Washington Post declares "mission accomplished" on lowering consumption (of its newspapers)

[Zevico]

I thought it might be interesting to note this little discrepancy:

— “Obama’s hard truth: Americans must consume less,” the Washington Post, February 19, 2010.

— “Washington Post suffers 85% earnings drop,” the Politico today.

(links at source: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/0...earnings-drop/ )

In the visionary world of the "lower consumption" Left, is the Washington Post's lower earnings, circulation and questionable future laudable or tragic? Or is it both?

Just a thought: consumption is what drives the economy. Calling for less of it is really calling for less demand for goods and services. If we adopt the lifestyles of ascetic monks, all the benefits of the modern world go south.

On the upside, it would be for the greater good.

[SlowwHand]

I believe it was very short-sighted of the Post to headline their article as they did.

[Zevico]

I believe it was very short-sighted of the Post to headline their article as they did.

You, sir, are a master of understatement.

[SlowwHand]

How kind of you to notice.

[giblets]

Did you actually read the "Americans must consume less" op-ed piece? The author wrote about how Americans are allegedly spending beyond their means and should "consume less and produce more." I'm not clear on how that is a call to destroy the economy and live like ascetic monks.

[SlowwHand]

Exactly. You're part of the problem.

[Zevico]

Did you actually read the "Americans must consume less" op-ed piece? The author wrote about how Americans are allegedly spending beyond their means and should "consume less and produce more." I'm not clear on how that is a call to destroy the economy and live like ascetic monks.

Perfect! Let's apply this principle. The Washington Post needs to produce more newspapers, and its readers need to buy less of them. All its problems are solved!

But let's get to the deeper, philosophical profundities of the article:

The more difficult question is whether this is a reality America should merely endure or actively embrace. For generations, we have built our economy on ever-increasing consumption, with the result (among others) that a metropolitan area of two million people has arisen over the last 40 years in the Nevada desert -- based essentially on hedonism.

Deep. Taking holidays is bad! Now I get it!

During the boom, the ratio of household debt to household income reached 128 percent in 2008

Naturally, all of those debt-ridden maniacs were living it up in Vegas after they lost their homes.

Obama seems to favor the latter option, embracing a less consumption-oriented economic future.

What's this? How to turn schoolmarmish lectures about making people demand fewer goods into economic realities?

[Obama] observed that “the jobs of the 21st century are in areas like clean energy and technology, advanced manufacturing, new infrastructure. That kind of economy requires us to consume less and produce more; to import less and export more.”

Who's going to buy all these goods the Americans export? Foreigners! Look around: see all those foreign markets for goods and services. Look--there's prosperous Europe! Oh wait. Not so prosperous. Some of it is approaching bankruptcy. Well, never mind.

Here's a funny idea: American consumers drive the American economy. They always have. Their consumption drives the entire global economy. There is a correlation between demand and production. Less demand means lower production. Less American consumption means a far worse global economy, which means a worse American economy in turn.

Achieved with "clean energy", or as it's known in the business, "high energy prices."

Schoolmarm Obama: working to reduce domestic consumption. For the greater good, of course.

[SlowwHand]

But on a positive note, he won't be an option for idiots again.

[Zevico]

Exactly. You're part of the problem.

You're right. Gribbler, you need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Do away with your needless consumption. Start by throwing out all of his modern electronics and burning his car to a crisp. Quit your job--it consumes needless energy. In lieu, start a drum circle. Or even better: light a bonfire to show how much you care about needless and unnecessary carbon emissions. Or hey, why not join the movement: become a community organiser for climate change. That way you can drive a car, lead protest rallies. Maybe even take exotic vacations in Hawaii at the taxpayers' expense.


You'd be living the dream.

[kentonio]

In 50 years we've gone from a world where people repaired and tried to make items last as long as possible, to one where everything just gets thrown away and replaced as soon as anything shinier comes along. That's really not sustainable.

[Zevico]

In 50 years we've gone from a world where people repaired and tried to make items last as long as possible, to one where everything just gets thrown away and replaced as soon as anything shinier comes along. That's really not sustainable.

What are you doing posting on the internet, kentonio? That's really not sustainable.

Laughs aside, intellectuals have been making kentonio's argument for about three centuries now, even before the industrial revolution. There is a rich intellectual tradition of writers predicting mass starvation due to overpopulation and over consumption, over and over over again. And yet here we are, alive and well.

This kind of apocalyptic vision of human life is better suited to a fire-and-brimstone preacher warning of the end days coming because of the gays, yet kentonio still take it seriously.

Who needs empirical evidence of what "sustainability" constitutes, let alone how to achieve it? All that is necessary to prove that the government ought to lower consumption--that is, our living standards--is a twee complaint about people not repairing their things anymore and buying new instead. And isn't that evidence enough?

[kentonio]

That doesn't make any sense.

[Aeson]

Consuming more than you make can't happen all the time. It's true that American's should have consumed less than they were in 2008. It would have been better for the world if we (and much of the first world) had maintained a more sustainable level of consumption instead ... and far better still if we had dedicated more of our superfluous incomes to increasing consumption by the poorest people around the world at the expense of our own. (Done via investment, charity, or otherwise.)

[Zevico]

That doesn't make any sense.

Your presence on the internet is part of the problem. You're here, using carbon, destroying the environment. It's just not sustainable, kentonio. We live in a world where people throw away old things to replace them with new things. A terrible, dystopic world. People need to make sacrifices, consume less and do away with the luxuries of the past-- even if the demand for those luxuries is what makes goods and services all the more efficient and productive.

So you first, kentonio. Do your part. Buy a lighter and burn that computer to a crisp so it will never use energy again. Wait, don't buy a lighter--that might waste carbon. Use a bat. On second thought, the bat might break. And you wouldn't fix it, you troglodyte--you'd just buy a new one instead. Why not bash it with your fists instead?

[Zevico]

It would have been better for the world if we (and much of the first world) had maintained a more sustainable level of consumption instead ...

Attempts to drive down consumption by raising the cost of energy, which is basically Obama's policy, does not prevent recessions. It does not make people into better planners as individuals or on a governmental level. All it does is make it harder for people to make ends meet on the budget they have. It drives more people into poverty and more people into debt-financing they may be unable to afford. But that's what happens when twee complaints about how people are spending too much money form the basis for economic policy. That's really "unsustainable," Aeson.

It would have been better for the world if the American welfare state did not create incentives for American banks to mortgage homes for those unable to afford those mortgages, leading to many Americans obtaining unaffordable credit. A free market would have created a more "sustainable level of consumption" by allowing banks to be careful about who they lend to. But the progressives decided that people needed homes in the name of fairness, and let nothing stand in the way of their vision. Now they say people need to consume less, and let nothing stand in the way of their vision.

The larger point is that the market is the best determinant of what sustainable consumption is. Recessions happen because people are not perfect planners; but governments are even worse planners because they distort peoples' incentives.

and far better still if we had dedicated more of our superfluous incomes to increasing consumption by the poorest people around the world at the expense of our own. (Done via investment, charity, or otherwise.)

When the poorest societies around the world become stable, attractive investment centres, as some, like China, have, they will also witness a corresponding investment by the rich into their welfare. Typically, however, the poorest societies are unable to become stable or attractive no matter how much money is spent on them by way of charity. Their future lies in their taking responsibility for themselves--not in rendering them dependent on the West for aid money that is often diverted into the hands of corrupt bureaucrats.