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

[kentonio]

You see this is exactly the problem I have with modern 'conservatives', they are basically nothing more than thoughtless anarchists, so swept up in their own madness that no idea outside their normal talking points, however rational and reasonable can be considered.

We changed, not over centuries but over the last 50-60 years into a world where we treat almost everything as disposable. This is not some hippy scaremongering, we use ever increasing quantities of materials and then for the large part still just dump/burn the remains. recycling is buying us a little extra time, but it absolutely defies belief that anyone could claim its not a problem.

Either you understand the concept of finite or you don't.

[kentonio]

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.

Don't be bloody stupid. The market will sell and sell until there's nothing left. Shortages jut mean higher prices. Markets have no conscience and they certainly don't give a damn about the future stability and growth of our species.

[Zevico]

We changed, not over centuries but over the last 50-60 years into a world where we treat almost everything as disposable.

Why does it follow from this proposition that, as Mr Obama claims, producing more and consuming less is desirable, as opposed to a recipe for more landfill use? Producing more and consuming less domestically would be a gross waste of resources. In effect, it means sending American products straight into the landfill, or to be stored away in some warehouse, because Americans are and remain the world's foremost consumers of goods and services. Why is that more efficient?

Mr Obama envisions "more exports" even as he calls for less domestic consumption: why does it follow that foreigners will be more efficient consumers than Americans?

And where is the empirical evidence for that proposition? Or the empirical evidence for the proposition we are less "efficient" or "sustainable" as a result? How do you measure our "efficiency" or "sustainability"? You have assumed that our greater tendency to dispose of things is causing less efficiency. Have you ever considered that it might be more efficient and less resource-consuming to simply dispose of things? You're making an empirical claim. Where's your evidence to back it up?

Why does it follow that increasing energy prices will make us more "efficient"? Human nature is such that efficiencies are caused when demand for consumption causes people to innovate and create more efficient, attractive products. Decrease the demand for goods and services and you also decrease the demand for innovation. By increasing energy prices you simply increase the amount of resources necessary to produce the same good or service, both in the short and long term. How is using more resources to achieve the same goals more efficient than using less?

[Zevico]

Don't be bloody stupid. The market will sell and sell until there's nothing left. Shortages jut mean higher prices. Markets have no conscience and they certainly don't give a damn about the future stability and growth of our species.

This assumes that we have amassed a finite stock of all resources available to mankind and are able to ration it out. Resources are finite but we do not know their limits and we do not know when they will run out. It may not be in our lifetimes. It makes no sense to plan for something if you have no idea when it will happen, in what circumstances, or whether your plan will actually mitigate the damage involved. As already pointed out, there is no certainty whatsoever inherent in the proposition that rationing goods and services will lead to more efficient resource allocation. Government constraints on the market make resource allocation less efficient than it would otherwise be by reducing the incentive to innovate. Equally, market-based innovation and utilisation of new resources can and does often resolve the energy shortages of the past. You have the imagination necessary to envision a tragic dystopia somewhere in an undefined future of "scarce" resources, and the audacity to believe you can "stop it", but you do not note that this dystopia is more likely if you constrain consumption in order to stop it.

More broadly, you do not define any of your terms with precision. What is "sustainable"? Is the agrarian life of a French serf in the 17th century sustainable? On which basis you do propose to distribute resources to everyone? Why?

[kentonio]

Have you ever considered that it might be more efficient and less resource-consuming to simply dispose of things?

Sorry but you wandered off into ridiculousness in your first paragraph. We have finite resources, so how exactly is it less 'resource-consuming' to produce items which are the simply disposed off and replaced? Do 10 disposable shirts use less resources and energy to produce than one shirt which is better made or repaired by its owner? The idea is ridiculous. Our consumption model only works as long as we basically don't care about the future and assume that some amazing discovery will make everything ok.

