Given "spending is irrelevant"/fiat money, why not give every poor person 30K?

[doodle]

Maybe purses are a bad example....take a look at that article I linked a few posts back about action figures and male body images. I think that advertising and marketing in this hyperconsumer society are causing a lot of dysfunctional and irrational behavior. It is undeniable that many women and males in our present society suffer from body image and self worth issues. A lot of these feelings come from the fact that in order to sell you something, I have to first convince you that you are lacking something. In other words I have to convince you that you are not content and happy, so that I can motivate you to get off your ass and dupe you into buying something that I have caused you to believe will alleviate this feeling of discontent that I just placed in your head.

I think that is pretty immoral and dysfunctional.

[Gumby]

Maybe purses are a bad example....take a look at that article I linked a few posts back about action figures and male body images. I think that advertising and marketing in this hyperconsumer society are causing a lot of dysfunctional and irrational behavior. It is undeniable that many women and males in our present society suffer from body image and self worth issues. A lot of these feelings come from the fact that in order to sell you something, I have to first convince you that you are lacking something. In other words I have to convince you that you are not content and happy, so that I can motivate you to get off your ass and dupe you into buying something that I have caused you to believe will alleviate this feeling of discontent that I just placed in your head.

I think that is pretty immoral and dysfunctional.

Again... Why do you care that millions of other people are duped by advertising/marketing?

[Gumby]

Just taking a random stab here (as PS did), but do you find that most of the girls you are dating are more concerned with social status and consumerism than the things that are actually important?

If so, that's no reason to try to change society. As PS said, you'd be better off just looking for a new crowd. I'm sure there are many girls out there who like to buy quality products. Actually, you could start a dating site for anti-consumerists!

But seriously, it sounds like you just need to find a new crowd.

[doodle]

Again... Why do you care that millions of other people are duped by advertising/marketing?

I guess cause it affects my conscience to see young, vulnerable people's insecurities prayed upon and manipulated so that people can sell them some piece of shit that they probably had to spend a week flipping burgers just to buy. I guess I just like to treat people honestly. I don't have a problem selling people things as long as the sales pitch and product is honest and forthright. Much of modern marketing and advertising however is manipulative and deceptive. Take over the counter acne medication companies for example. They know that shitty acid product just screws up teenagers faces even worse. The whole notion that dirt in your pores causes acne is utter bullshit. They know this yet they prey on this horrible event in a teenagers life by selling them a worthless product in order to turn a profit. That bothers me.

[Gumby]

I guess cause it affects my conscience to see young, vulnerable people's insecurities prayed upon and manipulated so that people can sell them some piece of shit that they probably had to spend a week flipping burgers just to buy...Much of modern marketing and advertising however is manipulative and deceptive...That bothers me.

You know, I agree with you that it is deceptive and manipulative. But, I don't let it bother me. I think you just need to find a way to not let it bother you.

I mean, look at your "Tyler Durden" signature... It's not healthy to be obsessing about this, doodle.

[Pointedstick]

I guess cause it affects my conscience to see young, vulnerable people's insecurities prayed upon and manipulated so that people can sell them some piece of shit that they probably had to spend a week flipping burgers just to buy...Much of modern marketing and advertising however is manipulative and deceptive...That bothers me.

You know, I agree with you that it is deceptive and manipulative. But, I don't let it bother me. I think you just need to find a way to not let it bother you.

I mean, look at your "Tyler Durden" signature... It's not healthy to be obsessing about this, doodle.

I agree with both of you; it is bad. But Gumby is right. And you know, a lot of other bad things happen to children throughout the world. In Afghanistan, girls are mutilated with acid by their mothers for looking at boys. In Chad, kids starve to death because their parents are poor farmers. In Detroit, black children grow up fatherless in urban wastelands and learn that violence is what makes you a man.

The entire world is overrun with injustice and predatory behavior. You can't let it get to you or you'll go mad.

[doodle]

True dat! That why I be hitting them ZEN books hard trying to find my little bit of peace in the chaos. Still, sometimes my inner monk loses out to the more truculent Rage Against the Machine half of my psyche.  Now, I'm gonna go listen to some Alan Watts and find my inner calm again...

[doodle]

Anyone heard of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Paci ... bage_Patch


In my mind this patch of toxic plastic sludge floating out in the pacific ocean represents billions of man hours of effort, sweat, and toil wasted on the hope and the prayer that somehow through all of this we would find meaning and redemption. I reread my arguments last night and I think that there was a gross confusion going on here between "persuasion" and "coercion". Libertarians sometimes seem so fixated on looking for and guarding against coercion that they conflate it with the completely legitimate activity of persuasion.

