Capitalism / Consumerism ?
-
I think one of the key differences between capitalism and pathologic consumerism is as follows. Under "healthy" capitalism, producers produce goods that are bought by consumers. Producers profit and consumers have the freedom to purchase goods. This is good for producers and for consumers, as long as all consumers have equal access to the good - producers generate wealth and consumers benefit by having access to important, let's call them fundamental, goods. Under pathologic consumerism, what we can observe is the emergence of two separate classes - a wealthy class who have too few needs (i.e. insufficiently needy) and a poorer class that are overly needy as a result of having too little wealth. It almost sounds like socialism, but it's not. Capitalism should provide for real human needs, not excessive needs or, put another way, frivolous goods. One possible way to differentiate consumerism from capitalism then, is when the market for frivolous goods exceeds the market for essential goods in the presence of a substantial demographic that has insufficient access to fundamental goods. Equvalently, a priveleged subclass of economic agents begin to dictate what the "free market" provides, resulting in an asymmetric goods market that favours frivolous over core goods. EDIT: As an example, mortgages would be a fundamental good, securitized mortgages would be a frivolous good.
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 3:54 AM
73Zeppelin wrote:
Producers profit and consumers have the freedom to purchase goods.
I would not quarrel with that, but I would add "and both have the ability to accumulate capital, the producer by pricing his good correctly, the consumer by being a saver as well." One of the primary results of the mess we have created, it seems to me, is that consumers and producers both have seen their capital disappear. Obama tells us not to worry about what the stock market is doing, but anyone who had placed their savings, i.e. capital, in a 401K (and investing one's capital in money-making organizations is exactly what one is supposed to do, or so I have been told) can hardly not worry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment. That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns. You are right - consumerism is a lifestyle choice, but that lifestyle is facilitated by things like easy credit. Easy credit is not what I would call a fundamental good; it's a frivolous good.
Easy credit or not, yet without this consumerism, capitalism is doomed to failure. Leslie Sklair (London School of Economics) claims (in books and articles of 2001 and 2002), in relation to cultural-ideological transnational practices, that consumerism contributes to the survival of capitalism as it seeks to convince people that such a lifestyle offers them some degree of fulfillment and without consumerism, the rationale for continuous capitalism dissolves. This downloadable RTF document TRANSNATIONAL PRACTICES AND CAPITALIST GLOBAL GLOBALIZATION - Leslie Sklair [^] is an interesting read.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
At least to my understanding consumerism and capitalism are not at all the same thing. Capital is persistent: buildings, infrastructure, and capability. Consumer goods are consumed - they are one time use and have no persistent value.
True.
Rob Graham wrote:
Capitalism is all about the acquisition/creation of capital, not the consumption of goods.
The Soviet Union in the 1930s was also all about capital accumulation and consumption was cut to starvation levels. Capital accumulation is not uniquely associated with, nor does it define, capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital and the use of the market. Certainly capitalists typically seek to accumulate capital, but (ongoing) capital accumulation is neither necessary nor sufficient for capitalism. The driving force of capitalism is the pursuit of profit. That profit may in principle be used either for capital accumulation or for capitalist consumption.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The driving force of capitalism is the pursuit of profit.
But isn't it fair to define profit as the excess of earned income over expenses? A worker - say an economist or a game programmer - who usually spends less than he takes in is accumulating capital, while a congressman or a banker who has amassed a great deal of easily obtainable credit and is using it to supplement his earnings in order to support a lifestyle the cost of which exceeds his earned income is a consumer, nothing else. Of course, there's always the day when the credit cards max out. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Easy credit or not, yet without this consumerism, capitalism is doomed to failure. Leslie Sklair (London School of Economics) claims (in books and articles of 2001 and 2002), in relation to cultural-ideological transnational practices, that consumerism contributes to the survival of capitalism as it seeks to convince people that such a lifestyle offers them some degree of fulfillment and without consumerism, the rationale for continuous capitalism dissolves. This downloadable RTF document TRANSNATIONAL PRACTICES AND CAPITALIST GLOBAL GLOBALIZATION - Leslie Sklair [^] is an interesting read.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
that consumerism contributes to the survival of capitalism as it seeks to convince people that such a lifestyle offers them some degree of fulfillment and without consumerism, the rationale for continuous capitalism dissolves.
