"Consumerism 'doomed', investment forum told"

[dajo]

The increasing importance and role of China in the world economy is becoming more and more obvious. One of the reasons we are going to face economic difficulties is because of the rarity of certain ressources. The role of the arabian oil is being discussed frequently, but other 'less obvious' materials would be the 15 different rare but important metals that China is dominating the supply of. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7042598.ece I think it is very likely, if not even unstoppable, that we will experience an economic shift over the next years, the article even suggests in the next two. What I made this thread for is the general discussion on world economics, problems we are going to face, possible solutions and what you feel thinking about the situation (Are you afraid, hopeful, welcoming) and what your thoughts are on a possible economic collapse and as the article proposes the end of consumerism as we know it.

[juroara]

I wouldn't be upset if consumerism ended. What most americans don't get is that consumerism was programed. It didn't just happen. A lot of research was done to find out how to convince americans they should buy buy buy buy and buy some more. Before consumerism, americans only bought what they needed or what they really wanted, they didn't just waste their precious money on useless things. I wouldn't miss consumerism, I just hope I can learn permaculture before this bubble bursts

[Supernova]

Yes, consumerism is indeed engineered, down to every detail. I say to hell with it. It's not sustainable at any rate, and it creates enormous pollution.

[Xei]

I say to hell with it. It's not sustainable at any rate, and it creates enormous pollution. From the guy sitting at his computer on the internet provided by his ISP powered by the electricity which runs through his centrally heated house as he eats his lunch from the local supermarket.

[Supernova]

Are you any different? From the looks of it we're not gonna have any other choice. I'm not saying we all have to start living in thached-roof cottages, but consumerism has gotten way out of hand, don't deny it.

[Xei]

Are you any different? Yes; I didn't have the hubris to complain about it. The whole reason we have the problem is that people act as if they're not responsible and feel as if they're in a position to make comments like 'to hell with it', when really it is this collective irresponsibility which is responsible. If you want to banish it to hell then actively do something about it.

[Xaqaria]

It is not so easy to step outside of a culturally pervading paradigm. Once everything is owned and regulated, what can one do but follow the regulations and rent their living from those that have claimed it? It is not so easy to willfully become homeless, stop patronizing the governmentally approved food sellers and generally separate oneself from society. As long as the system of consumerism is endorsed and enforced by world governments it will not be as simple as 'unplugging'. Having said that, I think the first step to a healthy abandonment of the consumerism mentality is for a significant minority to take on the burden of separation to show both that it can be done and that it is indeed what people want to do.

[juroara]

From the guy sitting at his computer on the internet provided by his ISP powered by the electricity which runs through his centrally heated house as he eats his lunch from the local supermarket. If a well built computer was a long term investment it isn't consumerism. Consumerism stands for the OVER CONSUMPTION OF GOODS, and usually by "artificial" means. A computer only becomes consumerism when it was DESIGNED to magically break down in a short period of times. Like E-machines! Influencing the consumer to buy a new computer more frequently then they should ever have to. We also have cell phones and digital cameras all designed to break down before they should ever have to, just to make you buy a new one. That is consumerism. Its HOW much we buy. Not what we buy. This technology designed to break creates an enormous amount of waste every year. I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of starving children living on mountains of old computers. That should never have happened if the computer remained a long term investment.

[Xaqaria]

Yes. The real issues are artificial scarcity and manufactured obsolescence. Ever increasing mass consumption as a business ethic is unsustainable and detrimental to society and the environment.

[O'nus]

If a well built computer was a long term investment it isn't consumerism. Consumerism stands for the OVER CONSUMPTION OF GOODS, and usually by "artificial" means. A computer only becomes consumerism when it was DESIGNED to magically break down in a short period of times. Like E-machines! Influencing the consumer to buy a new computer more frequently then they should ever have to. We also have cell phones and digital cameras all designed to break down before they should ever have to, just to make you buy a new one. That is consumerism. Its HOW much we buy. Not what we buy. This technology designed to break creates an enormous amount of waste every year. I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of starving children living on mountains of old computers. That should never have happened if the computer remained a long term investment. Have you considered the fact that some companies make cheap computers so that it is affordable to those countries that live on their rubble? Some countries can't afford the best types of computers.. what do you think they get instead? Intel i70 processors..? Quad-core geforce ram blah blah blah? No. None of that. Cheap computers are made to better educate all people. Don't be so quick to conspire about consumer industries and their ploys to saturate markets. Sometimes it is with good intent that things are not made to last but made to be available. ~

[Dannon Oneironaut]

It should be illegal to make things that aren't recyclable.

