13 ms·

> "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin with, and this outcome is damaging or ugly. Well

> "Scar consumption" as a phrase assumes that consumption in the American style is a healthy activity to begin with, and this outcome is damaging or ugly. Well, not really. The basic problem is that production has to equal consumption. And so there are three possibilities: 1. People consume all of their income 2. People work less 3. People work, but get paid less In a fair economy, the third point won't happen. In a country that wants an internationally competitive economy, the second point can't happen. And so people have to consume 100% in order to work 100%; this choice maximizes tax revenue.

quantified 4y ago
If people consume less, they'll produce less. Not really a problem, certainly not for gasoline. You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that?
- heartbeats 4y ago
  If people produce less, the tax intake will be lower, which makes the country less competitive internationally. In particular, the smaller the GDP, the less military spending the country can support. If the country can not support a sufficient military spending owing to a lack of consumption (production), it will be conquered by someone who can, a bit like private equity buying out an unprofitable company with good potential. (c.f. Ukraine - very poor GDP, but decent possibilities for growth w.r.t. arable land, supply of young human capital, seaports, industry etc, thus currently undergoing hostile takeover) > You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that? There's no such thing as saving; if I save money, it's to consume it in the future eventually. So this has to cancel out over the long term. If people are saving money and never withdrawing (e.g. never using the freedom bought by the past work to avoid future work), that's fine too, but if they withdraw it, it decreases national production, so it only works if people are prevented from withdrawing savings, at which point nobody would keep them. Basically, people have to work, and this is the fundamental premise. That being said, the basic nature of the consumption is irrelevant. This is why digital services, gambling, and financial services are so important - it's much more socially efficient for people to dispose of $100 worth of money through slot machines or Netflix subscriptions or overdraft charges (all of which are effectively free to "produce" in terms of national resources) than by e.g. buying a new car, which requires actual steel and semiconductors and rubber and ... which require the expenditure of resources (land, labour, capital) in order to produce.
  - quantified 4y ago
    Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. You seem to be applying a macroeconomic template. Individuals can and do behave somewhat differently. I don't have any responsibility to prop up your economy with my spending and you have no responsibility to prop up mine, but please do. If I spend less and you spend more, I hope you spend it on my services and goods, so I get your money and you get my designer throw pillows or whatever. The vast majority of the wealth of the wealthy is in unrealized gains which may be spent someday, it sounds like you're calling them economically unproductive. I hope to pass my savings on to my heirs, and they can spend it or not as they see fit. I can also spend less on f**ing petroleum and spend more on something else, which is the point of this whole thread. Desiring not to spend, and desiring not to earn, are vastly different.
    - heartbeats 4y ago
      > Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. Correct. Theft is included in GDP, as is spoilage. As I said, it doesn't matter how 'good' people's consumption is, only that they consume. This being said, theft isn't ideal, because it could depress the prices for the items later on. Loss would be better. > You seem to be applying a macroeconomic template. Individuals can and do behave somewhat differently. That's correct, which is why the state - if it wishes to remain relevant - has to get them back in line, lest it be consumed by someone who does. > I don't have any responsibility to prop up your economy with my spending and you have no responsibility to prop up mine, but please do. If I spend less and you spend more, I hope you spend it on my services and goods, so I get your money and you get my designer throw pillows or whatever. You don't understand - it's not about "propping up an economy" - it's about making sure that people work. If you stop spending, there's a risk that it would cause you to stop working. This is the risk; the consumption itself is damaging for the economy, and it would be preferable that people lose their wages to less damaging forms of consumption (e.g. buying scalable forms of entertainment services) > The vast majority of the wealth of the wealthy is in unrealized gains which may be spent someday, it sounds like you're calling them economically unproductive. The money isn't economically unproductive, because money isn't what makes production, but people can be unproductive, and this is the risk. In practice, the losses from this are very small, because it's held by a rather small billionaire elite, and so the losses to rentiers don't actually end up in a lot of real-world consumption. > Desiring not to spend, and desiring not to earn, are vastly different. Different, perhaps, but they are brothers. Spending = earnings + borrowing, or, conversely, earnings = spending + saving. If you don't consume, your net saving goes up, and those savings are like a ticking time-bomb that can be sprung on the economy at any time to seriously cut the GDP. It's correct to say that you can spend less on petroleum and more on other stuff. It's even more correct to say that, from the macro-economic view, you have to. (And if you don't want, you will be forced to)

quantified 4y ago

If people consume less, they'll produce less. Not really a problem, certainly not for gasoline. You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that?

