stimulate consumption to help economy-stupid, stupid, stupid
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    Unlabeled
    Reputation: Reynolds531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,720

    stimulate consumption to help economy-stupid, stupid, stupid

    In the U.S. per capita solid wastes total 1600 lbs annually. We have 5% of the world's population, yet consume 24% of the energy. The average size of a new house has gone from 900 square feet in 1950 to 1500 s.f. in 1997, to 2300 s.f. now, while families have gotten smaller. We have about 30% of the worlds vehicles, and the collective fleet is the biggest and most inefficient on Earth. We have more clothes, more shoes, more food, more toys. Meanwhile, personal savings rate is at the lowest and personal debrt is at the highest in this century. Yet with all this consumption, happiness and contentment has steadily declined.

    Both candidates want to stimulate consumerism. It is absurd to think that we can improve society in the United States by consuming more. I'd vote for any candidate who would say "You big fat self-absorbed pigs need to quit defining your life by what you buy."

  2. #2
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    60,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Continental
    In the U.S. per capita solid wastes total 1600 lbs annually. We have 5% of the world's population, yet consume 24% of the energy. The average size of a new house has gone from 900 square feet in 1950 to 1500 s.f. in 1997, to 2300 s.f. now, while families have gotten smaller. We have about 30% of the worlds vehicles, and the collective fleet is the biggest and most inefficient on Earth. We have more clothes, more shoes, more food, more toys. Meanwhile, personal savings rate is at the lowest and personal debrt is at the highest in this century. Yet with all this consumption, happiness and contentment has steadily declined.

    Both candidates want to stimulate consumerism. It is absurd to think that we can improve society in the United States by consuming more. I'd vote for any candidate who would say "You big fat self-absorbed pigs need to quit defining your life by what you buy."
    I'm guessing that $1000 Bush put in our pockets is long gone for most people.
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  3. #3

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    economy?

    What makes the economy run, creating jobs, which feed people, etc? What happens if people do not consume, therefore do not exchange money, which creates jobs...

    Would you rather be unemployed but feel good that you're not wasting?

  4. #4
    Shirtcocker
    Reputation: Bocephus Jones II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    60,637
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    What makes the economy run, creating jobs, which feed people, etc? What happens if people do not consume, therefore do not exchange money, which creates jobs...

    Would you rather be unemployed but feel good that you're not wasting?
    People need to get a handle on what "disposable income" is. I see people making decent money that can't pay their bills and have huge debts. Maybe they should have waited on that big screen TV or those 10 DVDs they bought at Target last week.
    "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." -S. Hawking

  5. #5

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079

    There is consumption. . .

    . . .and then there is excessive consumption. Somewhere between the original poster's point and your strawman are people who earn and spend without accumulating needless waste and personal debt.

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    economy

    Quote Originally Posted by czardonic
    . . .and then there is excessive consumption. Somewhere between the original poster's point and your strawman are people who earn and spend without accumulating needless waste and personal debt.
    There's no strawman there, unless you don't believe that spending is what runs the economy. We're talking about the economy and what makes it run, not just consumption in a vacuum. If people reduce spending, what happens to the economy?

    Now, there can be smart spending and smart consumption, depending upon choices you make, but that's still consumption. You can actually spend more money to get a dishwasher that uses less energy, for example, and replace your old energy hog dishwasher. That sort of consumption is actually smart on several levels -- creates jobs, tax consequences, and saves energy.

    I don't know how personal debt got into the discussion. I didn't suggest that people go into debt to stimulate the economy.

  7. #7
    Unlabeled
    Reputation: Reynolds531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,720

    Fundemental problem with structure of the economy

    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    What makes the economy run, creating jobs, which feed people, etc? What happens if people do not consume, therefore do not exchange money, which creates jobs...

    Would you rather be unemployed but feel good that you're not wasting?
    You point out a basic problem with our economic structure. Employment and so-called prosperity require ever increasing consumption, yet ever increasing consumption is not sustainable. I find myself moving more and more towards the conclusion that there needs to be fundemental reforms in our economy. Free market capitilism needs to be more regulated and controlled. Wealth needs to be partially redistributed.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Continental
    You point out a basic problem with our economic structure. Employment and so-called prosperity require ever increasing consumption, yet ever increasing consumption is not sustainable. I find myself moving more and more towards the conclusion that there needs to be fundemental reforms in our economy. Free market capitilism needs to be more regulated and controlled. Wealth needs to be partially redistributed.
    Thousands of years of human history says you are dead wrong.

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    There's no strawman there, unless you don't believe that spending is what runs the economy.
    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    What happens if people do not consume, therefore do not exchange money, which creates jobs...

    Would you rather be unemployed but feel good that you're not wasting?
    Nobody needs to choose between unemployment and wasteful consumption. Trading up your dishwasher for a more efficient model is not wasteful consumption. A single person toting themselves around in an H2 is wasteful consumption. Which brings up another point about wasteful consumption: There is necessary consumption, and there is wasteful consumption. Not to mention wasteful consumption. But you also have to consider wasteful consumption. Did I mention wasteful consumption?

