The FT notes this morning that 'a 30-year trend of trade growing at twice the speed of the global economy has ended'.
There is wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect of the crash to follow. But I suggest another hypothesis. It is that materially many (by no means all) simply have enough 'stuff' now and the idea that growth is dependent upon forever having more may be an extrapolation that simply does not hold true anymore.
Three thoughts then follow. The first is that the time for redistribution of material well being is already long overdue and should now happen.
The second is that if we have enough stuff what will the impact be on services?
And thirdly, just possibly, might this suggest we can move to a more enlightened era where the achievement of potential and not the accumulation of material goods becomes the goal of society? I know it's a long shot, but it has to be mentioned.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I don’t think your third thought is as such a long shot as it might seem. People need to be introduced to that narrative. When they are, in my experience, they by and large get it.
So the challenge is getting the narrative heard.
Like many I’m sure, I’d like more stuff. There doesn’t seem to be the opportunity ro earn the money to buy with with though, unlike a few years ago. This shouldn’t be confused with my having becoming in some way sated, as you seem to suggest. I fancy quite a few things, just haven’t worked out where the money’s going to come from yet.
Well done for posting this, Richard. Readers of your admirable blog might be interested to know that Earth Overshoot Day this year was August 20. That’s the day when humanity exhausted nature’s budget for the year.
We have known for some time now that, in developed societies, economic growth doesn’t make us happier. In fact we make foolish sacrifices – working too many hours and destroying our countryside.
In the “developed world” we have more than enough. We just need to find some new values and share the wealth more fairly.
But if we’re not buying “stuff” then some people will not get filthy rich.
John M -they ARE getting filthy rich whether we buy or not!! The City can still get rich even if the rest of the country were a waste land! There is a sort of virtual reality machine circulating digital wealth based on nothing but a confidence trick-it’s a bit like the cartoon characters that don’t plummet to the bottom of the canyon until they look down and realise they are walking on nothing!
I don’t get it. If you feel that you have too much “stuff”, why not give some of it away?
Oh, you mean that other people should be forced to give their stuff away. I’m with you now.
OK. Carry on.
The achievement of potential has always been a goal of mankind. If things can be done, they can be done better. If things can be made, they can be made better. I don’t think that this is some “new era” you’re proposing.
Takind the “stuff” from the best amongst us that enables them to do this (and so drag the rest of us up with them) is likely going to prove counter-productive, though.
That also has to be mentioned.
Even if what you say is true, can we not try another way and see if that too might work?
I think you’ll find that it’s already been tried.
For an analysis of “Stuff” the 20 minute film “The Story of Stuff” is a useful starting point.
One interesting segment points out that in the 1950’s designers were openly discussing in their trade mags how to design stuff WORSE. Reason being that if the “stuff” stops working or breaks after 6 months the customer will have to buy another.
And this built-in onsolescence, whjether real or perceived, continues. In the US 99% of consumer goods are thrown away after 6 months, says the film.
No doubt the wevbsite gives sources for this and other crazy stats in the film.
Highly recommended.
“The story of Stuff” brings a pretty gloomy message but I learnt, yesterday in fact, that there sre a further 6 films including “The story of Change”
I’ve never been into the accumulation of stuff and enjoy the challenge of living with little. In recent years, lack of money has forced me to push this further including acclimating myself to a colder house! Being countercultural can be fun as you have the satisfaction of not buying into the system too much. This approach can bring psychological challenges because you need to find meaning and purpose elsewhere, this is not always easy!
I look forward to a culture that, in Fromm’s famous words, puts being before having.
We are coerced to consume by politicians and corporations who tell us the economy needs to grow forever. In fact, if bank debt and obscene profits were taken out of the equation, the benefits of the massive leaps and bounds in productivity that technology has furnished us with could mean we could work much fewer hours in the week, possibly 25 per week, and still create more stuff than we will probably ever need.
Without paying such massive dividends to shareholders and, more importantly, having to pay forever compounding interest charges to the banks, the economy could grow naturally and produce according to it’s needs rather to satisfy obscene profits and bank interest.
Think of it…..an economy that is run largely for the benefit of everyone, not just those at the top!
The planet would benefit, and people would benefit medically as there will be less illnesses brought on by stress caused by long hours at work.
All that would be really needed to realise this would be to properly redistribute wealth and not allow just a handful of individuals to cream off 90 percent of the wealth.
Much of this could be achieved by nationalising banking or imposing a 100 percent reserve onto private banks. This can be achieved by help from the government. One half of the reserve could be paid for by the state (with the priviso that the money goes towards loans for productive capacity) and the other half by shareholders who are willing to put their money up for the bank to use.
In short, take away the power to create money from the banks and put it in the hands of the people instead!
“The first is that the time for redistribution of material well being is already long overdue and should now happen.”
So, will you now endorse and support tithing?
Your logic defeats me
“Think of it…..an economy that is run largely for the benefit of everyone, not just those at the top!”
For that reason alone it will never happen. the country is run by, and for the ##benefits## of, those at the top.
“The planet would benefit, and people would benefit medically as there will be less illnesses brought on by stress caused by long hours at work”
And less actual physical ailments caused by poor working conditions in Britains poorly-run production units. Check-out the deaths from industrial disease and accidents, and the long-term disabilities as well. Not to worry…de-regulation will solve all the problems (did I forget to mention that the vast majority of business could give a rats about regulations?)
The disabilities no longer matter, they’ve been ATTOSSED away.