Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: You force people to change their bigoted ideas

Who appointed you deity that you should FORCE other people to do ANYTHING?

If you are interested in spiritual growth (and if my fallible memory is correct from other threads, you are) then you need to look at this.

There is nothing more annying/irritating than someone who just just "found religion" or some other new idea and tries "to convert" other people to their new way of thinking.

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: You force people to change their bigoted ideas

Who appointed you deity that you should FORCE other people to do ANYTHING?

If you are interested in spiritual growth (and if my fallible memory is correct from other threads, you are) then you need to look at this.

There is nothing more annying/irritating than someone who just just "found religion" or some other new idea and tries "to convert" other people to their new way of thinking.

Yeah. See this is how tyrants, dictators and James Bond villains get their start. They try to change society by force.

Gumby wrote:

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: You force people to change their bigoted ideas

Who appointed you deity that you should FORCE other people to do ANYTHING?

If you are interested in spiritual growth (and if my fallible memory is correct from other threads, you are) then you need to look at this.

There is nothing more annying/irritating than someone who just just "found religion" or some other new idea and tries "to convert" other people to their new way of thinking.

Yeah. See this is how tyrants, dictators and James Bond villains get their start. They try to change society by force.

I agree with most of what doodle says about turning away from consumption and that sort of thing.

I just know that if people aren't ready for it, all of that sounds like a bunch of ascetic crap.  For example, I love camping, but my wife thinks it is absurd to sleep outside on the ground when you have a perfectly good bed indoors.  Neither of us are wrong, we are just coming at the topic from different angles.  It would be a big mistake for me to tell her that her understanding of the world is inferior to mine because she doesn't understand why camping is a fun thing to do.

MediumTex wrote:I agree with most of what doodle says about turning away from consumption and that sort of thing.

I guess it depends on what level of post-consumerism you want to embrace...

Full force post-consumerism for everyone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-consumerism

...Or just personal post-consumerism:

http://www.postconsumers.com

Sounds like many here would embrace some level of personal post-consumerism while doodle would make us all embrace post-consumerism by force.

i may be misreading his posts, but i don't see him forcing everyone to embrace post consumerism, he seems to be taking a more "force people to consider it" stance.
there is a big difference between forced acceptance and forcing people to be aware of and give consideration to an idea.
but as others have pointed out making people aware of something before "its time" is not easy or often well received..

Makes no sense to "force" people to consider it. The more people who embrace post-consumerism, the harder it is for people to build a nest egg to embrace the MMM lifestyle. Doodle even admitted that. The system would fall apart if everyone embraced post-consumerism. People need jobs if they want to build a nest egg. Hard to have a job if there isn't much demand for goods/services.

why is a post consumer economy so impossible?  it certainly takes some out of the box thinking to imagine one (maybe a little more imagination than i have)..  but not all consumption stops in a post consumer world, the tools property and nest eggs of post consumer parents and grand parents are handed down to offspring and just because its post consumer doesn't mean its post invention or post exploration or post creativity or post entrainment or post artistry etc...   

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: You force people to change their bigoted ideas

Who appointed you deity that you should FORCE other people to do ANYTHING?

That is a bit of cherry pick there. You FORCE  people to change their bigoted ideas by forcing them to confront their own humanity. In other words they crack your head open and then are forced to deal with the humanity of their actions which usually (not always) causes them to reevaluate the moral superiority of their position. The only physical force in this exchange is them cracking me over the head with a bat.

l82start wrote: i may be misreading his posts, but i don't see him forcing everyone to embrace post consumerism, he seems to be taking a more "force people to consider it" stance.
there is a big difference between forced acceptance and forcing people to be aware of and give consideration to an idea.
but as others have pointed out making people aware of something before "its time" is not easy or often well received..

Agreed. I don't think I advocated physically forcing anyone to do anything (maybe I did accidentally as I got wrapped up in defending my position...I don't remember) anyways, what I am saying is that the notion that increasing material consumption and growth will be a solution to societal problems should be EVALUATED and CONSIDERED. Only an ideologue, or a person with blind adherence to a particular system of beliefs would have a problem with someone asking people to CONSIDER another view of things.

I also made a big deal of the way that a system creates and rewards behavior among its participants that ensures the systems survival....a sort of survival feedback mechanism. To act like the forced programming that the system undertakes to ensure and perpetuate its survival is somehow more acceptable than asking people to consider potential alternative realities is a somewhat unintelligible overreaction I think.