heartbeats 4y ago
If people produce less, the tax intake will be lower, which makes the country less competitive internationally. In particular, the smaller the GDP, the less military spending the country can support. If the country can not support a sufficient military spending owing to a lack of consumption (production), it will be conquered by someone who can, a bit like private equity buying out an unprofitable company with good potential. (c.f. Ukraine - very poor GDP, but decent possibilities for growth w.r.t. arable land, supply of young human capital, seaports, industry etc, thus currently undergoing hostile takeover) > You assume people don't even consider saving somehow. Why is that? There's no such thing as saving; if I save money, it's to consume it in the future eventually. So this has to cancel out over the long term. If people are saving money and never withdrawing (e.g. never using the freedom bought by the past work to avoid future work), that's fine too, but if they withdraw it, it decreases national production, so it only works if people are prevented from withdrawing savings, at which point nobody would keep them. Basically, people have to work, and this is the fundamental premise. That being said, the basic nature of the consumption is irrelevant. This is why digital services, gambling, and financial services are so important - it's much more socially efficient for people to dispose of $100 worth of money through slot machines or Netflix subscriptions or overdraft charges (all of which are effectively free to "produce" in terms of national resources) than by e.g. buying a new car, which requires actual steel and semiconductors and rubber and ... which require the expenditure of resources (land, labour, capital) in order to produce.
- quantified 4y ago
  Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. You seem to be applying a macroeconomic template. Individuals can and do behave somewhat differently. I don't have any responsibility to prop up your economy with my spending and you have no responsibility to prop up mine, but please do. If I spend less and you spend more, I hope you spend it on my services and goods, so I get your money and you get my designer throw pillows or whatever. The vast majority of the wealth of the wealthy is in unrealized gains which may be spent someday, it sounds like you're calling them economically unproductive. I hope to pass my savings on to my heirs, and they can spend it or not as they see fit. I can also spend less on f**ing petroleum and spend more on something else, which is the point of this whole thread. Desiring not to spend, and desiring not to earn, are vastly different.
  - heartbeats 4y ago
    > Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. Correct. Theft is included in GDP, as is spoilage. As I said, it doesn't matter how 'good' people's consumption is, only that they consume. This being said, theft isn't ideal, because it could depress the prices for the items later on. Loss would be better. > You seem to be applying a macroeconomic template. Individuals can and do behave somewhat differently. That's correct, which is why the state - if it wishes to remain relevant - has to get them back in line, lest it be consumed by someone who does. > I don't have any responsibility to prop up your economy with my spending and you have no responsibility to prop up mine, but please do. If I spend less and you spend more, I hope you spend it on my services and goods, so I get your money and you get my designer throw pillows or whatever. You don't understand - it's not about "propping up an economy" - it's about making sure that people work. If you stop spending, there's a risk that it would cause you to stop working. This is the risk; the consumption itself is damaging for the economy, and it would be preferable that people lose their wages to less damaging forms of consumption (e.g. buying scalable forms of entertainment services) > The vast majority of the wealth of the wealthy is in unrealized gains which may be spent someday, it sounds like you're calling them economically unproductive. The money isn't economically unproductive, because money isn't what makes production, but people can be unproductive, and this is the risk. In practice, the losses from this are very small, because it's held by a rather small billionaire elite, and so the losses to rentiers don't actually end up in a lot of real-world consumption. > Desiring not to spend, and desiring not to earn, are vastly different. Different, perhaps, but they are brothers. Spending = earnings + borrowing, or, conversely, earnings = spending + saving. If you don't consume, your net saving goes up, and those savings are like a ticking time-bomb that can be sprung on the economy at any time to seriously cut the GDP. It's correct to say that you can spend less on petroleum and more on other stuff. It's even more correct to say that, from the macro-economic view, you have to. (And if you don't want, you will be forced to)