Total Economic Overhaul

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Total Economic Overhaul

Post by MachineGhost » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:18 pm

[align=center]Image[/align]
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
RuralEngineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: Total Economic Overhaul

Post by RuralEngineer » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:36 pm

Doodle,

I admire your lifestyle choice and respect your decision.  However, what you are suggesting seems to go against human nature, as I understand it.  Or perhaps a better way of stating it is that it goes against the HISTORY of human nature.  I can't speak as to what is in the soul of humanity, but I do know that most of human existence we've lived with very little.  Not because we chose to, but because there was very little to be had.  After the advent of farming, people worked very hard in order to simply clothe and feed themselves.  Hunter/gatherer societies spend much less time providing the necessities of life, but again, their societies don't have "stuff" to bother collecting. 

You are right that we produce an enormous amount of food, but that's actually a fairly energy intensive process.  Our population is huge and spread out, I don't think we could convert 100% of the population to your lifestyle.  Maybe after nature finally corrects our population explosion we can take another swing at things.  Until then I think we're more or less stuck, although we could certainly implement some improvements.  Personally, I'm very encouraged by the rebirth of the home-grown food movement.
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Total Economic Overhaul

Post by TBV » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:41 pm

Doodle:

"Waste not, want not" are still powerful words to live by.  Ditto "A penny saved is a penny earned."  Our wants are what we allow them to be.  If we live with restraint, it ought to be fairly easy to satisfy them in a society where indigenous population growth is stagnant and the basics can be obtained with minimal effort thanks to prior technological gains.  That perspective (which I believe is what you've intended all along) has great allure to lots of people, including me.  But what if you live in a society with an exploding population or one in which 50% of one's income is required to buy groceries?  Under such conditions, failure to grow the economy (and grow it with gusto) may mean not merely accepting a modest lifestyle but charting a descent into poverty and despair.

Pursuing the imagery a bit further, let's picture a rough cabin in the woods, or maybe a berm. Winter is approaching, but blocks of peat moss are stacked near the door.  Local grains have been harvested and fruits/vegetables have been preserved for future use.  Fish are plentiful.  Candles or oil lamps flicker in the moonlight.  Not only are you off the grid, there is no grid.  Indeed, there is no electricity at all since no one is inclined to pursue such things.  The time is the mid-14th century and your neighbors in Greenland are quite content with their lot.  However, within a hundred years, due to the arrival of the Little Ice Age, they will scatter and starve, leaving little trace of ever having existed in that place.  Had they been acquisitive, they might have created a surplus sufficient to sustain scholars and tinkerers whose innovations could have overcome declining crop yields and met the need for enhanced fuel supplies.  Discarding things in favor of marginally better things might have ingrained in them a preference for what was better, faster, cheaper instead of what was tried, true and traditional.  But they didn't.  As a result, their sustainable culture turned out to be entirely unsustainable.  There is a danger that a modest lifestyle chosen as a floor to support our needs might in time become a ceiling limiting our ability to adapt.  The Greenlanders were not laggards, but descendants of people who had for centuries been risk takers, explorers, conquerors and merchants.  They simply miscalculated future needs.  So may we.
 
In the meantime, a modest life can be just as rewarding when there's a big box store nearby: one which offers value for money for one's chosen needs thanks to a global supply chain, flexible capital markets and competitors hell bent on selling everything under the sun for two cents less.  One needn't be a glutton to appreciate the work of a good chef.
Last edited by TBV on Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Total Economic Overhaul

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:57 pm

TBV, you raise a number of interesting points, but ERE/Mustachianism isn't about generating a smaller or nonexistent surplus... I'd argue that that's what wage or debt slavery is all about! Rather, it's about generating as large of a financial surplus as possible, and then living off it for the rest of your life, with the ability to dip into the principal if need be.

I would argue that this lifestyle actually supports scholars and tinkerers better. Those pastimes involve the necessity of a lot of free time and expenditure, with uncertain rewards. This is not something you have the luxury to do if you're tied to your job, barely pulling in enough to pay the monthly bills! But once you achieve financial independence, you're free to do anything you like. Tinker away if you like, safe and secure in the knowledge that you can withdraw 0.25% of your investments every month to live on and not starve.

I think an ERE culture would be a sustainable, resilient one because more knowledge would be decentralized compared to today, where we're basically a society composed of experts in specialized fields who are ignoramuses about nearly everything else. People would be more aware of how the systems they relied upon function, and would be more multi-disciplinary. There would probably be far fewer lawyers, marketers, and managers, and far more auto mechanics, plumbers, butchers, hunters, furniture makers, and engineers. These people would still be innovating and competing! But you'd probably see a lot less competition and innovation in the fields of sugared drinks, unnecessarily powerful commuter vehicles, and financial wizardry to hide the costs of expensive goods.

Also, about your point regarding what to do if you live in a society where 50% of your budget is groceries: I'd call that a prime opportunity to cut costs by growing your own food or buying in bulk with neighbors and sharing! When a single item comprises more than half of your expenditures, it's time to get creative.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Post Reply