A discussion about an economy of an affluent society

Please tell me your joking. Certainly that's an ox drawn cart parked in front of your earthen floored thatch hut. You wouldn't spend more for a car than one third of the world spends for a years food?My point is that wealth, waste, and extravagance are relative. I suspect the Gates' go to bed at night wondering how the poor Buffetts manage on just $37 Billion. Your life style is probably seen as luxurious by half the world.But your point interacts interestingly with a major problem confronting all the developed countries: the aging of the population and the rapid decline in the ration of working, productive populace to the retired or non-productive population. The US has 290 million people and 145 million workers, a ration of two to one. In the not distant future this will grow to three to one. How will so few be able to provide for so many? Perhaps the solution will be frugality, as you seem to advocate. At this point in time, the major component of the solution seems to be letting foreign workers make up the difference through high levels of imports. But the massive trade imbalance can't go on forever. At some point, the foreign producers are going to want more than promissory notes in exchange for goods. So we might well be driven to a more frugal and austere lifestyle. This won't come easy since the politicians who win office always seem to be the ones who most convincingly promise more prosperity and a better life style: a Chrystler Le Baron in every garage and a computer on every desk.

Its just as useless to mindlessly save your money, though. If you are not going to spend it, what good does it do?

Better to have money in the bank that you will never spend, than to have bills that you will never be able to pay.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

*sigh* I know. If only I had listened to my Father!

I fail to see how concentrating wealth in a few creates universal plenty. And there is no mechanism that prevents wealth stratification, rather capitalism encourages it - those with more have more resources to get more - feedback.I think your author is confusing capitalism with democratic government. (must be a conservative ... )

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well yes, thats his point. He claims that one given justification for capitalism and the desire for perpetual growth is to create peace through plenty. Which as you observe, isn't going to happen.Sorry for my lack of clarity in previous post.Edited by Sour, : Clarity

The purpose of government is to coerce people to behave according to the precepts of the government.In a just society the government's purpose is to coerce people to be just and fair in treating other people, especially those least inclined and best insulated from having to do so.This means forcing walmart to pay a fair workers wage rather than rake off obscene profits at the top eh?It's a balance between economy and governement that adjusts to the needs of the people (by the people for the people).Socialized medicine shows economic benefit to the government that is truly interested in covering everyone, capitalistic models can't do that.Capitalism encourages initiative and inventiveness and faster response to changing markets (needs).The question is recognizing when\where you need a universal program and when\where you need an individual program.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You know, that's exactly what my cousin told me a while back. He ended up having to borrow some money from me later on.Life for me is already comfortable enough. I must admit that, unlike most people, getting that extra large tv or that brand new convertible really doesn't make me feel any happier. In fact, I still occasionally ask my wife why we had to get a king size bed when a queen or full size was enough. When I go to the mall these days, I'd find myself having no desire at all to get anything.You remember our conversation in the chat room about me stocking up some food and water in the basement? It's not the everyday extravagant life that matter. It's that very stormy day that I'm afraid of.Edited by gasby, : different thoughts

You forgot the part where I only spent $2000 on it. I got it from a dead old woman a long time ago. Yes, it is relative. You must admit that not many people these days will settle for anything less than what they can get at the limit of their financial resources. And I wasn't talking about what people can or can't afford. I was talking more about how people are spending their resources.First world dwellers tend to spend more money buying things they will never use. In fact, according to the news last year, in the previous year Americans spent more money on wild bird seeds than the total amount for foreign aid. It is indeed a fact that more Americans owe mountains of credit card debts than ever before. Retired Elderlies are finding themselves having to go back to work to pay off these debts.Third world (tree) dwellers only get earthen floored huts and ox drawn carts because that's all they could afford. This so-called "problem" isn't really a problem. We have the highest national 'junk' output than any other country. Our standard of living is certainly among the highest, if not the highest, in the world. We spend more money and resources on the military each year than the rest of the world combined with their militaries. We import more useless junk from China than anyone else in the world.The only reason this "problem" is a problem is because no politician is willing to point out the bloody obvious, that we don't always need to buy the cheap crap from china, that we don't always need to get the most extravagant car (from japan), that we don't need to spend 3 freakin' billion dollars on a couple of helicopters that could outmaneuver what... UFOs? considering the fact that no other military organization in the world is anywhere near the level of technology, sophistication, and expenses that is the US military.So, to go back to the original point of this thread. Do we need to always go on a shopping spree to buy useless crap that were made in china to have a high standard of living?

Of course not.As long as you keep buying stuff from Taiwan you'll be fine.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

you do treat your workers better, no?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

The day we don't, the newspapers will be all over the story asking why, the workers will stage a strike, the demonstrations will be on TV, and any political party not being seen as responsive enough will pay for it at the ballot box.Better than China treats its workers? Hell, it's better than China treats everybody.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I agree with you, but I am caught in it also. I struggle with it.That whole attitude is one of the things that makes me look for God, because there has to be something more. Buying all that uneccessary stuff is nothing more than thrill seeking to me. We where made to worship God, and when we don't we need something to fill the void. That's how I see it now. It can make sense if you think about it.What games do you play?

What's the relationship between what we "need" and what we "want"?

I moved on beyond nintendo. Surprisingly enough, I still have the original nintendo box with about 150 games or so.The computer games I play are all at least a decade old. Can you explain more of what you're struggling with? I'm guessing that sometimes you have the urge to buy things you know are useless to some degree. Am I correct?