5 ms·
Well, the good news is that overspending also stimulates the economy. For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need, that's
by TrackerFF 10mo ago
Well, the good news is that overspending also stimulates the economy. For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need, that's also some other persons salary.
But as others have mentioned, reckless / impulse spending can also be a sign of conditions like depression, BPD, ADHD, and the list goes on...
- Epa095 10mo agoPaying someone to break a window, and then someone else to fix it, will also stimulate the economy. But it's clearly not a rational use of our time here on earth.
- jfindper 10mo agoDon't need to be rational all the time for your whole life. Sometimes you just want an extra sandwich. Many of my most memorable moments stem from from a bout of irrationality.
- tsunamifury 10mo agoYou aren’t really aware of the realities of the modern economy are you. Games like these are everywhere. I mean this comment is like the epitome of sweet summer child.
- pjerem 10mo agoAnd ? How does that changes the second sentence of gp ? "But it's clearly not a rational use of our time here on earth"
- tsunamifury 10mo agoBecause the alternative game for 10,000 years has been war and violence. Please read the Price of Peace.
- pjerem 10mo agoAdding it to my reading list. But still, are you saying that I'd better consume things I actually don't need because that's the only way to avoid war ? I'm not saying that you should stop buying things. We need objects in our life. But are Apple Watches, Airpods or VR headsets or foldable phones protecting us from war ? I hope not because that sounds depressing. (Asking genuine qestion, I'm not doing virtue signaling here, I do own a VR headset, a pair of airpods and an Apple Watch and none of those objects are making me happy actually)
- tsunamifury 10mo agoThe price of peace historically explains how most war is faught over resources or local status games. Both of those behaviors were mostly captured by world trade and consumerism which replaced each respectively. But then what emerged is that the largest consumer engines of production and consumptions could control the global trade and resources in a way that would suppress warfare globally by creating an economic MAD game alongside the nuclear one. People don’t understand how much violence this likely saved us. However it is of course not without consequences. I'm just saying so far the side effects have FAR FAR outweighed the sickness (world war)
- seec 10mo agoWhile I understand the sentiment, it is important to distinguish between mindless consumption and wanting a better quality of life. Buying all kinds of useless crap (usually items of small value and little utility) should not be conflated with wanting to have better things. Better quality house, appliances, clothes, etc. It is the latter that is useful and brings peace. People won't get too mad if their neighbors have more stuff as long as their stuff allows them a pretty good quality of life. But problems arise when you cannot buy the better stuff to improve your life and instead the focus is redirected to stupid items. This is what the article is about, in my opinion. In the end, filling your house with gadgets and gizmos of dubious usefulness/quality does not improve your life substantially. But this is what much of the population has been relegated to, and it has a soul-crushing effect.
- blitz_skull 10mo agoCan you cite an example?
- Epa095 10mo ago> You aren’t really aware of the realities of the modern economy are you. OK, but you did recognise that it was a reference to the parable of the broken window by the 'sweet summer child' Claude-Frédéric Bastiat?
- tsunamifury 10mo agoYes and it's completely falsely applied, and maybe even arguably wrong to begin with. It's moralizing not reality. Geeze guy, do you not get this?
- Epa095 10mo agoNo, I don't get 'this', because you have not actually said anything. Across this post and the ones above it you have pretty much only insulted me witouth saying anything I can either understand or misunderstand, because there is no content. In a sibling I see that you actually drop the name of a book, as if you expect the world to read a book to respond to you. I propose you formulate your argument, if you actually have something to say. Even if it is a summary of a book, summarise it into a argument which is relevant for this conversation. Who knows, maybe even I manage to understand you then.
- tsunamifury 10mo agoMy guy, the fundamentals of Neoliberalism are like newtonian physics at this point, if it's not my job to explain them for you from first principles. Born out of WW2 and specifically thrived from 'fixing the broken window of Europe and Japan.' But basically speaking, games of destruction can be obviously extremely economical incentivized regardless of what humans call 'productive.' And economies and markets have never ever promised to be narrowly productive for a specific moral world view. Quite the opposite actually. Please don't claim insult where basic knowledge is simply lacking.
- taeric 10mo agoReplace window with house, and you basically described a lot of the market? There are also interesting efficiencies in there. Fixing a window is not as quick as just replacing it.
- yoavm 10mo agoNot sure I understood your comment. How often do you pay people to break your house / phone / car, just so you can pay someone (else) to fix it?
- taeric 10mo agoI presume you just mean the farcical "break a perfectly working thing" idea. But, demolition is a thing. Similarly, turning a usable vehicle in for scrap is also a thing.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- pjerem 10mo ago> For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need But that's also a toll to the environment.
- lesuorac 10mo agoThat's easy to solve. Just encourage them to take part in some low-cost digital alternative like Sports Predictions.
- lazide 10mo agoReally the problem is that we are alive?
- komali2 10mo agoIt's pretty easy to be alive and not harm the environment in the outsized way we do. We have the technology!
- tsunamifury 10mo agoWe do not. We simply moved your outsized impact to places you do not see.
- komali2 10mo agoHmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.
- lazide 10mo agoThere is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
- 10mo ago
- kingofmen 10mo agoIf someone drinks a cup of coffee, there is one less cup of coffee in the world. The money that other people get is just a piece of paper, it is not useful for anything. Wasteful consumption of real resources is not 'stimulus', it is just waste.
- SilasX 10mo agoBut that's a false benefit. You don't want to stimulate the economy for the sake of it, you want to stimulate the economy to the extent that it satisfies genuine human wants. It would be better if that other person's salary came from doing so, not from Making Number Go Up.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 10mo agoIt's still a waste. If you saved that money for an emergency, you might not need to take on debt in the future. If you invested it, you might help start a business that people need. Or you might help yourself retire sooner. Spending for the sake of spending is silly.