is prepared;" “I don’t think [a Depression] could happen again” said one interviewee.
These two articles highlight some inherent difficulties in turning to 1929 Depression survivors: these people are old. There are sharp-as-a-tack survivors (we know one), but that term does not describe every survivor. A not-insignificant number of these survivors are not in as full of command of their faculties as they once were. This has a number of implications.
First, even when the advice survivors give is sound and useful, they cannot defend why it is as such; to them, it is only the way things must be done. Because of that, these survivors come across as a bit senile at best, or outright loonie-tunes at worst, from the perspective of later generations. It is easy enough for one to dismiss well-defended advice; it is infinitely easier to dismiss advice without supporting argument.
Second, because of the loss of facility which comes with increasing age, many of these survivors probably have to rely - at least in part - on what they hear and read, rather than anything they actually remember. The post-1929 Depression mantra carries with it a healthy dose of Franklin Roosevelt worship, and Herbert Hoover bashing. Both of those Presidents have similarly damaging policies; Roosevelt's was remarkable for being aggressively un-Constitutional. This loss of first-hand memory allows for retroactive continuity: the 'memories' of the survivor are clouded by the rhetoric of later generations defending the expansion of the Federal Government.
And finally third: these survivors can only reflect the point-of-view of persons who didn't die during the 1929 Depression. Almost all survivors came from fairly well-off families; they owned their own home, they could hold some jobs, they could buy and grow some food. There were many more families which had none of the above, and many simply died of stress and starvation. The survivors who speak today do so through a bias: they were comfortably-off before the 1929 Depression, and so had a cushion between death and survival. They did not see the absolute horror that the 1929 Depression brought to the United States.
We expect the 2007 Depression will bring similar horror. The only question, in our minds, is when.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Why Aren't Savings Rates Moving Even Higher?
From the last quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, the USA personal savings rate went up from just over 3% annualised to just over 4%. This movement is expected during economic decline, but we are asking the question: given how severe the decline is, why aren't people saving even more?
The USA has barely budged from a culture of consumerism to a culture of thrift. Given the depth of the crisis, we would expect the response on the part of the citizenry to be more urgent. There are several possible explanations as to why the increase in savings is muted.
One is that the citizenry is 'buying' the official story that the 'recession' will be ending this year and recovery will follow. Thus, with the difficulties apparently only of a short-term nature, people can continue their spending habits mostly as usual with some minor adjustments (e.g. shopping more at Wal-Mart).
Another explanation is that somehow the citizenry 'knows' that the 'recession' is short-term and is acting appropriately. Things really are aren't all that bad. In this scenario, our estimations are way-off, and our use of the term depression, over-reactive.
Perhaps there is just a lot of cultural lag. We have read quite a few horror-stories about people who lost their livelihoods, but just kept on spending as if nothing was going on - and, in the process, depleted their savings and ran up credit-card debts. Perhaps a large portion of the population is engaging in massive denial and unconscious, inappropriate spending.
Finally, at the depth of the Great Depression in 1932 and 1933, much to their chagrin, Americans dis-saved and personal savings rates went negative. It's possible that history repeats and although people may want to be saving more, circumstances are too harsh and spending patterns are adjusted too late.
The USA has barely budged from a culture of consumerism to a culture of thrift. Given the depth of the crisis, we would expect the response on the part of the citizenry to be more urgent. There are several possible explanations as to why the increase in savings is muted.
One is that the citizenry is 'buying' the official story that the 'recession' will be ending this year and recovery will follow. Thus, with the difficulties apparently only of a short-term nature, people can continue their spending habits mostly as usual with some minor adjustments (e.g. shopping more at Wal-Mart).
Another explanation is that somehow the citizenry 'knows' that the 'recession' is short-term and is acting appropriately. Things really are aren't all that bad. In this scenario, our estimations are way-off, and our use of the term depression, over-reactive.
Perhaps there is just a lot of cultural lag. We have read quite a few horror-stories about people who lost their livelihoods, but just kept on spending as if nothing was going on - and, in the process, depleted their savings and ran up credit-card debts. Perhaps a large portion of the population is engaging in massive denial and unconscious, inappropriate spending.
Finally, at the depth of the Great Depression in 1932 and 1933, much to their chagrin, Americans dis-saved and personal savings rates went negative. It's possible that history repeats and although people may want to be saving more, circumstances are too harsh and spending patterns are adjusted too late.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Underestimating the Damage
Thoughtful commentators on the economy are noticing big changes afoot: less dining out; more 'value' shopping; and so forth. So far, they are being rather conservative in their estimations of how far the citizenry is going to be cutting their spending on consumer items. For example, people speak of dining out in the USA being reduced from 50% of the food budget to 40%, returning to the level of 2000.
We believe this is ridiculously over-optimistic. In 1955, dining out was 25% of the food budget. Remember, 1955 was a time of prosperity. Since the world is sinking into a Depression that will last for ten years or more, it would be more realistic to see the luxury of dining out returning to a very low proportion of food spending - say 10%.
