4 ms·

I understand that there are many ways of looking at it, but this seems backwards to me. Consumption does not meaningfully grow the economy; it shrinks it. Once

I understand that there are many ways of looking at it, but this seems backwards to me. Consumption does not meaningfully grow the economy; it shrinks it. Once something is consumed, it is used up, gone, no longer available. The notion of consumption being almost some sort of civic duty that appears to be pushed recently (for example, as a rationale for returning to city offices) seems to me like absolute nonsense.

mateo411 5y ago
> I understand that there are many ways of looking at it, but this seems backwards to me. Consumption does not meaningfully grow the economy; it shrinks it. Once something is consumed, it is used up, gone, no longer available. This doesn't seem right to me. If I buy food from the grocery store and eat it, does that shrink the economy? If I enjoy a meal at a restaurant and tip the server, does that shrink the economy? I think both of those actions grow the economy. Both of these actions would grow the country's GDP. Even though I don't agree with the reasoning, it is interesting. Essentially since a material has been used, and is no longer available, now the whole economy is poorer. There are different ways of measuring wealth, and you seem to be endorsing the amount of materials that an economy has determines its total wealth.
- agent008t 5y ago
  If you buy food and eat it, you have personally used it, perhaps enjoyed it, and consumed it. All the effort, materials etc. that went into making the food and getting it to you - have been 'used up', by you. Now, insofar as the goal of the economy is people's enjoyment of stuff, it served its goal, which is great. But don't think that by consuming the food you did everyone else (the economy) any good - you didn't. You personally benefitted, which is great, and used up the resources - people's time and effort as well as materials that went into it. A better illustration would be you commissioning a yacht for yourself, using it recklessly and sinking it (with its value going to 0 - i.e. you consuming all of the value). How did the economy benefit? Engineers that could have worked on better problems, e.g. automating labour, instead spent their time on your yacht. So did workers. So did all the people to procure the materials. And now all of that is at the bottom of the ocean, benefitting nobody. But you had your fun while consuming this product. GDP is a lousy measure of a success of an economy. The point of an economy is to serve the needs of the people - sometimes it seems that some people believe it is the other way round, and people exist to 'grow the GDP'. If people are happy with consuming less, they can work less - what's so bad about that? Or they can invest instead of consuming - that is, work hard now so that they can work less in the future (or have more/better stuff). It is the investment, production and innovation that grows the economy in a meaningful sense (or getting access to cheaper labour, which does not seem very ethical). Encouraging consumption under the guise of benefitting the economy is absurd.
- agent008t 5y ago
  Put more succinctly, if people suddenly are just as happy with less consumption (e.g. due to covid changing people's habits and setting them back on the hedonic treadmill), that should be celebrated and encouraged. Overall enjoyment per unit of work has gone up, and it's great! We now have to do less work to be just as happy and satisfied. The newly spare capacity can now go into making our lives better in more lasting ways than immediate consumption! E.g. automation, healthcare improvements, making our habitats more pleasant, etc. Or simply go towards leisure, which is fine too!

mateo411 5y ago

> I understand that there are many ways of looking at it, but this seems backwards to me. Consumption does not meaningfully grow the economy; it shrinks it. Once something is consumed, it is used up, gone, no longer available. This doesn't seem right to me. If I buy food from the grocery store and eat it, does that shrink the economy? If I enjoy a meal at a restaurant and tip the server, does that shrink the economy? I think both of those actions grow the economy. Both of these actions would grow the country's GDP. Even though I don't agree with the reasoning, it is interesting. Essentially since a material has been used, and is no longer available, now the whole economy is poorer. There are different ways of measuring wealth, and you seem to be endorsing the amount of materials that an economy has determines its total wealth.

agent008t 5y ago
If you buy food and eat it, you have personally used it, perhaps enjoyed it, and consumed it. All the effort, materials etc. that went into making the food and getting it to you - have been 'used up', by you. Now, insofar as the goal of the economy is people's enjoyment of stuff, it served its goal, which is great. But don't think that by consuming the food you did everyone else (the economy) any good - you didn't. You personally benefitted, which is great, and used up the resources - people's time and effort as well as materials that went into it. A better illustration would be you commissioning a yacht for yourself, using it recklessly and sinking it (with its value going to 0 - i.e. you consuming all of the value). How did the economy benefit? Engineers that could have worked on better problems, e.g. automating labour, instead spent their time on your yacht. So did workers. So did all the people to procure the materials. And now all of that is at the bottom of the ocean, benefitting nobody. But you had your fun while consuming this product. GDP is a lousy measure of a success of an economy. The point of an economy is to serve the needs of the people - sometimes it seems that some people believe it is the other way round, and people exist to 'grow the GDP'. If people are happy with consuming less, they can work less - what's so bad about that? Or they can invest instead of consuming - that is, work hard now so that they can work less in the future (or have more/better stuff). It is the investment, production and innovation that grows the economy in a meaningful sense (or getting access to cheaper labour, which does not seem very ethical). Encouraging consumption under the guise of benefitting the economy is absurd.
agent008t 5y ago
Put more succinctly, if people suddenly are just as happy with less consumption (e.g. due to covid changing people's habits and setting them back on the hedonic treadmill), that should be celebrated and encouraged. Overall enjoyment per unit of work has gone up, and it's great! We now have to do less work to be just as happy and satisfied. The newly spare capacity can now go into making our lives better in more lasting ways than immediate consumption! E.g. automation, healthcare improvements, making our habitats more pleasant, etc. Or simply go towards leisure, which is fine too!