[Xaqaria]

Have you considered the fact that some companies make cheap computers so that it is affordable to those countries that live on their rubble? Some countries can't afford the best types of computers.. what do you think they get instead? Intel i70 processors..? Quad-core geforce ram blah blah blah? No. None of that. Cheap computers are made to better educate all people. Don't be so quick to conspire about consumer industries and their ploys to saturate markets. Sometimes it is with good intent that things are not made to last but made to be available. ~ I don't think you and juroara are talking about the same things. In that video he talks about making it possible for the kids to perform maintenance on the machines themselves. He talks about reducing the complexity of the computers so that they will be more efficient. In this sense, the 'cheap computers' that he is talking about are not cheap in that they are designed to become obsolete after a certain time. In fact, by the sound of it they are making them efficient and robust enough that they will last much longer than normal computers do. Also, I don't think this instance could completely invalidates the claim that normal industries are pushing over consumption.

[Invader]

I often find myself wondering, when looking at something as simple as a plastic spoon, why we go through so much trouble to acquire the resources to make these things so that we can use them once and throw them away. Styrofoam cups. Unused napkins. Plastic wrapping on goods. A great deal of food packaging that never sees a recycling plant. Even if it's buying something that you use once and end up packing away in the garage or the corner of your living space, the reality of living wastefully makes zero sense to me. I'm aware of how much garbage leaves this apartment every day thanks to the kind of food that everyone eats and whatever other disposable things they use. I'm not entirely free of this either. I haven't gone fully out of my either to fix the issue, but I'm trying. This way of living is stupid. Having things that can last for a long, long time however and serve an excellent purpose (education/communication through the internet, for instance) obviously do not apply. Consumerism, as has been stated, is over-consumption. It is living wastefully.

[dajo]

