Members banned from this thread: evince, Truth Detector and BidenPresident


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 50

Thread: Vox - It’s time for Americans to buy less stuff

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,178 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    I hope so. I seem to remember most of it. given that, do you not think that a local economy could do as well as any global economy?
    A nation that has as many natural resources as America has, could do a lot better with local economies than we actually do.

    But, I also understand he importance of trading internationally for all the things that we do not produce- but still want.

    I don't think there is any nation that goes it alone. My God, we are so much more less dependent on other nations than most all other nations.

    Can you even imagine being Norway or South Africa?

    Don't forget the fact that we export many goods to other nations- and that has made many American millionaires and brought a lot of bacon home for millions of American workers!

    Global is not a bad thing! It's a good thing!

    You have to look at the Global Economy with both your right and left eye- Not just your right eye!

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    It's a pretty interesting contradiction, as you state.

    I think the premise is correct, though. It's like we're in the infant stage of humanity, and will eventually mature & understand how to live in a way that is more conducive for the planet's health & long-term survival.

    The answer likely lies in rethinking the economy entirely. An economy as reliant on consumer spending as ours is just isn't compatible with the future health of our environment.
    What this rethinking of the economy look like, both in the U.S. and globally? To me, a number of people might be willing to say in a survey that they're willing to sacrifice and do with less in the name of helping the planet but in reality not so much. Then you have hundreds of millions of people around the globe who desire a better financial life, which is a good thing, expect that entails much more consumption which is no bueno for the planet.

    I'm not suggesting that means we do nothing, but there is human nature and a lot of competing interests involved here. It's much easier said than done.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to cawacko For This Post:

    PoliTalker (10-23-2021)

  4. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,494
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Its time to get Americans ready for our plummeting standard of living. VOX will be front and center guiding Americas massive decline.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    You bring up an excellent point. There are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people in those two countries who desire to move up into a more middle class lifestyle. And if they do so that would include middle class purchase/consumption habits which would have large effects on the climate. Can't see them reacting too positively to the rest of the world telling them if would be bad for all of us if they do (move up to a middle class life style).
    The Chinese Communist Party stays in power because it is bringing China's middle class up to our standard

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    28,541
    Thanks
    3,864
    Thanked 12,030 Times in 8,285 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,673 Times in 2,479 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    The Chinese Communist Party stays in power because it is bringing China's middle class up to our standard
    You are correct... But their immediate goal is to wipe out the severe poverty they have right now.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,786 Times in 32,152 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    The Virus is just one kink in the Supply Chain! Stagnant wages is another.
    wages weren't stagnant from 2016 to 2020......is this something that just happened recently?.....

    https://www.econlib.org/archives/201...as_middle.html
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    You are correct... But their immediate goal is to wipe out the severe poverty they have right now.
    no. that has largely accomplished. remote villages are now part of the middle class

    https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/
    Based on Pew's income band classification, China's middle class has been among the fastest growing in the world, swelling from 39.1 million people (3.1 percent of the population) in 2000 to roughly 707 million (50.8 percent of the population) in 2018.
    By 2018, this number had climbed to over half of the population, constituting nearly 707 million people.

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    I would dearly love to know what you think IS compatible with the future health of the environment
    A way of living that is very different that what we have now.

    I don't have a "solution." I can just recognize unsustainable living when I see it, as can most. It doesn't take much to look at how things have progressed since the start of the Industrial Revolution, look at that short timeframe, and realize that we can't continue as we are.

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    What this rethinking of the economy look like, both in the U.S. and globally? To me, a number of people might be willing to say in a survey that they're willing to sacrifice and do with less in the name of helping the planet but in reality not so much. Then you have hundreds of millions of people around the globe who desire a better financial life, which is a good thing, expect that entails much more consumption which is no bueno for the planet.

    I'm not suggesting that means we do nothing, but there is human nature and a lot of competing interests involved here. It's much easier said than done.
    I agree. I don't have a vision for it, or a solution.

