The problems of the Consumer Society
If I had to decide for an idea that would describe modern civilizations, it would not be Capitalism, nor Communism, Christianity, Islamism or any other religion or ideology, but there is a feature that is present, almost in a totally homogenized way across the globe, and that is, according to me, consumerism.
Consumerism seems to be found in every corner of the planet, it does not matter if you are in a very developed place in the West; such as the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia or New Zealand; or if you are in China, Africa or Latin America, regardless of the religion that is practiced and the political-economic model you have, an element invariably present, it seems to be; consumerism.
Even in the poorest countries people change an iPhone 5 for an iPhone 6, and although this behavior is more common in the richest countries, because they have greater economic facilities, in the poorest countries those who have an economic advantage above their compatriots they quickly imitate the behavior of the inhabitants of the rich countries, that is, they turn almost completely to consumerism.
We all need a bigger internal memory, a better camera, a battery of longer duration, and all those features that the new model of the latest electronic device available on the market gives us.
The economy works, on the one hand, under the parameters that consumers define, and on the other hand, under the parameters determined by politicians and large industrialists. All together in a collective effort to produce and consume more.
This behavior, in the first instance, seems quite logical from the economic point of view, what separates the developed nations with respect to the poorest nations is precisely their productive capacity. Now, the issue to be addressed is whether this collective behavior, and whether "wealth", in these terms, is really desirable.
Consumerism can't make any people rich, on the contrary, impoverishes it. This is simply the fundamental principle of the economy; supply and demand. Consumption increases demand, and if this demand is made up of the vast majority of the population, the fact that people want more, only makes them poorer.
In the modern economy, consumer behavior makes large companies earn a lot of money, and this, in turn, makes them invest in renewing their product by making small improvements, in this way, advances are achieved, but also, other two things that are not taken very much into account.
First, the fact that most people have a consumer behavior makes life more expensive. In poorer countries, that is, where there are fewer material goods available for consumption, this becomes more evident than in rich countries. In these poor countries there is always, as I said, a class of economically advantaged people with respect to the rest of the population, they can afford to maintain a lifestyle similar to that of people in rich countries, but at a lower cost, because they take advantage, consciously or unconsciously, of the economic conditions that a poor country provides to people with their opportunities. In poor countries you can always find material goods at a lower cost, and this is mainly due to lower demand because there is less consumption.
The rich of the poor countries live with the same luxuries as the rich of the rich countries, they drive sports cars and they have mansions, only that some pay more than others to obtain exactly the same or more. With the same amount of money that a millionaire can buy a large house with many amenities in the United States or Europe, in South America or Africa he could probably buy double.
The problem, generally, is that the rich find it very annoying having to coexist with poverty, however, this problem is always solved by creating small urbanisms and "special economic zones" that act like a bubble. The rich of the poor countries only spend the money in these special zones, that is, in a certain number of businesses, luxury restaurants, shopping centers, and other similar places, which, of course, belong to themselves.
The prices in these places are always higher than in the rest of the country, high enough to keep the rest of society away from that area, but low enough to maintain the cost at a much lower price than the one It finds in the rich countries, in such a way, that they take advantage of obtaining low prices at national level, thanks to the little consumption of the population in comparison with developed nations, but in turn, to be able to develop their life in a consumerist way in a circle closed, we see how it develops more that area where they spend their money compared to areas where people with less money and less consumption spend theirs.
Secondly, we must bear in mind that if consumption increases and resources run out, it is easy to determine that we are becoming poorer and not richer. If you carry out a process of deforestation, you only change trees from their organic state by tree derivatives in their inorganic state, and excepting the decrease in oxygen supply, the material "wealth" remains the same, however, once consumed the tree in its inorganic state, it is impossible to say that we have become richer than when it was, together with others, forming a forest.
The same happens with oil and all non-renewable resources, they are consumed until exhaustion, not to mention that consuming and transforming these resources leads, at present, to a high level of contamination of the rest of the ecosystem.
With all this on the table, it is very difficult to say that the consumer society can make us richer, even when it stimulates industry and the economy. Hence, it is richer, not who has more, but who needs less.
Wealth, then, varies according to the conception we have of it, and today, under the parameters and concepts of the consumer society, wealth is all that is available to consume. If you have a sea full of fish, but you don't fish, you are considered poor, but instead, if you have a sea that is polluted and overfished, you are considered quite rich.
The possibilities offered by having a healthy ecosystem, a sea to swim, surf, or sail, a field to explore or camp, a clean air to breathe, are supplanted by the possibilities of being able to consume.
In such a way that it is necessary to ask ourselves, in the first instance, if the consumer society is correct, if it is moral, and if it makes us truly rich, and in the second instance, if it is physically viable.