I'm sorry if I hit a nerve among some people. I'm gonna start a new thread later with an idea I had regarding a market solution towards fostering conscious consumption.

l82start wrote: why is a post consumer economy so impossible?  it certainly takes some out of the box thinking to imagine one (maybe a little more imagination than i have)..  but not all consumption stops in a post consumer world, the tools property and nest eggs of post consumer parents and grand parents are handed down to offspring and just because its post consumer doesn't mean its post invention or post exploration or post creativity or post entrainment or post artistry etc... 

It's not that it's impossible, the problem is that it unravels capitalism and human progress. But, hey, if that's what you want...

So.. let's try to walk through this. If consumers stop buying carpentry tools, the Stanley, Black & Decker tools division has to layoff a few thousand employees, as demand dries up, and now you have a few thousand unemployed workers in New Britain, Connecticut. Thanks post-consumers! Do we expect these unemployed workers to become self-employeed as artisans, cobblers, inventors? If so, it's going to make life very tough in New Britain, CT as no one has any spending money to purchase art work, shoes, food or inventions or whatever. Perhaps the local banks will lend money to everyone to start their own businesses, but do people really have the skill sets to become cobblers and artisans? If not, businesses in New Britain close up shop. That lunch spot near the Stanley factory.. gone. The dry cleaners on the corner... out of business. More and more people out of work. More and more families having trouble making ends meet.

Over time, corporations across the nation would see a huge drop in demand, and people would be laid off all across the nation. Depression sets in and unemployment runs rampant. Sounds wonderful so far. Of course, with this new found anti-consumerism, people stop buying cars — since cars are sooo consumerist. And the car companies go bankrupt (again). Thousands of auto workers are laid off and now there's even less demand in the economy and now people don't travel as much as they used to. No worries, we can all walk a few miles to pick up the groceries and carry them on our backs. Deeper and deeper into depression as people spend less and less. Money gets very tight. Banks become stressed from bad loans. More depression.

Travel-based services decline and thousands of hotel employees and travel-service employees are laid off across the country. Great. Disney world shuts down. Businesses in nearby Orlando fold. Tourist attractions across the country see large drops in attendance and nearby businesses shut down. More and more people without jobs. Are we having fun yet?

As demand falls, more and more people become unemployed and money becomes extremely tight. People don't have as many kids as they used to (something we're actually seeing right now) and an aging population becomes the norm — slackening demand even more. Healthcare costs rise. States and local governments go bankrupt from lost tax revenues. And so on...

But, hey, don't worry guys we can all become artists and everyone will be so much happier!

As demand falls, more and more people become unemployed and money becomes extremely tight.

Another word for unemployment is more free time.    The "money extremely tight" thing sounds like you are abandoning MMT and getting back into the idea that money has some sort of value in and of itself rather that simply being a means to facilitate trade.

I think you are taking my concerns with over-consumption (which primarily concerns material items) and are not only exaggerating the scale of asceticism that I am advocating for, but you are neglecting the many other "consumables" that are out there that studies show really do improve our lives like education, social activities and events, artistic expression etc. 

So, when I rail against consumption...what I am really targeting is the type of consumption that resembles someone with a compulsive eating disorder. The type of consumption that fills garages, and storage sheds, and landfills full of junk. Junk that not only required a tremendous amount of effort to make, but that somehow was in the end so useless and unfulfilling that it was quickly discarded and never looked at again. "Stuff" has become like a drug to much of society, it gives a quick high but in the end leaves you feeling as empty and unfulfilled as before. I'm just saying that this situation merits some thought.

doodle wrote:The "money extremely tight" thing sounds like you are abandoning MMT and getting back into the idea that money has some sort of value in and of itself rather that simply being a means to facilitate trade.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nobody here really discusses "MMT" anymore. Are you talking about Monetary Realism (MR)? Money becomes tight during recessions and depressions when demand and private credit dries up.

doodle wrote:I think you are taking my concerns with over-consumption (which primarily concerns material items) and are not only exaggerating the scale of asceticism that I am advocating for, but you are neglecting the many other "consumables" that are out there that studies show really do improve our lives like education, social activities and events, artistic expression etc.

Too bad a lot of Americans have jobs in other sectors that you don't approve of. Oh well. Too bad for them I guess. 

doodle wrote:So, when I rail against consumption...what I am really targeting is the type of consumption that resembles someone with a compulsive eating disorder. The type of consumption that fills garages, and storage sheds, and landfills full of junk. Junk that not only required a tremendous amount of effort to make, but that somehow was in the end so useless and unfulfilling that it was quickly discarded and never looked at again. "Stuff" has become like a drug to much of society, it gives a quick high but in the end leaves you feeling as empty and unfulfilled as before. I'm just saying that this situation merits some thought.