Great posts so far. Thanks to all for contributing. ============================================== I wouldn't be upset if consumerism ended. What most americans don't get is that consumerism was programed. It didn't just happen. A lot of research was done to find out how to convince americans they should buy buy buy buy and buy some more. Before consumerism, americans only bought what they needed or what they really wanted, they didn't just waste their precious money on useless things. It is true that it has basically been manufactured. I'd recommend reading up on Edward Bernays, the founder of PR and what is essentially mass manipulation. He was a nephew of Sigmund Freud and was inspired by his publications of the psychoanalysis. Soon enough Bernays was a rich man. On this matter I have recently watched a 4-part British documentary called 'The Century of Self': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Not surprisingly, the manipulation extends to political areas as well. Edward Bernays had an impact on the infamous German propaganda minister 'Joseph Goebbels' - and if you are familiar to how he controlled the masses through propaganda, the similarities become obvious. I say to hell with it. It's not sustainable at any rate, and it creates enormous pollution. From the guy sitting at his computer on the internet provided by his ISP powered by the electricity which runs through his centrally heated house as he eats his lunch from the local supermarket. It is not so easy to step outside of a culturally pervading paradigm. Once everything is owned and regulated, what can one do but follow the regulations and rent their living from those that have claimed it? It is not so easy to willfully become homeless, stop patronizing the governmentally approved food sellers and generally separate oneself from society. As long as the system of consumerism is endorsed and enforced by world governments it will not be as simple as 'unplugging'. I somewhat agree with all the points here. On the one hand it is ironic to sit here and complain using a high speed computer - and most of us will probably also own a cell phone that is less than a year old. Especially these technological aspects are an essential part of the problem. And I agree with Xei that it is part of a collective irresponsibilty, always aiming criticism away of oneself is part of the problem. On the other hand Xaqaria is right that it is very difficult to seperate oneself from society, if really even possible. That is why my approach is to not be in search of someone to blame, but to objectively, if possible, name the issues and start thinking of a way to either contribute as little as possible to the causes of our situation, or do something to actively change the system, so it will benefit the majority, instead of a minority. So I essentially agree with: The whole reason we have the problem is that people act as if they're not responsible and feel as if they're in a position to make comments like 'to hell with it', when really it is this collective irresponsibility which is responsible. If you want to banish it to hell then actively do something about it. Having said that, I think the first step to a healthy abandonment of the consumerism mentality is for a significant minority to take on the burden of separation to show both that it can be done and that it is indeed what people want to do. =============================================== Have you considered the fact that some companies make cheap computers so that it is affordable to those countries that live on their rubble? I admire the 'One Child Per Laptop' Initiative and have been for a while. But as Xaqaria pointed out, those are two entirely different things. It depends on the orientation of the organization, I am not complaining about social-oriented consumerism, but one that seeks only profit in disregard of 'lesser factors', such as ethics, health or environment. Basically: Yes. The real issues are artificial scarcity and manufactured obsolescence. Ever increasing mass consumption as a business ethic is unsustainable and detrimental to society and the environment. =============================================== I often find myself wondering, when looking at something as simple as a plastic spoon, why we go through so much trouble to acquire the resources to make these things so that we can use them once and throw them away. Styrofoam cups. Unused napkins. Plastic wrapping on goods. A great deal of food packaging that never sees a recycling plant. Even if it's buying something that you use once and end up packing away in the garage or the corner of your living space, the reality of living wastefully makes zero sense to me. I'm aware of how much garbage leaves this apartment every day thanks to the kind of food that everyone eats and whatever other disposable things they use. I'm not entirely free of this either. I haven't gone fully out of my either to fix the issue, but I'm trying. This way of living is stupid. Having things that can last for a long, long time however and serve an excellent purpose (education/communication through the internet, for instance) obviously do not apply. Consumerism, as has been stated, is over-consumption. It is living wastefully. Yes, I agree. What I find difficult is that you get an incentive to live wastefully, but it is actually made difficult and more expensive to live responsibly. From the looks of it we're not gonna have any other choice. I'm not saying we all have to start living in thached-roof cottages, but consumerism has gotten way out of hand, don't deny it. This was supposed to be a point I wanted to make as well. The discussion usually tends to lean towards that some people want to change the system, because of its inhumanity, but another possibility is that we don't even have a choice. To put it simply, I see two things that could happen. We realize what is happening and start to improve towards a 'better world', which I find unlikely as long as we are a world of agressive nations that seem to only have their own interests in mind (there are actually only few exceptions). The other way would be that we just continue as if nothing will happen and we might be caught off guard, which I believe will be very uncomfortable and to say the least 'shocking' to the masses. What I am mainly concerned about, with the continuing struggle in the middle east and the distribution of important and rare ressources that are important to sustain our lifes at the moment, another war just seems to be around the corner. As written in the article, China will not sell and what do you think will happen, when there is a dire need for whatever ressource another country is owning..? @Xaqaria, Invader, O'nus or other Mod/Admin: Could you maybe add a " at the end of the title? That stupid little mistake is driving me nuts.

[Black_Eagle]

I feel the problem here is wastefulness rather than consumerism itself. Changes things up a bit.

[dajo]

I feel the problem here is wastefulness rather than consumerism itself. Changes things up a bit. Which problem are you referring to? In the OP I linked to an article stating that China owns a monopoly on rare metals that will be important for technologies, especially the green ones (that will become increasingly important as well). Other than that, I would really like it, if this does not turn into yet another quest for 'who do we blame'. But consumerism and wastefulness do directly correlate each other. Wether the people are to blame for believing in 'the american dream' or whatnot or the institutions for unethical behaviour doesn't really matter.

[juroara]

Cheap computers are made to better educate all people. That's just a gimmick and a lie! They know that by making cheap computers they can make more profit. It's all about the money. A computer is still a luxury, and it isn't necessary for education at all. I still find books the best medium to learn, there's too much confusing information on the internet anyways. Seriously, have you asked yourself, what are they learning? Also, when I say a well built computer I don't mean the fanciest computer around. I mean something that doesn't just explode on you a year later. There are plenty of older and slower computers that are still in use, because they were built to last.

[O'nus]

That's just a gimmick and a lie! They know that by making cheap computers they can make more profit. It's all about the money. Obviously you chose to ignore the video in favour of being ignorant. Instead of conspiring and accusing all companies of doing something, maybe you ought to consider what I've said; sometimes, in order to make things more available to more people, it has to be made cheaply. A computer is still a luxury, and it isn't necessary for education at all. I still find books the best medium to learn, there's too much confusing information on the internet anyways. Seriously, have you asked yourself, what are they learning? Sorry, just because you find books the best medium to learn does not mean others do or that it is truly the best method. Do you seriously want me to cite everything that computers can teach someone? You do me a favour and find one source of a company that explicitly states, "We build computers so that they break later on" Also, when I say a well built computer I don't mean the fanciest computer around. I mean something that doesn't just explode on you a year later. There are plenty of older and slower computers that are still in use, because they were built to last. Yes, we can agree that there are various kinds of computers. You just seem to be so indulged in your conspiracies to ignore the idea that some computers are deliberately made cheaply so that they can be more available to low income families. The fact that they may falter later on is an incident of that price. Perhaps you are saying that we only ought to have mac computers on sale? I am sure that all the low income families that cannot afford mac computers will be happy with your argument. ~