){kind=link}
We can't buy ourselves into being wealthy... we have to adopt a manufacturing mentality and a promoting mentality. Not selling, promoting. Create a quality product and get the word out. This is what makes economies thrive. @ironshield
I disagree.
The "consumer society" is what has to lead us to where we are today. And, if you ask me, we're now so much better than we were 200 years ago.
And here, I think, we might have a difference in philosophy. You may think that if a tree is processed it loses value. I see quite the opposite. Yes, a tree that isn't cut produces oxygen. But a processed tree produces so much more. If I start listing the different ways trees helped us develop I wouldn't end.
Because the thing is this: you can add value to a product. The value of something isn't only what they used to be in their original form. A tree, as it is, produces oxygen, but for us is pretty useless. But, when humans discovered fire, wood gained value all of a sudden. Now, you could burn it and warm yourself, or use it to cook. That's how the value of things increase.
Yeah, fossil fuel is bad, like, really bad. It's fucking the ecosystem up. We should stop using it. BUT, we can't deny the amount of development fossil fuel has given us. We wouldn't have had cars, large cities, intercontinental flights, and I probably wouldn't be writing this on the blockchain using my computer if we didn't use fossil fuel. Fossil fuel has developed civilization to a point where we now have the technology to stop using it. In the future, we may have all this technology and no need for fossil fuel. But we wouldn't have reached this point if we didn't discover fossil fuel at all. If you ask me, I prefer a world where we used fossil fuel and developed this much, rather than one where we didn't do anything and we keep living in the past, without internet.
Also, technologies evolve in a way that makes them more efficient. I'll always remember this quote from Miguel Anxo Bastos: "Nothing, in the entire history of humanity, has saved more trees than the pen drive". The "consumer society" people hate so much is what saves trees. We need to thank the consumer society.
The consumer society is a vice, it is the perversion of the market, we must not confuse market and industry with consumerism. Clearly, consumerism has only made us poorer, not only because it consumes the environment in an irrational way, since from the economic point of view it has also impoverished us, consumerism makes life more expensive. On the other hand, it is true that we have developed materially in these last 200 years, but largely due to the Industrial Revolution that originated in the United Kingdom, and this, in turn, could only be developed because it managed to accumulate the necessary capital to develop the industry, and that capital came from colonialism, and if we do a historical review, there has been no more predatory colonialism with human life than British colonialism, which devastated the original peoples of America and Africa. The question is, do we want more material development at any cost?
I'm not talking about industrial production, I'm talking about stopping consuming what is not needed. Change the car you bought two years ago, and still works perfectly, for the car of the year, simply because you can, not only increases the cost of living for everyone, but depredates the planet. If you buy a car, use it and when it does not work, change it, but do not buy one every month simply because you can. Consumerism is a behavior, in the first instance, irrational, the consumer society has been around since the 60s, and since then, the countries where this culture has been adopted have become poorer, since the cost of living increased. In fact, the marketing industry has specialized in generating more and more impulsive, and less rational purchasing behavior, making people only want to buy something useless, unnecessary, and insignificant, and then get rid of that one day later.
Higher costs of living don't translate to poorer countries. Not always. Life is waaaaaay more expensive in Chile than it is here in Venezuela, and I think I don't need to point out which one is poorer. Quite the opposite, I think that higher costs of living are a consequence of richness. If people earn more and the country becomes richer, there will be more demand for products, because people now have the possibility to buy things. The prices go up. It's just natural. If there's more demand to live in New York than in Caracas, because NY is a richer city, the costs will be higher.
I disagree completely on the notion that consumerism makes us poorer. I think, in a way, it helps with economic growth and it makes us develop exponentially because it pressures companies to innovate and produce new products to consume. On the other hand, yeah, it might be unhealthy on the individual level, if we take it too far. But just the idea of it being "unhealthy if we take it too far" is scary. Imagine a government that wants to end consumerism, the things they could do to the economy.
In conclusion, I will talk about a country I like very much and that is perfect to bring up on this topic: South Korea. At the end of the Korean War, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in Asia. It was comparable to Venezuela of current times. When the war ended in the mid-50s, it didn't take them long to lean towards a capitalist economy and consumerism became a part of their country quickly. In the 60s South Korea had a period of rapid economic growth known as the "Miracle of the Han River". Now they're one of the biggest economies in Asia. Consumerism didn't make them poorer at all.
Consumption can't make anyone rich, production does it, you can't consume what has not been produced, therefore, wealth comes before consumption and not later. Korea succeeded because it became productive, not because of its consumerism. In fact, capitalism is based on saving to invest. Saving is the creation of wealth.
Venezuela is poor, because it produces nothing, and learned to consume a lot. Western nations are kicking into the future a huge debt, nations like the United States and Japan are consuming now, at the expense of carrying a large debt to their grandchildren. The quality of life of a Western citizen compared to the 50s, before the consumption culture was implemented, is much lower.