Which explains the motivation of how we got where we are today, living beyond your means. What happens then if your replace that motivation with something a bit more altruistic like bettering ones self for the sake of that fulfillment?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
that consumerism contributes to the survival of capitalism as it seeks to convince people that such a lifestyle offers them some degree of fulfillment and without consumerism, the rationale for continuous capitalism dissolves.
Which explains the motivation of how we got where we are today, living beyond your means. What happens then if your replace that motivation with something a bit more altruistic like bettering ones self for the sake of that fulfillment?
-
John Carson wrote:
The driving force of capitalism is the pursuit of profit.
But isn't it fair to define profit as the excess of earned income over expenses? A worker - say an economist or a game programmer - who usually spends less than he takes in is accumulating capital, while a congressman or a banker who has amassed a great deal of easily obtainable credit and is using it to supplement his earnings in order to support a lifestyle the cost of which exceeds his earned income is a consumer, nothing else. Of course, there's always the day when the credit cards max out. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
But isn't it fair to define profit as the excess of earned income over expenses? A worker - say an economist or a game programmer - who usually spends less than he takes in is accumulating capital, while a congressman or a banker who has amassed a great deal of easily obtainable credit and is using it to supplement his earnings in order to support a lifestyle the cost of which exceeds his earned income is a consumer, nothing else.
You seem to want to define profit as savings. I think we already have a perfectly good word for savings and that word is savings. By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms. If, however, you wanted to generalise it to cover all incomes (a bad idea in my opinion --- we use different words for different things so we can tell them apart), then you would need to treat those incomes consistently. With firms, we generally only treat as "expenses" those expenditures necessary for the earning of income. Consumption out of profits is a way of spending profits; it does not reduce the figure for profits. Therefore we should do the same for workers. Accordingly, we would not deduct all expenses from a worker's wage in order to arrive at a figure for the worker's "profit", only some of them. By virtue of the smaller deduction, the figure for "profit" would thus be greater than the figure for savings.
John Carson
-
wolfbinary wrote:
altruistic like bettering ones self for the sake of that fulfillment?
Would you be referencing the beneficial aspects of Human Rights in terms of well being of all?
I'm referring to doing something for the enjoyment of it, much like hobbies and other things are.
-
Oakman wrote:
But isn't it fair to define profit as the excess of earned income over expenses? A worker - say an economist or a game programmer - who usually spends less than he takes in is accumulating capital, while a congressman or a banker who has amassed a great deal of easily obtainable credit and is using it to supplement his earnings in order to support a lifestyle the cost of which exceeds his earned income is a consumer, nothing else.
You seem to want to define profit as savings. I think we already have a perfectly good word for savings and that word is savings. By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms. If, however, you wanted to generalise it to cover all incomes (a bad idea in my opinion --- we use different words for different things so we can tell them apart), then you would need to treat those incomes consistently. With firms, we generally only treat as "expenses" those expenditures necessary for the earning of income. Consumption out of profits is a way of spending profits; it does not reduce the figure for profits. Therefore we should do the same for workers. Accordingly, we would not deduct all expenses from a worker's wage in order to arrive at a figure for the worker's "profit", only some of them. By virtue of the smaller deduction, the figure for "profit" would thus be greater than the figure for savings.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
By convention, profit only refers to the income of firms.
I believe you meant to say the difference from the income and expense of firms, didn't you? We have a very good word for income and that word is income. ;)
John Carson wrote:
then you would need to treat those incomes consistently.
An excellent point. And one you are right to bring up. Be that as it may, I was actually trying to define savings as a method of accumulating capital - which, it seemed to me was the definition of profit that was being offered. I have no trouble accepting someone else's definitions of terms, as long as those definitions don't change as the discussion progresses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I'm referring to doing something for the enjoyment of it, much like hobbies and other things are.