[kentonio]

This assumes that we have amassed a finite stock of all resources available to mankind and are able to ration it out. Resources are finite but we do not know their limits and we do not know when they will run out. It may not be in our lifetimes. It makes no sense to plan for something if you have no idea when it will happen, in what circumstances, or whether your plan will actually mitigate the damage involved.

Why kind of idiotic logic is that? We know resources are finite but because we don't know exactly how long they'll last we'll just burn through them like an alcoholic with a Scotch bottle?

You have the audacity necessary to envision a tragic dystopia somewhere in an undefined future of "scarce" resources but you do not note that this dystopia is more likely if you constrain consumption in order to stop it.

I certainly don't 'note' that, because that is completely stupid.

[Aeson]

Attempts to drive down consumption by raising the cost of energy, which is basically Obama's policy, does not prevent recessions.

Completely irrelevant to my statements.

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.

I'm glad you can admit that the American consumer was spending too much.

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.

To some extent. However we're doing a piss poor job of actually sharing the wealth even in those situations, largely due to immigration restrictions reducing the employment options that lower-skilled workforce has.

We would all be better off if we just paid the workers more (or allowed them free movement), instead of taking advantage of their caged status. This is true of even the richest people, as an increased consumer base would benefit business, with established businesses that already are set up for easy scaling of production benefiting the most. Plus they could pass on most, if not all, of the cost. (Potentially they could pass on even more than all of the cost. Organic food is a good example of what you can do if you have an "admirable" business model in the eyes of consumers.)

The problem is the free market (at least with current levels of consumer apathy) doesn't give much room for any single business to make the choice to do that and remain competitive.

[Zevico]

We changed, not over centuries but over the last 50-60 years into a world where we treat almost everything as disposable. This is not some hippy scaremongering, we use ever increasing quantities of materials and then for the large part still just dump/burn the remains. recycling is buying us a little extra time, but it absolutely defies belief that anyone could claim its not a problem.

Empirical evidence again, kentonio. You haven't provided evidence that "we changed" or that we are less efficient than "we" (who are we?) were before. At this stage you're still making the same claims that writers have made for centuries, without offering the least bit of evidence to back it up.

Sorry but you wandered off into ridiculousness in your first paragraph. We have finite resources, so how exactly is it less 'resource-consuming' to produce items which are the simply disposed off and replaced?

Once again, you're making an empirical claim. Is it better to repair a computer or dispose of it? There is a cost involved in both of these things. If there were resources to be recovered by looking in landfill and if the exercise resulted in a profit, then companies would spend their time extracting resources from landfills.

The simple reality is that we are consuming more resources because there are more of us around, and there are more of us around not because we are less efficient but because we are more efficient in utilising resources. Technological innovations allow for us to be more efficient in attending to our needs and wants. Agricultural yields, to take a simple measure, are astronomically high in the Western world, particularly compared to the Third World and to past yields. This means that there are more of us spending our time more efficiently than ever before. Now, if you say that this cannot persist forever then I completely agree. But that does not mean that we have now discovered a means of rationing our resources via governmental control in such a way as to prevent that outcome.

[Zevico]

Completely irrelevant to my statements.

True, but I assumed you were speaking to the topic, namely, the Left's schoolmarmish and confused belief that the United States should consume less and produce more.

I'm glad you can admit that the American consumer was spending too much.

Sure can. Can you admit that it was progressive policies as opposed to free market policies that caused it?

To some extent. However we're doing a piss poor job of actually sharing the wealth even in those situations, largely due to immigration restrictions reducing the employment options that lower-skilled workforce has.

Well, this is a different claim entirely and a different subject entirely. Immigration policy is not the topic here, and it has nothing to do with the proposition that "consuming less" and "exporting more" will create a "sustainable" economy, or some such pipe-dream economics.

We would all be better off if we just paid the workers more (or allowed them free movement), instead of taking advantage of their caged status.

Those are very broad statements. The devil is in the details. This is clearly an issue that is near to your heart. Why not make a thread about and make your case there instead of here?