All that "stuff" that you hate employs real people with real jobs. Just because that "stuff" makes you feel uneasy doesn't mean those employees should have to be unemployed. Who made you king to decide what people should and shouldn't consume?

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:The "money extremely tight" thing sounds like you are abandoning MMT and getting back into the idea that money has some sort of value in and of itself rather that simply being a means to facilitate trade.

Not sure what you're talking about. Nobody here really discusses "MMT" anymore. Are you talking about Monetary Realism (MR)? Money becomes tight during recessions and depressions when demand and private credit dries up.

doodle wrote:I think you are taking my concerns with over-consumption (which primarily concerns material items) and are not only exaggerating the scale of asceticism that I am advocating for, but you are neglecting the many other "consumables" that are out there that studies show really do improve our lives like education, social activities and events, artistic expression etc.

Too bad a lot of Americans have jobs in other sectors that you don't approve of. Oh well. Too bad for them I guess. 

doodle wrote:So, when I rail against consumption...what I am really targeting is the type of consumption that resembles someone with a compulsive eating disorder. The type of consumption that fills garages, and storage sheds, and landfills full of junk. Junk that not only required a tremendous amount of effort to make, but that somehow was in the end so useless and unfulfilling that it was quickly discarded and never looked at again. "Stuff" has become like a drug to much of society, it gives a quick high but in the end leaves you feeling as empty and unfulfilled as before. I'm just saying that this situation merits some thought.

All that "stuff" that you hate employs real people with real jobs. Just because that "stuff" makes you feel uneasy doesn't mean those employees should have to be unemployed.

Well, if people decide to come around to the line of thinking I am advocating for, we will be able to maintain a high standard of living while working a lot less because our efforts wont be concentrated on the useless task of filling landfills and storage sheds with junk for the sole purpose of keeping people employed. Kind of like building thousands of nuclear warheads keeps people employed  but doesn't do much to improve peoples standards of living, building a bunch of plastic crap that is discarded in a weeks time in a basement heap doesn't do much better.

The only argument that I can see a reasonable person making against what I have just said is that these individuals are choosing to consume like this by their own free will and who am I to tell them it is wrong.

That is a decent argument....and maybe there is some truth to it. But, I am making the argument (based on talking to a lot of my friends that work in marketing) that there is a lot of subtle coercion and often outright deception going on. Remember the discussion about food and obesity? I believe you supported the idea that modern food companies know how to tap into certain biological pleasure centers for humans that then causes them to slavishly consume food to the point where their bodies shut down from diabetic shock. I'm arguing that this same coercion is taking place in the world of the physical consumption of goods by the pervasiveness of marketing and advertising in our society and the ridiculous messages that they are brainwashing people with. Why do guys want to get jacked and most girls want tits the size of beach balls? Its primarily because this is the image that marketing companies, toy companies, magazines, hollywood etc. feed out to us on a daily basis.

Check out this article about how toy manufacturers have caused an evolution in male body image by altering the proportions of their action figure dolls. http://www.lhup.edu/tmitchel/wmst/pope.pdf

doodle wrote:Well, if people decide to come around to the line of thinking I am advocating for, we will be able to maintain a high standard of living while working a lot less because our efforts wont be concentrated on the useless task of filling landfills and storage sheds with junk for the sole purpose of keeping people employed. Kind of like building thousands of nuclear warheads keeps people employed  but doesn't do much to improve peoples standards of living, building a bunch of plastic crap that is discarded in a weeks time in a basement heap doesn't do much better.

Amazing that you think so much of our economy is about producing "junk". People produce real goods and services. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. Coffee makers, cars, motorcycles, chairs, cups, plates, clothing, carpets, tools, DVRs, iPhones, iPads, vacuum cleaners, pots, pans, utensils, sports equipment, faucet fixtures, tables, toaster ovens, flat screen TVs, lawn mowers, microwave ovens, gardening equipment, books, toys, etc. These are things that people stuff their houses with. And people enjoy owning these things. They want them. Just because you hate them doesn't give you the right to tell people what they should and shouldn't buy with their hard earned money.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Well, if people decide to come around to the line of thinking I am advocating for, we will be able to maintain a high standard of living while working a lot less because our efforts wont be concentrated on the useless task of filling landfills and storage sheds with junk for the sole purpose of keeping people employed. Kind of like building thousands of nuclear warheads keeps people employed  but doesn't do much to improve peoples standards of living, building a bunch of plastic crap that is discarded in a weeks time in a basement heap doesn't do much better.