-
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment. That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns. You are right - consumerism is a lifestyle choice, but that lifestyle is facilitated by things like easy credit. Easy credit is not what I would call a fundamental good; it's a frivolous good.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns.
Are you saying that Joe Worker who budgets 45% of his income for expenses and investments and places the remainder in a "safe place" is part of the problem?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Hobbies no doubt has the "feel good factor", but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
I've never understood this. Maybe I am just not wired the like a lot of other people. Luckily, my wife is a saver as well.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
I've never understood this. Maybe I am just not wired the like a lot of other people. Luckily, my wife is a saver as well.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Yep, I much rather get tarred and feathered than to shop like my mother in law; that lady is a pro.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'd probably draw the line at the limit where savings exceeds investment
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's wealth hoarding and is usually associated with economic downturns.
Are you saying that Joe Worker who budgets 45% of his income for expenses and investments and places the remainder in a "safe place" is part of the problem?
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
Chris Austin wrote:
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
I meant the traditional economist idea of investment measured as a function of interest rate and income. By savings I mean savings as measured by disposable income less expenditure. I admit it's a loose definition. When savings exceeds investment (in the above sense), then this is associated with economic downturns. There are multiple definitions of investment - economic, financial, real-estate, corporate, etc... I am referring to the economic definition that can be calculated using macroeconomic quantities. Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
That is pretty broad. How would you define investment? Does it have to be in the market at large? Would you consider purchasing fixed income assets as investing? How about acquiring capitol and sitting on it to build equity outside of stocks and bonds?
I meant the traditional economist idea of investment measured as a function of interest rate and income. By savings I mean savings as measured by disposable income less expenditure. I admit it's a loose definition. When savings exceeds investment (in the above sense), then this is associated with economic downturns. There are multiple definitions of investment - economic, financial, real-estate, corporate, etc... I am referring to the economic definition that can be calculated using macroeconomic quantities. Since you raised the point, then under the current economic crisis, Joe the Worker who is ferretting away his savings is contributing to the immediate problem at the moment. Savings in an economy undergoing deflation worsens the problem.
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
-
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
It's true that his money might be more safe in the short-term under his mattress, but in the long term it won't. Right now, the economy is experiencing a devaluation of assets - stocks AND houses. are all losing value. Unemployment is rising which means that there are less consumers. Less consumers mean that companies build up inventories and reduce sales. This leads to decreased profitability and more unemployment along with increased inventories. What happens is that the deflationary spiral continues unless there is demand for goods. Since banks are not lending and people are increasing savings demand for goods drops further. It is a continuing spiral. The only way to stop it is for banks to lend and people to stop saving. So while the money under his mattress may be good in the short-term, his assets like stock and real-estate continue to devalue at a rate that more than likely exceeds his savings. The long-term picture is therefore grim. He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth.
-
Hobbies no doubt has the "feel good factor", but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex. It has enormous therapeutic value albeit at the potential cost of overextending the family budget.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
but the psychology of shopping should never be underestimated, especially if you are of the gentler sex
Men play games; women shop.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So this bloke, Joe the Worker, may be one of those people who believes in saving for a "rainy day". His "rainy day" might not yet have arrived but you are suggesting that as these savings are part of the problem. He could should spend at the high street but he may not be in need of anything. He could should invest in the usual places, but he might be putting that money, or at least some of it, at what he might consider, as an unacceptable risk. How should he behave at this moment in time? And why should he? when you consider that his money right now might be more safe stuffed into his mattress.
It's true that his money might be more safe in the short-term under his mattress, but in the long term it won't. Right now, the economy is experiencing a devaluation of assets - stocks AND houses. are all losing value. Unemployment is rising which means that there are less consumers. Less consumers mean that companies build up inventories and reduce sales. This leads to decreased profitability and more unemployment along with increased inventories. What happens is that the deflationary spiral continues unless there is demand for goods. Since banks are not lending and people are increasing savings demand for goods drops further. It is a continuing spiral. The only way to stop it is for banks to lend and people to stop saving. So while the money under his mattress may be good in the short-term, his assets like stock and real-estate continue to devalue at a rate that more than likely exceeds his savings. The long-term picture is therefore grim. He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth.