[dajo]

OLCP is a non-profit organization. It just doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

[O'nus]

OLCP is a non-profit organization. It just doesn't have anything to do with this thread. That is a good point. I was simply using it to exemplify a point; that somethings are made cheap to be made more available. I challenge you to find someone who admits "we make things cheaply so that they break later so that people buy it again lol" It's conspiracy theory in disguise. ~

[dajo]

It's not a conspiracy, but a pretty basic model. You buy something that is cheap, therefore it doesn't last as long. In the long run you may save money investing more at an earlier time. There are actually quite a few more outragous things going on in marketing. Noone said that this could be the only possible explanation for offering something cheap. It's still off topic though.

[juroara]

It's conspiracy theory in disguise. ~ Cheap things are produced by companies all the time so that they can break. It's a standard thing. It's not a conspiracy. You can see hundreds of examples of things designed to break in a regular grocery store. Try a disposable razor. Honestly, is there a reason for one? You keep arguing that I am arguing everyone should have some sort of high end computer. I've never had a mac. I'm fine with the computer I have, and it was dirt cheap and affordable. I make min. wage I even I could afford it, so how is that for affordable? But it's well built and hasn't given me any problems, and it's upgradable. I not talking about PRICES. I am talking about CHEAP QUALITY of a computer. A computer that is designed to break down. Maybe you've never had one before, but I sure have. The computer that my parents bought in the early 80s lasted fifteen years. FIFTEEN. Actually, scratch that, my dad cleaned out all the junk on the computer and it's still running. Even though you can call it useless, the point is IT STILL WORKS! By contrast our brand new 2000 e-machines lasted one year. Do you really think it's only a coincidence that this newer model exploded during the time of the computer boom? They make money by continually selling newer models. Old models have to die first. Not all companies follow this motto. But there are computer companies that do. In the 80s, a computer was an investment, they were built to last. Not only did my third (yes it took three times for me to get it) e-machines just randomly turn off on me and never turned back on, but so did a digital camera. I was pissed when my digital camera just died a year later when I had spent a good chunk of my available income on it. I couldn't see any reason why it should break. I never dropped it or anything. I took it to some techy nerds to look at it. They said everything looked fine except for this one chip. They told me these chips only last about a year before they fry, and it's like for almost all of the digi cameras from this company. But everything else was in perfect condition. In other words with a new little tiny chip my camera will work again. Okay, so I asked them if they could replace the chip. They said the company doesn't allow that. Instead of replacing one tiny little chip I have to buy a whole new camera. Multiply that by thousands of costumers. That's easily thousands of cameras that went to a trash dump in one year because of ONE LITTLE (replaceable) CHIP.

[O'nus]