Amazing that you think so much of our economy is about producing "junk". People produce real goods and services. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. Coffee makers, cars, motorcycles, chairs, cups, plates, clothing, carpets, tools, DVRs, iPhones, iPads, vacuum cleaners, faucet fixtures, tables, flat screen TVs, lawn mowers, gardening equipment, books, toys, etc. These are things that people stuff their houses with. And people enjoy owning these things. They want them. Just because you hate them doesn't give you the right to tell people what they should and shouldn't buy with their hard earned money.

he isn't telling them they cant buy them, he is saying they should be discerning in the choices they make . you seem to be saying they cant stop buying crappy shit or the whole economy comes to a horrible end...
i don't see anything inherently wrong with the items you list, but why buy many of each, over and over, replacing them often as they fall apart... if you can buy once get quality and be done... that need fulfilled...

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Well, if people decide to come around to the line of thinking I am advocating for, we will be able to maintain a high standard of living while working a lot less because our efforts wont be concentrated on the useless task of filling landfills and storage sheds with junk for the sole purpose of keeping people employed. Kind of like building thousands of nuclear warheads keeps people employed  but doesn't do much to improve peoples standards of living, building a bunch of plastic crap that is discarded in a weeks time in a basement heap doesn't do much better.

Amazing that you think so much of our economy is about producing "junk". People produce real goods and services. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. Coffee makers, cars, motorcycles, chairs, cups, plates, clothing, carpets, tools, DVRs, iPhones, iPads, vacuum cleaners, faucet fixtures, tables, flat screen TVs, lawn mowers, gardening equipment, books, toys, etc. These are things that people stuff their houses with. And people enjoy owning these things. They want them. Just because you hate them doesn't give you the right to tell people what they should and shouldn't buy with their hard earned money.

Please see my previous comment. I agree...besides most of the things you mentioned are perfectly fine. This is how consumption should look. What I see among many, many, many people though is what I would call a consumption addiction. In other words...unhealthy consumption. If you buy clothes and then leave them in your closet with the tags on for years without wearing them...you have a problem. I cant tell you how many girlfriends I have had that did this. If items are manufactured with the notion of planned obsolescence or to break after a certain period of time necessitating the purchase of another item again, then I think this is absurd. Look at the build quality of many things that were made 50 years ago compared to how they are made today. Today's stuff is often of far inferior quality and if it doesn't become a piece of junk by quickly breaking, then the advertising and marketing crews will get to work to drum up some more demand by telling you that what you have is either out of fashion, or clunky, or some other such lie.

Well, now we aren't talking about consumerism anymore. We are talking about hoarding and quality issues. Kind of a different ballpark. Besides, a lot of consumerism is about one-upping obsolete products.

l82start wrote:

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:Well, if people decide to come around to the line of thinking I am advocating for, we will be able to maintain a high standard of living while working a lot less because our efforts wont be concentrated on the useless task of filling landfills and storage sheds with junk for the sole purpose of keeping people employed. Kind of like building thousands of nuclear warheads keeps people employed  but doesn't do much to improve peoples standards of living, building a bunch of plastic crap that is discarded in a weeks time in a basement heap doesn't do much better.

Amazing that you think so much of our economy is about producing "junk". People produce real goods and services. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. Coffee makers, cars, motorcycles, chairs, cups, plates, clothing, carpets, tools, DVRs, iPhones, iPads, vacuum cleaners, faucet fixtures, tables, flat screen TVs, lawn mowers, gardening equipment, books, toys, etc. These are things that people stuff their houses with. And people enjoy owning these things. They want them. Just because you hate them doesn't give you the right to tell people what they should and shouldn't buy with their hard earned money.

i don't see anything inherently wrong with the items you list, but why buy many of each, over and over, replacing them often as they fall apart... if you can buy once get quality and be done... that need fulfilled...

This idea is where I see a potential market niche for a company to cater to conscious consumers who are sick of buying Chinese crap that breaks over and over again. You save a lot down the line by paying a little more up front for a better product that is manufactured in a socially responsible way. A big problem today is that most brands that used to represent quality have sold out to the cheap and fast consumption model. I think there is a demand by consumers for items that are made with quality and last a lifetime. Also, the fact that these items do last a lifetime and stand for quality makes the resale value of such items much higher when selling it in the future on ebay. So instead of remanufacturing stuff, we can trade it on the internet when we lose interest in it thus saving us from having to remanufacture the item all over again. I'm just thinking that maybe there might be a market solution to this consumption problem that I see.

l82start wrote:he isn't telling them they cant buy them, he is saying they should be discerning in the choices they make . you seem to be saying they cant stop buying crappy shit or the whole economy comes to a horrible end...
i don't see anything inherently wrong with the items you list, but why buy many of each, over and over, replacing them often as they fall apart... if you can buy once get quality and be done... that need fulfilled...