In a nutshell, we expect to see this collapse in restaurant and other luxury spending because making it through the next ten years is going to be increasingly a matter of economic survival. More and more of the population will be feeding themselves primarily by way of government food assistance (which does not allow for prepared meals) - as long as such assistance lasts, and most of the rest will sensibly economise by eliminating dining out.
For households not to commence draconian economisations at this point is an invitation to poverty and potential destitution. Such economisations will become more and more evident on a survivor basis. Functioning households will be economical, non-economical households will be dissolved or become economical.
In spite of increasing awareness of deterioration, there is an almost ubiquitous fantasy that recovery is nigh, and when it arrives the population will return to its consumeristic ways. Such a recovery is simply never going to materialise. When, and more importantly if, something akin to economic progress resumes at some point in the increasingly distant future, the economic landscape of the world will be utterly and permanently changed.
We intend to survive this transition and, more than that, experience as much as we can of our idea of the good life. We hope, Reader, the same for you. The severity of the Depression and its consequences must not be underestimated if you wish to be a survivor.
Consider the lessons of the survivors of the Great Depression (1929-1939): pay for everything with cash; make do, mend, use it up, do without; throw away nothing that could be put to use. Our progenitors were altered (often traumatically considering most survivors became compulsive hoarders at least to some extent) by the experience. And remember these are the survivors! Think how much worse it was for the non-survivors!
We believe this is ridiculously over-optimistic. In 1955, dining out was 25% of the food budget. Remember, 1955 was a time of prosperity. Since the world is sinking into a Depression that will last for ten years or more, it would be more realistic to see the luxury of dining out returning to a very low proportion of food spending - say 10%.
In a nutshell, we expect to see this collapse in restaurant and other luxury spending because making it through the next ten years is going to be increasingly a matter of economic survival. More and more of the population will be feeding themselves primarily by way of government food assistance (which does not allow for prepared meals) - as long as such assistance lasts, and most of the rest will sensibly economise by eliminating dining out.
For households not to commence draconian economisations at this point is an invitation to poverty and potential destitution. Such economisations will become more and more evident on a survivor basis. Functioning households will be economical, non-economical households will be dissolved or become economical.
In spite of increasing awareness of deterioration, there is an almost ubiquitous fantasy that recovery is nigh, and when it arrives the population will return to its consumeristic ways. Such a recovery is simply never going to materialise. When, and more importantly if, something akin to economic progress resumes at some point in the increasingly distant future, the economic landscape of the world will be utterly and permanently changed.
We intend to survive this transition and, more than that, experience as much as we can of our idea of the good life. We hope, Reader, the same for you. The severity of the Depression and its consequences must not be underestimated if you wish to be a survivor.
Consider the lessons of the survivors of the Great Depression (1929-1939): pay for everything with cash; make do, mend, use it up, do without; throw away nothing that could be put to use. Our progenitors were altered (often traumatically considering most survivors became compulsive hoarders at least to some extent) by the experience. And remember these are the survivors! Think how much worse it was for the non-survivors!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Getting Off the Road to Ruin
The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company recently released a study of the effect of the current economy on American's finances. The study came up with some disturbing facts, such as that that about three-quarters of the population has three months or less of savings to draw on in the event of unemployment.
The most interesting thing we found in the study was the conclusion that Americans are shifting away from Consumerism toward a more balanced view of what will make them happy. We see this as a tremendously positive development. Among other benefits will be an increased savings rate and the potential to have both households and the economy as a whole on a more secure footing.
Over fifty years ago in The Affluent Society, J.K. Galbraith predicted that if the Great American Marketing Machine was unable to manufacture ever more consumer wants to keep household debt expanding, a depression would ensue. We suspect that his prediction may have finally come true.
The most interesting thing we found in the study was the conclusion that Americans are shifting away from Consumerism toward a more balanced view of what will make them happy. We see this as a tremendously positive development. Among other benefits will be an increased savings rate and the potential to have both households and the economy as a whole on a more secure footing.
Over fifty years ago in The Affluent Society, J.K. Galbraith predicted that if the Great American Marketing Machine was unable to manufacture ever more consumer wants to keep household debt expanding, a depression would ensue. We suspect that his prediction may have finally come true.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Another Sign for the Bottom
We like to keep ahead of popular trends in society. For instance, a few years ago the typical American citizen was a debt-addicted consumer: they borrowed, borrowed, borrowed, so he or she could spend, spend, spend. We saw that, and tried to go the other direction: keep debt within easily-manageable amounts.
Fast forwards to today, and people are fretting about their McMansion, their big-screen plasma TV, and their automobiles; all were bought with credit, and all are pretty expensive when one doesn't have a job. The average 'consumers' are only just beginning to realise just how unsustainable their lifestyle once was.
However, it's going to take a quite awhile to obliterate unsustainable 'common knowledge.' 'Common knowledge' holds that everyone can own their own home, their own car, and live in the suburban paradise. 'Everyone' knows that one should pay for as much as possible with credit; it's so much more convenient that way.