[moda0306]

Come on guys.  MMT/MMR are supposed to hijack threads, not have threads stolen from them.

[doodle]

A lot of these feelings come from the fact that in order to sell you something, I have to first convince you that you are lacking something. In other words I have to convince you that you are not content and happy, so that I can motivate you to get off your ass and dupe you into buying something that I have caused you to believe will alleviate this feeling of discontent that I just placed in your head.

I think that is pretty immoral and dysfunctional.

True dat! That why I be hitting them ZEN books hard trying to find my little bit of peace in the chaos. Still, sometimes my inner monk loses out to the more truculent Rage Against the Machine half of my psyche.  Now, I'm gonna go listen to some Alan Watts and find my inner calm again...

Ironically, I find that segment of the economy to be one of the most predatory 

Those Zen books are marketed at you.  They fulfill the exact same purpose as a new cardigan to your old girlfriend. 

That is true. There is a funny story where the Buddha told his disciples that the key to enlightenment was to rid themselves of desire. So the disciples went off and stomped on desire, and threw out desire, and tore up desire. When they came back to the Buddha to report on their progress he responded..."well, all you have succeeded in doing is desiring not to desire" :-)

Live your life the way you feel is right.  If it's right, then you don't need the validation of getting others to switch sides, do you?

Again...I'm just making an argument and expressing a viewpoint,  the same as you are doing when you try to convince me to stop trying to convince other people. :-) When advertisers stop assaulting me, I'll stop assaulting them. 

Now I gotta go take my girlfriend out before she dumps me. Im feeling the evil eye burning into the back of my skull. :-)

[Gumby]

Live your life the way you feel is right.  If it's right, then you don't need the validation of getting others to switch sides, do you?

Again...I'm just making an argument and expressing a viewpoint,  the same as you are doing when you try to convince me to stop trying to convince other people. :-) When advertisers stop assaulting me, I'll stop assaulting them.

Except that you are expressing a viewpoint and argument that everyone here is already cognizant of. We all saw Fight Club. We all know that companies use lies in their advertising to create demand. No need to point out the obvious. We get it. You'd be better off making these arguments to a bunch of teenagers.

[MediumTex]

Live your life the way you feel is right.  If it's right, then you don't need the validation of getting others to switch sides, do you?

Again...I'm just making an argument and expressing a viewpoint,  the same as you are doing when you try to convince me to stop trying to convince other people. :-) When advertisers stop assaulting me, I'll stop assaulting them.

Except that you are expressing a viewpoint and argument that everyone here is already cognizant of. We all saw Fight Club. We all know that companies use lies in their advertising to create demand. No need to point out the obvious. We get it. You'd be better off making these arguments to a bunch of teenagers.

That's a good point.

Reading doodle's posts reminds me of reading a travel blog about a trip I've already taken.

[doodle]

Slotine,

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that the present economic system must continue because if it doesn't, the present economic system will die? I'm not dismissing your argument, just trying to understand. You are saying that more spending on consumption goods leads to more efficiencies in the creation and distribution of productive goods?

I'm a proponent of MMT or MR so I'm pretty flexible when it comes to talking about money. I don't have many fetishes surrounding it.

My argument is pretty simple and it starts with a basic premise. I guess let's start with that and see if we even agree there. If not, then we not even be able to proceed to the point where you think I stop making sense.

My basic premise is that past a certain point of consumption that adresses basic needs, additional consumption has decreasing marginal returns when plotted against happiness. And eventually at a certain level of material consumption, happiness (or whatever you want to call that good feeling) flatlines or might even start to take a downturn.

Do you agree with that?

[doodle]

Live your life the way you feel is right.  If it's right, then you don't need the validation of getting others to switch sides, do you?

Again...I'm just making an argument and expressing a viewpoint,  the same as you are doing when you try to convince me to stop trying to convince other people. :-) When advertisers stop assaulting me, I'll stop assaulting them.

Except that you are expressing a viewpoint and argument that everyone here is already cognizant of. We all saw Fight Club. We all know that companies use lies in their advertising to create demand. No need to point out the obvious. We get it. You'd be better off making these arguments to a bunch of teenagers.

Do you subscribe to the idea that the solution to our economic woes and unemployment problems lies in getting people to start consuming more and ratcheting up economic growth again? If so then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement that goes deeper than the dismissive tone of your comment suggests. I don't think salvation lies in increasing consumption and growth. This undermines an entire economic model. You think it is a nonsensical point I am making but I think it is a pretty serious point. What happens if everyone subscribes to the MMM lifestyle? What happens if more and more people come to the realization that POintedStick, and I, and it appears even MT have that increasing personal consumption is a road that really doesn't lead anywhere?