    It's easy to recognize the problem, but trying to solve it on a global scale w/ billions of people involved is way beyond what I can imagine.

    The only thing I'd say w/ certainty is that there is an urgency to this particular problem, and a complete lack of attention to it by those who could make a difference

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello cawacko,

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    It's a long article so I just posted the link. The gist is really focused on climate change and the (negative) effects our consumption habits have on the environment, thus the need for us to purchase and consume less.

    Fair enough. My question is an economic one. We know how much spending drives our economy. And to a certain group politically the argument in support of higher taxes and transferring of money is the rich don't spend enough and thus giving it to people who will (lower income folks) stimulates more growth.

    How can these two co-exist? One can argue we should consume less because its best for the planet and if we get slower economic growth as a result then so be it. But realistically its hard to win elections on that message (slower growth is good). The article references shopping sustainably but states that even that is still consumption.

    Anyone here have a way they blend the two?



    It’s time for Americans to buy less stuff

    Thanks to the supply chain crisis, holiday shopping won’t be easy this year — even if you buy early.


    https://www.vox.com/the-goods/227250...liday-shopping
    Great thread. Thanks for starting this one.

    It was time when President Jimmy Carter said so in 1980.

    It is now long overdue, and that is why we are in such a pickle.

    How can we have a vibrant economy with less consumption?

    Value.

    We have to value things better.

    And workers need to get paid not according to how capitalism values them, but as a reflection of their true value to society.

    Hard work or advanced mental work both represent a contribution to society. Each has value. Capitalism devalues hard repetitive labor and overvalues smart effort. We don't need to abandon capitalism; we just need to regulate it better to reflect true value of individual effort.

    The person who mops floors is valuable. That task needs to be done. If that's what somebody wants to do they should be able to be proud of their work and be remunerated aptly for it so they can have a comfortable life.

    The person who runs a corporation is valuable. But that value does not represent 500X the AVERAGE worker in that corporation.

    We need a system where government regulation attempts to being those types of imbalances more into balance.

    We also need to get away from a disposable society and move back toward high quality products built to last a long time.

    Example: Cell phones that are out of date in 6 months are a decadence. A phone should last 20 years. And so on.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartenderElite View Post
    I agree. I don't have a vision for it, or a solution.

    It's easy to recognize the problem, but trying to solve it on a global scale w/ billions of people involved is way beyond what I can imagine.

    The only thing I'd say w/ certainty is that there is an urgency to this particular problem, and a complete lack of attention to it by those who could make a difference
    I don't think there's a lack of attention I just think there are too many competing interests.

    On a micro level take a board like this. How much of our discussion focuses on stock market growth and GDP growth (it's generally in a partisan manner but for this discussion that's besides the point). How would we change that mindset where people would now say "it's ok that we have less growth and the stock market drops because that means less production and less consumption and thus is better for the planet"? (and of course what that would mean for those who are economically challenged and thus see less growth opportunities for themselves)

    You're talking maybe not a 180 change in our mindset but not far off.

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    20,426
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 11,073 Times in 6,783 Posts
    Groans
    888
    Groaned 1,829 Times in 1,694 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    I don't think there's a lack of attention I just think there are too many competing interests.

    On a micro level take a board like this. How much of our discussion focuses on stock market growth and GDP growth (it's generally in a partisan manner but for this discussion that's besides the point). How would we change that mindset where people would now say "it's ok that we have less growth and the stock market drops because that means less production and less consumption and thus is better for the planet"? (and of course what that would mean for those who are economically challenged and thus see less growth opportunities for themselves)

    You're talking maybe not a 180 change in our mindset but not far off.
    To me, it is by far the most important issue that there is. Because without the planet, the rest is meaningless.

    And we won't "lose" the planet. But the planet might lose us.

    I think people give it lip service, even progressives. No one is talking about it like the crisis that it could be, and in pretty short order. It's not how we're built as a species. We don't do anything meaningful until it's a true crisis & our lives are compromised by it.