    If you don't think that personal debt is germane to our economy. . .
    Last edited by czardonic; 10-14-2004 at 09:47 AM. Reason: sp

  10. #10

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Did you study hisory in the same program that Bush got his degree from?

  11. #11
    Opus was just napping
    Reputation: thatsmybush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    19,663
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthman_1
    Thousands of years of human history says you are dead wrong.

    I for one would love to read your extrapolation on this sentence.
    In the time of battle you don't rise to the occasion you resort to the level of your conditioning...

  12. #12

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    Yale?

    Yale or Harvard?

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    wasteful?

    I never suggested being wasteful, and I don't think anyone has. "Consumption" does not necessarily mean wasteful. You can consume without being wasteful. Doing nothing doesn't help the economy, though.

  14. #14

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Yale home for clueless, rich little snots. I believe the proceeds from this operation are used to fund a top notch educational institution.

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Gosh, I guess eveyone who suggested that people either consume or do nothing needs to reconsider their argument.

  16. #16

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    oh, like...

    Quote Originally Posted by czardonic
    Yale home for clueless, rich little snots.
    Like...Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Bob Woodward...

    pretty big list http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Yal..._United_States

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079
    Yep, all those hateful Communists! A few of which earned their spot and appear to have taken advantage of the opportunity.

  18. #18

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    of course!

    Quote Originally Posted by czardonic
    Yep, all those hateful Communists! A few of which earned their spot and appear to have taken advantage of the opportunity.
    Liberals who attend Yale are geniuses. Conservatives are rich little snots. Is that how it works? Probably fits your world view in general, doesn't it?

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    3,079

    Could be a conicidence.

    You were only able to list successful, articulate "liberals", and I only referred to one ignorant dunce who has failed at every endeavor that couldn't be bailed out by his father's rich buddies.

  20. #20
    128
    128 is offline
    With the Radio On...
    Reputation: 128's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    965

    the last 100 says he's more correct than not

    ....5

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthman_1
    Thousands of years of human history says you are dead wrong.

  21. #21
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,484

    Bob Woodward is dumb as owlsh!t. I bet he's

    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Liberals who attend Yale are geniuses. Conservatives are rich little snots. Is that how it works? Probably fits your world view in general, doesn't it?
    a legacy admission like Bush. Lieberman is only half-bright. Why people think he's such a sage is beyond me. He was probably -- sorry! -- a quota admission. That leaves Bill and Hillary who, whether you like 'em or not, you have to concede are bright enough to be legit Yalies, and poor enough to have been admitted on their own scholastic merits.

    Just to set the record straight.

    EDIT: Oh, and Kerry. Brains AND money. No doubt Yale slobbered over him.

  22. #22

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Posts
    3,567

    lots more

    Quote Originally Posted by OldEdScott
    a legacy admission like Bush. Lieberman is only half-bright. Why people think he's such a sage is beyond me. He was probably -- sorry! -- a quota admission. That leaves Bill and Hillary who, whether you like 'em or not, you have to concede are bright enough to be legit Yalies, and poor enough to have been admitted on their own scholastic merits.

    Just to set the record straight.
    Ok, still have lots more. Cheney is the genius Dr Evil, isn't he? Bush Sr, William Howard Taft, John Ashcroft (another genius Dr Evil, right?), a slew of Supreme Court justices, William Buckley (maybe the smartest man alive, if vocabulary is any measure)...

    You think czar overplayed the stupid rich kid characterization?

  23. #23
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,484

    I deny Ashcroft is bright; never mind his policies, which

    Quote Originally Posted by DougSloan
    Ok, still have lots more. Cheney is the genius Dr Evil, isn't he? Bush Sr, William Howard Taft, John Ashcroft (another genius Dr Evil, right?), a slew of Supreme Court justices, William Buckley (maybe the smartest man alive, if vocabulary is any measure)...

    You think czar overplayed the stupid rich kid characterization?
    isn't the issue, he just comes across as thick and ordinary. Frankly, I always thought he was a slow-witted boozer, till I learned he was a huge teetotaling Christer. The others I have no quarrel with.

    I think czar's point is, there are TWO Yales: The Yale of legacy admissions where big bucks flow to the school in exchange for charitably admitting and giving degrees to the children of the ruling class, and the 'real' Yale. As he said: "I believe the proceeds from this operation [Legacy Yale] are used to fund a top notch educational institution."

    Remember, I don't think Bush is stupid. But I guarantee you if his last name were Edscott and he was the son of redneck Kentuckians, he'd never have been admitted. And that is a fact.

  24. #24
    Unlabeled
    Reputation: Reynolds531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,720

    The history of consumption

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthman_1
    Thousands of years of human history says you are dead wrong.
    More resources have been consumed by the United States since 1950 than were consumed by all of mankind who lived before 1950. There has not been thousands of years of ever-expanding consumerism. How could history say I'm dead wrong?

  25. #25
    Seeking shades of grey
    Reputation: Duane Gran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,804
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthman_1
    Thousands of years of human history says you are dead wrong.
    Would that be the history where a few have controlled the resources and means of production of the masses? I rather think the historical norm is a glaring argument for wealth distribution.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. DOH! Stupid economy.
    By bill105 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.