Your system relies on duping people into buying things based on the belief that these items will bring them happiness. You even admitted to this point. What happens if the day arrives when it cant anymore?

[doodle]

Gumby,

Do you even agree with my basic premise below? If not, then we can't even proceed with my argument because the premise is false according to you.


My basic premise is that past a certain point of consumption that adresses basic needs, additional consumption has decreasing marginal returns when plotted against happiness. And eventually at a certain level of material consumption, happiness (or whatever you want to call that good feeling) flatlines or might even start to take a downturn.

[MediumTex]

Do you subscribe to the idea that the solution to our economic woes and unemployment problems lies in getting people to start consuming more and ratcheting up economic growth again?

It's doesn't matter whether Gumby, me or anyone else likes this solution...the fact is that in our current system it IS the solution.  In a debt-based economic system that is premised upon ever-increasing production and consumption, production and consumption MUST increase.  It's not a system that can survive in some kind of steady state.

If so then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement that goes deeper than the dismissive tone of your comment suggests. I don't think salvation lies in increasing consumption and growth.

I don't think it's very good either from a sustainability perspective, but then again I think that it gets too hot in the summer in Texas. 

It doesn't really matter what I think about these things.  It's just the way the system around us works.

This undermines an entire economic model. You think it is a nonsensical point I am making but I think it is a pretty serious point. What happens if everyone subscribes to the MMM lifestyle? What happens if more and more people come to the realization that PointedStick, and I, and it appears even MT have that increasing consumption is a road that really doesn't lead anywhere?

In a finite world that is in a state of permanent decay and rebirth, nothing leads anywhere except to the beginning of something else.

You can't make humanity better than it is.  According to your own standards of excellence, though, you CAN make yourself better than much of humanity.  IMHO, this is where effort should be directed.  Let everyone else follow the beat of their own drummer--that's what you're doing, right?  Why not let them do the same for themselves?

Your system relies on duping people. What happens if the day arrives when it cant anymore?

It's not Gumby's system.  It's just the system.  It's no better or worse than the tastes and preferences of the people who collectively guide it.  I think that it is often wasteful, tacky and destructive as well, but so are hurricanes and earthquakes.

I didn't make the world the way it is.  I am just living in it for a few decades and trying to make the most of the experience.

You won't always feel the way you feel now.  You will lighten up about some of this stuff.  Even an American who lives a low consumption and very simple lifestyle still consumes an enormous amount compared to his caveman ancestors.  It's okay. 

Enjoy life, even with all the faults of current human institutions.  There are far worse fates than simply living in a period you perceive to be lacking in enlightenment.

[MediumTex]

Gumby,

Do you even agree with my basic premise below? If not, then we can't even proceed with my argument because the premise is false according to you.


My basic premise is that past a certain point of consumption that adresses basic needs, additional consumption has decreasing marginal returns when plotted against happiness. And eventually at a certain level of material consumption, happiness (or whatever you want to call that good feeling) flatlines or might even start to take a downturn.

doodle,

You are describing the standards for consumption that work FOR YOU.  The premise is sound when seeking to understand what makes 2012 doodle happy.  I doubt if that's how 1996 doodle felt and it might not be how 2050 doodle will feel.  Who knows?

The ability of consumption to create a feeling of well being in people differs enormously from person to person.

[Gumby]

Doodle, it makes no difference what I believe. Everyone here already understands your arguments. You aren't telling us anything that we don't already know. We get it. You don't like consumerism and Buddhists are "happier" than we are despite the fact that they consume only the bare necessities. None of this is shocking to anybody here. We've all heard these ideas a long time ago.

You've reeeally got to let this go. I don't understand why you care what I believe. How about you just worry about your own beliefs.

[Pointedstick]

Gumby,

Do you even agree with my basic premise below? If not, then we can't even proceed with my argument because the premise is false according to you.


My basic premise is that past a certain point of consumption that adresses basic needs, additional consumption has decreasing marginal returns when plotted against happiness. And eventually at a certain level of material consumption happiness (or whatever you want to call that good feeling) flatlines or might even start to take a downturn.

The key thing you seem to be missing is that the level at which further consumption ceases to add happiness truly differs from person to person. For you, it's very low. For me, it's a bit higher. For Gumby, it's much higher. Eh, so what? We're all different. Your insistence on making that difference into a moral matter by saying that people who prefer to consume more than you do are drones who have been duped by advertisers is abrasive and engenders defensiveness.