  14. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Here is an example of wasteful capitalism.

    Laundry detergent.

    The package says it is concentrated, does 180 loads.

    The directions say you get the 180 loads if you measure the amount per load to the 1st mark of the measuring cup.

    The measuring cup is too big. (That is done on purpose.)

    The marks inside the measuring cup are very difficult to see. (Also on purpose.)

    The reason these things are designed to require meticulous use is because, unbeknownst to the consumer, the product is specifically designed to have the quality that if too much is used, it will not cause the washer to suds over. It is designed to work with very little, but if more than is needed is used, it will work just fine as well. All of these things are done on purpose to trick the unwary consumer into using more than is needed so the consumer has to come back and buy more product frequently. More frequently than is required.

    This causes the consumer to have to use more gas and make more trips to the store to purchase more product. Energy is wasted producing more product than is required because consumers are unknowingly duped into using more product than is required. And then more soap is sent down the drain which causes the water treatment plant to have to work harder to remove it. More trucks have to bring more product to the store because consumers are buying twice as much as they really need in many cases. And the water treatment plant is burning up more energy than it needed to.

    And that's just one product. Most products are designed this way to try to get the consumer to pay more than would really be needed, and to buy things they don't really need.

    Better regulation would identify this problem, this waste, and make that sort of thing illegal.

    An ideal product would come in a container which is reusable, and be dispensed by a measuring device which precisely dispenses the correct amount of product for the desired laundry load size. The consumer would purchase any appropriate product size, use the contents with a precise metered dispenser, perhaps a pump with a settable stop, and then return the product container to the supply chain where it can be refilled and reused. Since laundry detergent does not spoil, a large size would be economical. Say 5 gallons. Enough to last a typical consumer perhaps 7 years. That would save energy.

    It's just one example. In order to get value and stop buying too much, we have to do things smarter for the big picture.

    Jobs creating efficient energy-saving networks are valuable to society. The people working them should be well remunerated for their labor, enough to have a comfortable life and some discretionary spending. If capitalism would not result in paying that much, government regulation needs to bring that in agreement with social need. There is plenty of excess on the top to compensate for that regulatory adjustment.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I looked at my laundry detergent measuring cup. It looks like if the cup was filled to the top that approx 2.5X the correct amount of product would be used for the average load size.

    I had to put a bright light on it to see the marks. I used a sharpie to make them clearer to see so I can properly dispense the product.

    I remember old comedies such as I Love Lucy where great fun was made of the inept individual attempting to do laundry and putting in too much detergent and then having suds all over the place. Basic slapstick funny stuff. We don't see that any more because the chemistry has been specifically designed to allow the consumer to waste lots of product.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Geeko Sportivo,

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    The Virus is just one kink in the Supply Chain! Stagnant wages is another.

    Seeing all of those container ships backed up is a reminder of what a global economy we are part of- and how much we depend on it.

    Should be a wake-up call for some- even if the kink is just a temporary problem.
    Makes me SMH when I hear any Republicans talking about going to war with China over Taiwan. That is ridiculous. We can't do that. Our economy would fall flat on it's face if China cut off the flow of products to the USA. We are dependent on consumerism and a huge trade imbalance. We have to adjust things back toward a more healthy situation gradually. That last thing we would want to do is go to war with China. And they don't want to go to war with us, either. They need to money we sent them. It is building their society. We have to move in an internationally coordinated way for the benefit of all.

    International trade is good, but too much of it in wasteful amounts is not good. It wastes energy. We need to move toward being more self-sufficient (which we are not currently.)
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

Similar Threads

  1. Time to stuff the Turkey
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 12:26 PM
  2. there was a time when Americans were proud to help each other
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 11-02-2013, 02:00 PM
  3. Obama's Five-Year Plan: Build Stuff and Invent Stuff
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 02:13 PM
  4. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-21-2009, 07:17 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 11:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •