Paradox of thrift
In the last few years we have been hearing about our need to consume less, save resources, recycle, drive less, or not drive at all. Well, we are finally doing it and what happens, our neighbor looses his job. Now we read reports that we are saving our way right into an economic depression. I am not an economist, but I think less consumption, fewer cars, and more savings is the way to go accompanied by increased productivity. Maybe other countries will want what we produce and we can pay off the debt we have accumulated. Yes, the adjustment will be difficult but long term we may be better off in terms of energy independence, community building, and more durable products. Instead of a throw away society maybe we can build one on the more permanent things. Small is beautiful.
Dorothy Sayers put it this way:
“A society in which consumption has to be artificially stimulated in order to keep production going is a society founded on trash and waste, and such a society is a house built on sand.”
So much of what people buy is unnecessary, as was discussed in the report. As Americans, many of us are accustomed to buying anything we want, whenever we want it. It would be best if the recession lasted long enough for us to be forced into a fundamental shift in values, so that we stop making all of our life’s decisions based on money. Think about it. Why do young people go to college? How do people decide whether to have children and how many to have? Why do individuals and families leave their roots and move across the country?
I’ll never forget what a friend of mine said when he returned from his first trip to rural Europe. He noticed how small the houses were, how people had no space for accumulating possessions, how they worked hard but fewer hours than Americans. He said, “It’s like they’re living for something else besides money.”
I would love to see that happen here.
While not many these days would disagree with the need to temper consumerism, especially that driven by debt, the notion that the U.S.A will be saved by increasing productivity and producing goods that other countries might want to consume is horrifying. I’m not from the United States and can see the lengths the United States currently goes to to ensure other nations consume their goods, e.g. subsidised grain production and subsidised oil which means an African can buy American grown grain cheaper than grain grown by his/her own neighbour. The way the United States (and the European Union) throw their weight around at international trade talks is blatently unjust. While they may secure markets for their products producers in the Two Thirds world incresingly get squeezed out. (A good illustration of this is seen in the movie ‘Black Gold’ – about the coffee trade.) Americans cannot seek to keep their jobs at the expense of the world’s poor.
I agree and share your concerns. I said nothing about the U.S. government subsidizing our industries to have an advantage in the world markets. There are things that we as a people can provide the world that is neither junk or abusive. The world needs equipment for clean drinking water, simple medical devices, and communication systems. This is a not zero sum game where we have to win at the expense of others. It can be win-win. It just takes imagination at the grass roots level.