The real question is... WHO CARES?

Why exactly does doodle care if everyone buys crappy disposable Gillette razors? If everyone woke up and realized that Gillette razors are a waste of money in the long run — despite the fact that they offer a nice shave — a lot of Gillette employees would be laid off and not be able to feed their families. And that affects the businesses that depend on Gillette for revenue — including the restaurants and shops nearby. It doesn't do us any good on a Macro level to explain to the world that Gillette razors are a sham. Sure, you can offer your neighbor some friendly advice on getting a straight razor, but it's pointless to get upset that most people still want to buy disposable Gillette razors.

Let people do what people want to do.

Gumby wrote: Well, now we aren't talking about consumerism anymore. We are talking about hoarding and quality issues. Kind of a different ballpark. Besides, a lot of consumerism is about one-upping obsolete products.

maybe i am confused i thought post consumerism and doing a MMM or ERE style simple living consumerism, is buying what you need to live simply and having enough to live off of without needing a "job" to survive, or essentially being free to pursue your interests "what ever they may be."  how is not wasting your time and money on crap or pointless upgrades not a basic part of that?

doodle wrote:This idea is where I see a potential market niche for a company to cater to conscious consumers who are sick of buying Chinese crap that breaks over and over again. You save a lot down the line by paying a little more up front for a better product that is manufactured in a socially responsible way. A big problem today is that most brands that used to represent quality have sold out to the cheap and fast consumption model. I think there is a demand by consumers for items that are made with quality and last a lifetime. Also, the fact that these items do last a lifetime and stand for quality makes the resale value of such items much higher when selling it in the future on ebay. So instead of remanufacturing stuff, we can trade it on the internet when we lose interest in it thus saving us from having to remanufacture the item all over again. I'm just thinking that maybe there might be a market solution to this consumption problem that I see.

Doodle... why do you even care if millions of people you've never met are wasting their money on crappy products? Don't you have better things to do with your time and energy? It makes no sense to care about other people's spending habits — particularly when it all helps people feed themselves on a Macro level.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:This idea is where I see a potential market niche for a company to cater to conscious consumers who are sick of buying Chinese crap that breaks over and over again. You save a lot down the line by paying a little more up front for a better product that is manufactured in a socially responsible way. A big problem today is that most brands that used to represent quality have sold out to the cheap and fast consumption model. I think there is a demand by consumers for items that are made with quality and last a lifetime. Also, the fact that these items do last a lifetime and stand for quality makes the resale value of such items much higher when selling it in the future on ebay. So instead of remanufacturing stuff, we can trade it on the internet when we lose interest in it thus saving us from having to remanufacture the item all over again. I'm just thinking that maybe there might be a market solution to this consumption problem that I see.

Doodle... why do you even care if millions of people you've never met are wasting their money on crappy products? Don't you have better things to do with your time and energy? It makes no sense to care about other people's spending habits — particularly when it all helps people feed themselves on a Macro level.

I wouldn't give a rats ass IF I didn't believe that this type of consumption were #1 bad for the environment that we inhabit #2 potentially leading to some socially dysfunctional behavior that affects me because I happen to live in a society that pushes the notion that we can determine a person's value by the brand of purse that they carry.

l82start wrote:

Gumby wrote: Well, now we aren't talking about consumerism anymore. We are talking about hoarding and quality issues. Kind of a different ballpark. Besides, a lot of consumerism is about one-upping obsolete products.

maybe i am confused i thought post consumerism and doing a MMM or ERE style simple living consumerism, is buying what you need to live simply and having enough to live off of without needing a "job" to survive, or essentially being free to pursue your interests "what ever they may be."  how is not wasting your time and money on crap or pointless upgrades not a basic part of that?

If people want to make smart decisions on maximizing their purchases, on their own, I applaud that. They are choosing to spend their own money wisely. But, to get upset about other people's bad spending habits makes absolutely no sense.

doodle wrote:I wouldn't give a rats ass IF I didn't believe that this type of consumption were #1 bad for the environment that we inhabit #2 potentially leading to some socially dysfunctional behavior that affects me because I happen to live in a society that pushes the notion that we can determine a person's value by the brand of purse that they carry.

If you care what people think about your purse, I'm afraid I can't help you.

doodle wrote: #2 potentially leading to some socially dysfunctional behavior that affects me because I happen to live in a society that pushes the notion that we can determine a person's value by the brand of purse that they carry.

I don't see how that really affects you. Just get new friends. Who cares what brands people buy? Do your friends care? You mentioned that you've had lots of girlfriends who were consumerist drones. Have you considered that perhaps you might be hanging out with the wrong crowd?