73Zeppelin wrote:
stocks AND houses. are all losing value.
Gold isn't. And, FWIW, housing isn't losing value everywhere, at least not at the same rate. Here in the U.S. bubble-markets like California, Florida, Arizona and some others in the northeast are contributing a very large percentage of the average declines in housing prices. Both of these factoids suggest to me, that when we deal with real goods we are not seeing a decline in value - except where it was artificially inflated. I don't think that most folks who want to hoard their wealth bury it in the back yard or hide it in their mattress. They buy gold or other unlikely-to-depreciate assets. Or, of course, they stick it in a Swiss bank. But that's obviously becoming less and less attractive as they cave to the taxman. The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is. It's just an investment that most people understand. Indeed, a savings account is just like a Neaderthal: simple and ugly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth
So if you had a couple of hundred thou in gold bullion (sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How about we say 200 golden eagles (or gold maples for you) - would you trade it in for stocks, or start buying all kinds of consumer goods?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
stocks AND houses. are all losing value.
Gold isn't. And, FWIW, housing isn't losing value everywhere, at least not at the same rate. Here in the U.S. bubble-markets like California, Florida, Arizona and some others in the northeast are contributing a very large percentage of the average declines in housing prices. Both of these factoids suggest to me, that when we deal with real goods we are not seeing a decline in value - except where it was artificially inflated. I don't think that most folks who want to hoard their wealth bury it in the back yard or hide it in their mattress. They buy gold or other unlikely-to-depreciate assets. Or, of course, they stick it in a Swiss bank. But that's obviously becoming less and less attractive as they cave to the taxman. The point I'm getting around to is that putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding, though an awful lot of the unibrowed politicans are starting to talk as if it is. It's just an investment that most people understand. Indeed, a savings account is just like a Neaderthal: simple and ugly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
He should therefore spend an amount that is within his budget and, along with government stimulus, the recovery should begin which will lead to an eventual increase in his assets and therefore to economic growth
So if you had a couple of hundred thou in gold bullion (sounds like a lot, doesn't it? How about we say 200 golden eagles (or gold maples for you) - would you trade it in for stocks, or start buying all kinds of consumer goods?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
putting your money in a savings account, isn't hoarding
If that is for a rainy day then I suppose if it is a modest amount then that presumably would be fine. Not that the amount you could earn from it is worth very much considering what base rates are. But are those political animals following their own advice or is it a case of "do as I say but not as I do". Anyhow, during the early 1990's there was a fall in the value of houses, although this was accompanied by very much higher interest rates, people found themselves in negative equity but the majority stayed put and rode out the storm. And with government help (e.g. The Real Estate Rescue Plan), there is no reason to believe this storm can't be ridden with the same or similar kind-of spirit. I fully appreciate that events on the ground are not at all similar, but sooner or later that light at the end of the tunnel will be spotted and it will get brighter.
-
I think one of the key differences between capitalism and pathologic consumerism is as follows. Under "healthy" capitalism, producers produce goods that are bought by consumers. Producers profit and consumers have the freedom to purchase goods. This is good for producers and for consumers, as long as all consumers have equal access to the good - producers generate wealth and consumers benefit by having access to important, let's call them fundamental, goods. Under pathologic consumerism, what we can observe is the emergence of two separate classes - a wealthy class who have too few needs (i.e. insufficiently needy) and a poorer class that are overly needy as a result of having too little wealth. It almost sounds like socialism, but it's not. Capitalism should provide for real human needs, not excessive needs or, put another way, frivolous goods. One possible way to differentiate consumerism from capitalism then, is when the market for frivolous goods exceeds the market for essential goods in the presence of a substantial demographic that has insufficient access to fundamental goods. Equvalently, a priveleged subclass of economic agents begin to dictate what the "free market" provides, resulting in an asymmetric goods market that favours frivolous over core goods. EDIT: As an example, mortgages would be a fundamental good, securitized mortgages would be a frivolous good.
modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 3:54 AM
I just read a book that largely argued what you just said, that the problem today is that consumerism needs to create artificial wants to create markets, and the people with real needs, have no power to access that market.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.