We are on the fringe when we write this, but we feel it is true: consumerism is dead; the 'every family in their own home' fantasy is dead; there will be no chicken in every pot and car in every garage. Buying a house with no-or-little money down is a bygone memory, no matter what any bank may say or advertise.
Frankly, we know we're a Cassandra, screaming the bleak truth toward disbelieving ears. However, if one day, you should read on the front page of USA Today that, not only is buying a home with credit is a terrible idea, owning a home is a terrible idea, the worst is over. Simply put, when what we write today becomes the mainstream knowledge of the future, the bottom of the 2007 Depression has been found. When that happens... buy stocks! Buy apartment buildings! Buy everything that can generate a profit! Buy, buy, buy!
Fast forwards to today, and people are fretting about their McMansion, their big-screen plasma TV, and their automobiles; all were bought with credit, and all are pretty expensive when one doesn't have a job. The average 'consumers' are only just beginning to realise just how unsustainable their lifestyle once was.
However, it's going to take a quite awhile to obliterate unsustainable 'common knowledge.' 'Common knowledge' holds that everyone can own their own home, their own car, and live in the suburban paradise. 'Everyone' knows that one should pay for as much as possible with credit; it's so much more convenient that way.
We are on the fringe when we write this, but we feel it is true: consumerism is dead; the 'every family in their own home' fantasy is dead; there will be no chicken in every pot and car in every garage. Buying a house with no-or-little money down is a bygone memory, no matter what any bank may say or advertise.
Frankly, we know we're a Cassandra, screaming the bleak truth toward disbelieving ears. However, if one day, you should read on the front page of USA Today that, not only is buying a home with credit is a terrible idea, owning a home is a terrible idea, the worst is over. Simply put, when what we write today becomes the mainstream knowledge of the future, the bottom of the 2007 Depression has been found. When that happens... buy stocks! Buy apartment buildings! Buy everything that can generate a profit! Buy, buy, buy!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Ice Cream, Gold, & Consumerism
What would you, Reader, consider yourself? In the media, the individual is most commonly called a 'consumer'. It is an odd label, in our estimation: to be a consumer means one should be spending money on stuff. It isn't important what stuff is bought, simply that money is still flowing. It's just something one does, like breathing, sleeping, and eating.
To us, the concept of 'consumer' brings to mind a cow. A cow grazes, mindlessly eating grass because, well... that's what cows do. They eat grass, because they have no choice in the matter. A consumer, likewise, spends money mindlessly, because they have no choice in the matter. One tends to feel insulted when called a cow.
We do not mean to play with semantics; we only wish to make a point. To consume is to spend money, something one finds is forever in short supply. Money is something one receives in exchange for one's efforts, which one can then do with what one wants. Honestly, we prefer our efforts to deliver things of lasting value (utility, entertainment, or otherwise). It's a difference of mindset: rather than spending like a mindless cow, we study ourselves and ask what we really want.
We must admit, however, our ideals do not always come into play. For example: if presented with $100, we would desire a 1/10th ounce of gold far more than twenty ice cream sundaes. However, when we look back on our life, we remember far more ice cream sundaes than 1/10th ounces of gold. Our preference of ice cream over gold was a reaction, an unexamined urge. In the moment, we might have rationalised that an ice cream sundae costs much, much less than a 1/10th ounce of gold... but we were probably too busy drooling over the chocolate double-fudge. Gold was the furthest thing from our mind as we stuffed our face, but in the final analysis we'd rather the gold.
This is a tongue-in-cheek example, but it goes to show the sort of decision-making one must make. For our part, we've written off a lot of future ice cream in the hopes of saving more money, which we will then turn into our more-desired gold... or something like that.
To us, the concept of 'consumer' brings to mind a cow. A cow grazes, mindlessly eating grass because, well... that's what cows do. They eat grass, because they have no choice in the matter. A consumer, likewise, spends money mindlessly, because they have no choice in the matter. One tends to feel insulted when called a cow.
We do not mean to play with semantics; we only wish to make a point. To consume is to spend money, something one finds is forever in short supply. Money is something one receives in exchange for one's efforts, which one can then do with what one wants. Honestly, we prefer our efforts to deliver things of lasting value (utility, entertainment, or otherwise). It's a difference of mindset: rather than spending like a mindless cow, we study ourselves and ask what we really want.
We must admit, however, our ideals do not always come into play. For example: if presented with $100, we would desire a 1/10th ounce of gold far more than twenty ice cream sundaes. However, when we look back on our life, we remember far more ice cream sundaes than 1/10th ounces of gold. Our preference of ice cream over gold was a reaction, an unexamined urge. In the moment, we might have rationalised that an ice cream sundae costs much, much less than a 1/10th ounce of gold... but we were probably too busy drooling over the chocolate double-fudge. Gold was the furthest thing from our mind as we stuffed our face, but in the final analysis we'd rather the gold.
This is a tongue-in-cheek example, but it goes to show the sort of decision-making one must make. For our part, we've written off a lot of future ice cream in the hopes of saving more money, which we will then turn into our more-desired gold... or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