Cheap things are produced by companies all the time so that they can break. It's a standard thing. It's not a conspiracy. You can see hundreds of examples of things designed to break in a regular grocery store. Try a disposable razor. Honestly, is there a reason for one? Why do you think they are called disposable? Why do you think cheap things exist? Do you honestly believe it is a ploy by others to always make cheap crap all the time to take advantage of people? Believe it or not, there are actually companies out there that care about society. You keep arguing that I am arguing everyone should have some sort of high end computer. I've never had a mac. I'm fine with the computer I have, and it was dirt cheap and affordable. I make min. wage I even I could afford it, so how is that for affordable? But it's well built and hasn't given me any problems, and it's upgradable. I wasn't saying that you were arguing that everyone should have a mac but showing how absurd it is what you are arguing. If we only make expensive and perfect products, then how to low income families afford these goods? Unfortunately some people can only afford crappy products. I not talking about PRICES. I am talking about CHEAP QUALITY of a computer. A computer that is designed to break down. Maybe you've never had one before, but I sure have. What makes something cheap quality? Low prices of production. Why are some things in low prices of production? To make them affordable and available. Come on now. The computer that my parents bought in the early 80s lasted fifteen years. FIFTEEN. Actually, scratch that, my dad cleaned out all the junk on the computer and it's still running. Even though you can call it useless, the point is IT STILL WORKS! By contrast our brand new 2000 e-machines lasted one year. Do you really think it's only a coincidence that this newer model exploded during the time of the computer boom? They make money by continually selling newer models. Old models have to die first. Not all companies follow this motto. But there are computer companies that do. In the 80s, a computer was an investment, they were built to last. Not only did my third (yes it took three times for me to get it) e-machines just randomly turn off on me and never turned back on, but so did a digital camera. I was pissed when my digital camera just died a year later when I had spent a good chunk of my available income on it. I couldn't see any reason why it should break. I never dropped it or anything. I took it to some techy nerds to look at it. They said everything looked fine except for this one chip. They told me these chips only last about a year before they fry, and it's like for almost all of the digi cameras from this company. But everything else was in perfect condition. In other words with a new little tiny chip my camera will work again. Okay, so I asked them if they could replace the chip. They said the company doesn't allow that. Instead of replacing one tiny little chip I have to buy a whole new camera. Multiply that by thousands of costumers. That's easily thousands of cameras that went to a trash dump in one year because of ONE LITTLE (replaceable) CHIP. Yes, there are good computers out there that can last and can easily be repaired. Perhaps you could direct some impoverished families to the best place to refurbish their computers? Oh wait... ~

[Xaqaria]

That is a good point. I was simply using it to exemplify a point; that somethings are made cheap to be made more available. I challenge you to find someone who admits "we make things cheaply so that they break later so that people buy it again lol" It's conspiracy theory in disguise. ~ How much do you know about how businesses are run? When a company enacts a business plan that is not strictly pc, what obligation do you think they have to make that plan a public matter? Have you heard of concepts like manufactured/planned obsolescence or aritificial scarcity? These are exceedingly common in the business world to the extent that they are the norm and not the exception. a few examples. Ipods That fading blue strip on your Tooth brush that tells you to buy a new one Instrument panels in cars Disposable razors. cell phones in general but specifically the fact that most phones, even ones made by the same company all require different chargers. Here are some good articles http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/08/01/MadeToBreak/ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/p09s02-coop.html This is a neat slide show http://www.amazon.com/Made-Break-Tec.../dp/0674022033 Do you honestly believe it is a ploy by others to always make cheap crap all the time to take advantage of people? Believe it or not, there are actually companies out there that care about society. These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Even though it is possible to find examples of companies that care, most companies do purposely make 'cheap crap' all the time to take advantage of people. Even in products that are not cheap, there is typically a cheap component that is known to fail after a certain amount of time, and this component will be manufacturer specific so that they can charge basically whatever they want to fix it, or just refuse to fix it at all as in Juroara's example. I wonder O'nus, why is it that you act like every company's target market is poor people? The fact is, poor people make up a very small percentage of consumers. I would think this would be obvious.

[juroara]

Why do you think they are called disposable? Why do you think cheap things exist? Unfortunately some people can only afford crappy products. Perhaps you could direct some impoverished families to the best place to refurbish their computers? I never said it was a conspiracy. I said it was done on purpose, and that consumerism was designed. It was designed long before I was born and long before the computer boom. In other words, we already had consumerism by the time computers came about. Computer companies just applied what was already going on. That is, build it cheaply to make more money. Where can an impoverished family fix their computer? Why is the impoverished family even spending a penny to fix their computer if theyre so damn impoverished? I already said, that a computer is LUXURY. It is not a necessity to life. If they are impoverished then their money should be spent purchasing something useful like healthcare. I didn't bring up the impoverished into this discussion, you did. But nothing in this world is separate onus. As products became cheaper and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, so did our incomes. There is a direct relationship. Just look at walmart. It justifies it's crappy pay to keep merchandise cheap. Yet, if all companies payed a LIVING WAGE - we wouldn't have poverty. And we could all afford higher quality items. And again I remind you, most of these items too are luxury. What consumerism is about is the OVER CONSUMPTION of goods. Which is why designed to break is a problem. Disposable razor blades and other designed to break items are a ENVIRONMENTAL problem. That was my point. We are creating too much trash. No one needs a disposable razor. No one. It's not the end of the world if you can't shave. Just be damn hairy, save up some money and buy the real thing. Do you not understand how you are saying its some how a necessity that poor people have these things. ITS NOT!