What you say happens in Chile with respect to Venezuela, its true, it also happens in rich nations, in Manhattan everything is more expensive than in The Bronx, do you know why? more consumption. Buying a house in Caracas is more expensive than buying a twice as large in Tucupita. The greater the demand, the higher the price, which decreases the purchasing power. Its clear that people who work in Chile earn more money than those who work in Venezuela, it is also true that those who work in Caracas earn more money than those who work in the Tucupita, but that is because in those places the capital inflow is greater, that is, there is more investment, and investment comes from savings, and savings comes from work, then, material wealth is created by work, consumption disappears wealth.
Can consumption stimulate production? Yes, in fact, I said it in the post, only I did not explain it. Consumption can stimulate production, but to consume, before you have to have money, so you must work, the problem is that, at present, the level of consumption does not correspond to the level of real income, but consumption is encouraged by the credit. Take a look at the real estate crisis, the production of housing increased stimulated by consumption, but all that consumption was based on credit, spoiler! the thing did not end well, the people ended up homeless despite the fact that many trees were cut to build their houses. The consumer culture was responsible for the 2008 crisis.
The 2008 crisis wasn't a consumption problem. People weren't buying houses because they wanted to have 3 or 4 houses just for the sake of fun. In their minds, they were investing. The prices were going up like crazy, and people were buying to re-sell it. Actually, people weren't consuming, they were trying to invest, and you can see that as a way of saving... if you do it well xD
Like bitcoin. We don't really use it like we use "real" money at all. You can't buy almost anything with bitcoins, but we still invest in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Why? well, maybe because we believe in cryptocurrencies and want them to take over the world, but also as an investment. We invest in bitcoin expecting its price to go up. Is that consumerism? I don't think so, no.
The problem in the 2008 crisis, rather than the consumer culture, was de credit card and debt culture. See, debt is a really important part of our society, but you need to be careful. Most people aren't. That, added to the fact that governments love to create economic cycles to fuck up everything, made a crisis. But I don't see how that is a consequence of consumerism.
Yeah, that's the whole point of supply and demand. What I think consumerism creates is higher demand, and with higher demand, there will be more room for innovation and production. With consumerism, we need to produce like crazy, not just because we need the money to buy things —we have credit cards after all—, but because we need products to equal the demand. And that, how I see it, makes a great room for innovation. Tesla, for example. Their cars are just for wealthy people, the prices are crazy. But Elon knows there is a wider market that would love to buy their cars. So he's looking for ways to produce the batteries himself because that would bring the prices down A LOT, and that would enable more people to consume. In a way, consumer society also makes things cheaper, because broader markets make for lower prices,don't you think?
I'm loving this conversation XD
The main issue with consumerism is not necessarily a material problem or something to do with the market economics, even though these could be impacted, but rather a cultural one.
Everything nowadays is all about technology, material wealth, and "growth" at the expense of everything else. The institutions in society including education, medicine, religion, law, or anything else related to a humane social order have become corrupted in order to facilitate this consumerist model. People go to school/university to get a job instead of for its original purpose of individual betterment; and this is even backwards because careerism and vocationalism has been confounded for this very idea.
Prices went up due to consumption, people were buying houses, whether or not for investment, most of those houses were not generating rent, it was easier to buy than to rent, therefore, people who had 3, 4 or a dozen houses, they were only leveraging on the basis of the increase in prices that they themselves were helping to raise. The production of these houses was the result of people buying with money that they did not have, that is, credit. We can not separate the culture of credit from the culture of consumption, one can not exist without the other. And all that process only served to make the houses more expensive to the rest of the people.
Bitcoin, in part, arose to change that, but look how speculation has tarnished all the ideals that drove Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in the first place, people have invested fortunes in Ripple and centralized cryptocurrencies, not counting the hundreds of cryptocurrencies that they were created and they will never meet their goal. Vitalik himself has made his criticisms about it.
Like I said, you can not separate one thing from the other. Credit and consumption are part of the same culture. Do you know why during the Bush administration in 2001 the interest rate was lowered? it was to make private banks increase their credits and stimulate the nation's consumption, this started what would be the crisis of 2008.
No, we just can not wash our hands in that way, the government makes part of the deal and people do the other part, they are all part of the collective delirium to acquire more and more material goods. People went to the bank and asked for their loans, paid with their credit cards and bought more than their income could afford.
It is Keynesianism, the consumption stimulating the demand, and the demand stimulating the production, all that consumption comes from the credit and therefore generates inflation, the societies of Europe have been doing that for decades, ask a Spanish, French, Italian citizen the economic conditions they had in their countries before and now, their quality of life has descended, and will continue to do so.