So yes, your point is correct, but since you have no way of locating for other people the point at which additional consumption ceases to add happiness, there's very little that's actionable. And your frequent response that the reason people other than you have higher marginal propensities to consume is attributable to advertising and cultural brainwashing is rather infantilizing. Didn't you grow up in the same culture?

I think you need to work out for yourself why other people's consumption upsets you so much. You mentioned a succession of  materialistic, clothing-obsessed girlfriends; perhaps this has shaped your attitudes regarding the moral character of  those who outwardly appear to take pleasure in consumption? Do any of your friends enjoy a moderate amount of consumption?

[l82start]

Do you subscribe to the idea that the solution to our economic woes and unemployment problems lies in getting people to start consuming more and ratcheting up economic growth again?

It's doesn't matter whether Gumby, me or anyone else likes this solution...the fact is that in our current system it IS the solution.  In a debt-based economic system that is premised upon ever-increasing production and consumption, production and consumption MUST increase.  It's not a system that can survive in some kind of steady state.

  to me this raises a more interesting question than the back and forth over whether buying junk makes people happy, how much junk makes people happy and how much junk is to much junk,  i will buy the (limited) amount of "junk" that my budget and ERE aspirations allow, and lead by example and let others do what they will...

the interesting  question to me is, what a sustainable, steady state economy/monetary system, by and for people who have a similar level of consumption and value system regarding junk would look like and how it would work...  i have a hard time believing such an economy is impossible, it may not mesh with the economy/system we have now, and transitioning from one to the other would likely be rocky, but i think it is an interesting exercise to try to picture it.. 

[doodle]

I give up! Basically I'm getting the idea that the system of capitalism is unassailable on this forum. No discussion concerning issues regarding it and potential improvements to it are valid topics of discussion. It's central premises are completely sound and are founded on universal axioms. If you attempt to criticize a portion of the system or point out a potential flaw in its logic you will be met with personal attacks against you or comments that you need to just worry about yourself.

What is the fundamental difference though between my argument and going on bogleheads and debating the permanent portfolio then with people there? Why try to convince them of anything? Why debate their worldviews and investment philosophies?

[doodle]

Do you subscribe to the idea that the solution to our economic woes and unemployment problems lies in getting people to start consuming more and ratcheting up economic growth again?

It's doesn't matter whether Gumby, me or anyone else likes this solution...the fact is that in our current system it IS the solution.  In a debt-based economic system that is premised upon ever-increasing production and consumption, production and consumption MUST increase.  It's not a system that can survive in some kind of steady state.

  to me this raises a more interesting question than the back and forth over whether buying junk makes people happy, how much junk makes people happy and how much junk is to much junk,  i will buy the (limited) amount of "junk" that my budget and ERE aspirations allow, and lead by example and let others do what they will...

the interesting  question to me is, what a sustainable, steady state economy/monetary system, by and for people who have a similar level of consumption and value system regarding junk would look like and how it would work...  i have a hard time believing such an economy is impossible, it may not mesh with the economy/system we have now, and transitioning from one to the other would likely be rocky, but i think it is an interesting exercise to try to picture it.. 

L82 seems to get where I am driving at. I don't understand where the hangup is happening for gumby though. Maybe I'm just doing a bad job of getting my point across or have tainted this thread somehow by saying something he took offense to.

[doodle]

I never once said exactly how much stuff is too much ( except that everyone had a point where it stopped increasing their happiness) or what exactly people can and cannot buy. I am not trying to make that decision for people. I'm trying to get to the point that L82 is talking about which is a steady state economy or one in which increasing growth and consumption is no longer desired or feasible. ....uhhhh I'm exhausted

[l82start]

i think gumbys problem is that a MMR, fiat, debt based economy has to expand to work.  picturing one that doesn't have to expand to work is outside that box, and it requires abandoning some critical and possibly some central aspects of that system in order to become steady state....

[doodle]

i think gumbys problem is that a MMR, fiat, debt based economy has to expand to work.  picturing one that doesn't have to expand to work is outside that box, and it requires abandoning some critical and possibly some central aspects of that system in order to become steady state....

I think I am making the mistake of advocating FOR a steady state system rather than focusing on what a steady state system would look like. The former maybe comes across as judgemental and coercive whereas the later is an exercise in free thinking. I think my initial posts got dragged down a path that I never intended to go down and then I spent 10 pages defending a set of positions that I didn't want to focus on.

So instead of starting out with the statement "continued growth and consumption are not the answer" I will modify that to "what if people stopped consuming and all assumed an MMM lifestyle"? Does our society have to fall back into the dark ages if people just decide to value free time more than trinkets?