[Aeson]

Sure can. Can you admit that it was progressive policies as opposed to free market policies that caused it?

It's not clear how much one was responsible more than the other. Certainly both played into it to some extent. There have been boom-and-bust cycles in unregulated environments. It has more to do with human nature than the system.

Well, this is a different claim entirely and a different subject entirely. Immigration policy is not the topic here, and it has nothing to do with the proposition that "consuming less" and "exporting more" will create a "sustainable" economy, or some such pipe-dream economics.

It applies to your claim that I quoted, which was, "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."

Immigration restrictions are one of the reasons that reality doesn't reach full potential in that regard.

Those are very broad statements. The devil is in the details. This is clearly an issue that is near to your heart. Why not make a thread about and make your case there instead of here?

This is a thread in which you have made statements that touch on whether or not there is value to be had by Americans consuming less. As such, I felt it was applicable to point out how there are ways that Americans can consume less that will benefit all of humanity. (I am not attributing this to Obama's statements of course, he's talking about something rather different than I am.)

[Sava]

did i wake up in teh bizzaro world?

since when are conservatwits advocating for demand-side economics?

wtf?

YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG ZEVICO

[giblets]

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.

So you're some kind of Keynesian? That's cool I guess.

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.

But environmentalism has **** all to do with not racking up a bunch of credit card and mortgage debt and borrowing from abroad, which is what the op-ed seemed to be talking about.

[Zevico]

Sorry but you wandered off into ridiculousness in your first paragraph.

You're making an empirical claim. Washing your hands of the need to provide evidence for your claim by saying that it is "ridiculous" to call for it is simply to assert empirical evidence for your empirical claim is unnecessary.

Why is empirical evidence unnecessary now, as opposed to fifty, one hundred, two hundred or three hundred years ago when people were making claims about how our finite stock of resources was likely to run out and lead to mass starvation and proven wrong? People were predicting mass starvation would happen around now because of our finite resources. Yet it hasn't. Prove that we can actually assess the true stock of our finite resources and when it will run out. Otherwise, you're basically calling for war-style rationing on the basis that something will happen to change things "eventually."

You say things have changed in the last fifty or sixty years: prove it. What has changed? How are we becoming less efficient? Twee anecdotes about people buying shirts instead of repairing them does not prove that people as a whole are becoming less efficient. That is an empirical claim about a societal phenomenon.

You appear to claim that the fact that individuals are more wasteful than before means the government ought to step in to ration resources. But individuals can become marginally more wasteful in the aggregate without becoming more wasteful than central planners. Why does it follow that, even if people are less efficient now, that government has become more efficient than they in allocating resources any more than it once was? Prove it.

[Sava]

This thread is evidence of your ridiculousness.

OWN GOAL

[Zevico]

So you're some kind of Keynesian? That's cool I guess.



But environmentalism has **** all to do with not racking up a bunch of credit card and mortgage debt and borrowing from abroad, which is what the op-ed seemed to be talking about.

The op-ed was endorsing Leftist economics. Summarised, this article consists of two assertions:
Assertion 1: We're consuming too much! The rabble are going into debt they can never get out of. True, because we've forced banks to give them money on demand; but shut up.
Assertion 2: The government should drive up energy prices to make us consume less!
That's the basic thesis here. You've understood assertion 1. If you read until the end of the op-ed you'll see assertion 2.

The Left really believes that if it drives up energy prices, human nature will somehow change and people will somehow become less willing to rack up credit card and mortgage debt. Of course the consequence of making basic utilities more expensive is simply that people will find basic living less affordable, leading to more people racking up debt, not less. And no one will become more responsible for it, though they might be willing to take trips to Vegas, unless they're taxpayer-funded community organisers.

So in a twee kind of way, Obama believes he's working for the greater good by driving up prices and lowering your standard of living. You'd only waste money in Vegas anyway, you ignorant peasant you.

Keynes has nothing to do with it.