doodle wrote:I think that this downsizing thing is the latest trend in America. More and more people that I talk to seem to be exhausted from 30 years of massive debt fueled over consumption. Small, simple, clean, seems to be slowly gaining traction on "gaudy bling". From an economic standpoint, this cultural trend certainly makes deflation seem like a much greater possibility.
No more gaudy bling?? Does that mean that there will soon be the rap videos showing how cool downsizing is?
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
doodle wrote:I think that this downsizing thing is the latest trend in America. More and more people that I talk to seem to be exhausted from 30 years of massive debt fueled over consumption. Small, simple, clean, seems to be slowly gaining traction on "gaudy bling". From an economic standpoint, this cultural trend certainly makes deflation seem like a much greater possibility.
No more gaudy bling?? Does that mean that there will soon be the rap videos showing how cool downsizing is?
I'm picturing Mr. T with a single thin gold necklace.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Is it possible that the deflation/inflation concept has separate monetary and real facets? Downsizing might be "real" deflation and might be currently coinciding with expanding money supply or "monetary inflation". By contrast the late 1800s in the USA might have been the exact opposit with falling prices but increasing consumption of goods and services. Perhaps the root of the current malaise is a failure to distinguish between these. So policy gets directed at increasing monetary inflation even though that does nothing to address decreasing consumption of goods and services (ie "real" defaltion).
My impression is that "real deflation" is positive for gold prices and "monetary inflation" is positive for gold prices and both together as we have now is perfectly consistent with what gold is doing.
I'm not a big fan of consumption. I like our small house and my small tatty car but I am glad of medical treatment and education. I do think a treadmill towards ever more extravagant and wasteful consumption is inane. To me the issue boils down to one of wealth inequality. If everyone can afford whatever they want and everyone chooses not to consume so much- then great. Currently I guess we have a certain amount of "enforced downsizing" with people forgoing things that they do want whilst people happy to work to supply those things are unemployed. I also think it is vital not to confuse conserving irreplaceable resources (oil, forests etc) with not utilizing labor that is willingly offered. Not using up virgin forest means that more virgin forest is available tomorrow. Not using up man-hours does not leave more available tomorrow BUT of course the most valuable use of certain man-hours need not necessarily be in paid employment.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
MediumTex wrote:At that point he may come to terms with the deepest expression of himself while seated in the lotus position in his empty room. Shortly after that he will marry and begin acquiring countless non-essential items.
It's inevitable. And babies/toddlers seem to need a lot of stuff for some reason.
Downsizing is certainly liberating, and I admire it. But then I think about how much more everything might cost in the future if we were to have inflation. Maybe Doodle is a deflationist after all!
Last edited by Gumby on Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