For its part, Tesla is not even a profitable company, it owes more than it produces. Innovation does not arise from consumption, "industrial" innovation arises from investment, innovation occurs when they inject money into a project, and this can afford to pay both brilliant minds and the entire innovation process. But pay to finance these projects, there are only two ways to do it, the first is to save to invest, and the second is through the corrupt fiduciary credit that we currently have, and precisely supporting this type of system is what makes society more unequal , and that the quality of real life is going down.
On the other hand, there is also the moral and ideal issue. If a person does not move under any moral, spiritual, or ideal parameter, it is almost inevitable that he behaves under utilitarian parameters, and under the current culture model, utilitarianism is accompanied by material gain, using money as a means of measurement . The problem is that both the environment, values, ideals, and everything else is subordinated to capital. Are we humans made to subordinate ourselves to the material?
If you ask me, my answer will be no, I can give my life for an ideal, for a set of values, but I will not give my life to obtain greater material wealth.
Not much else I can contribute that hasn't already been said in previous comments.
Solid post.
I enjoyed it immensely.
Namaste, JaiChai
Thanks!
Totally so.
Consumption is what keeps rich nations alive. It is too late to get away from consumption. In my country there is neither the ability nor the will to return to an agricultural country. It would also no longer be possible because farmers own too little land and have gradually given up their estates.
A workers and farmers state is basically better off than a consumer state, I agree with you. Dependence on the resources of other countries and continents is thus increased and the mineral resources must be negotiated across borders. Every consumer-driven nation knows this and acts accordingly. This development did not only begin fifty years ago but began far earlier and it shows its exponential power with the advancing mechanisation in my country.
It seems too late for today's government to make the land attractive to farmers and to maintain or even subsidise it. The farming industry has long since missed the train and no longer has a lobby. The population is only marginally interested in how one can see the permaculture movement and the eco-villages. How little people are interested in gardens or the soil at all can be seen very nicely in the single-family house settlements. I grew up in one of those and there may be one or two gardens growing fruit and vegetables or rich plants and blooming flowers.
The remaining gardens are the necessary evil that comes with the acquisition of a home of one's own. It is extremely difficult not to be angry about this, but societies like mine are not trained to counter consumerism because the power of the masses is very strong and governments cannot be held fully responsible for what began long before their legislative term. The knowledge of plants and animals, even if I have acquired it, I cannot use as a citizen of a town. It is therefore useless knowledge if I cannot use it in practice.
The problem with self-sufficiency is that it takes a lot of time. This time remains unpaid. If I want to live on the fruits of my work, I am dependent on the season, the climate, the growth of the plants and that I have helpers at harvest time etc. But if I had a house and a garden, I would actually grow my own vegetables and fruit and make a start by inviting neighbours and the people around me and teaching them the things they need for gardening. Before the Second World War, almost everyone had a vegetable garden. People would have felt weird not having one. My parents continued for a long time to get the meat from the farmer in the shape of a pork half and then process it on the kitchen table.
People have become really comfortable and it makes them feel so useless. But you need physically accessible role models who still know how to do things themselves. This knowledge must not be lost, but the inevitability of a development can hardly be stopped. We must not despair of this. And do what we can.
Yes, it is very difficult for developed nations to change their production structure, because they produce material goods with high added value, it is partly because of what they are rich, do things that other countries do not, or in a superior quality. On the other hand, I did not propose eradicating the international market, what I mean is the culture of consumption, buying and discarding.
I am a very bad consumer:) I only buy what I need and give myself seldom some luxuries. Therefore I can appreciate them much more. In fact, I would say that I am a materialist because I want it to last long and to be in use as long as it's possible. If people would all behave like me economy would go down for sure. LOL. The shopping temples do not seduce me, that is long over. Even if I would like to buy new stuff I couldn't afford it as my income is small. That's my chosen lifestyle.
Well, the space left by consumption must be occupied by something else, in my case, having less need for consumption gives me a greater range of freedom. Therefore, if you decrease your consumption, this being a decision of your own, does not make you materialistic, because there is no subordination to the material. And although we are all partly materialistic, it is also true that it is difficult to escape materialism totally, because, in part, we are matter.
I saw this on the street after the world cup. Consumerism is everywhere. The opposite of consumerism would be to make things yourself but that is often more expensive vs made in china.
I do not think that the opposite of consumerism is to produce for ourselves, the opposite of consumerism is to buy only what we need and not to waste resources.
Happiness Machines :)
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 10
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Consumerism works.
Consumerism based on borrowed money doesn't (credit).
One is growth and the other is the transfer of wealth from our future to the rich. (as we can now see with the system we are in..)
Enjoyed reading your post. Thanks!
Congratulations @vieira! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP