World Turned upside down

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]I think that sdrealtor and Arraya are both right.

We do expect to consume a lot more these days; and we do. That had driven economic growth more toward consumption and less to investments on improving productivity.

But that’s what increasing standard of living is all about — having more stuff. By that standard, Americans live better than ever.

Arraya is saying that more stuff is not what’s important to standard of living. Fed by marketing that push our psychological buttons, our consumption society is inducing more stress and anxiety on a population that’s driven to consume.[/quote]

No doubt, cyclical consumption is pushed in certain ways with people following through – whether “keeping up with the jones” is more or less prevalent now than a generation ago is hard to discern. I’d say it probably is – but to any meaningful extent beyond the detrimental changes that were out of their hands, probably not. Shopping does serve a function like it does with alcohol to addicts and if you understand the addict brain – it has zero to do with will power.

Still Elizabeth Warrens presentation was pretty conclusive in the increased uncontrollable expenses and risks to the modern family.

An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]
An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.[/quote]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]
An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.[/quote]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]
An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.[/quote]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]
An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.[/quote]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…

[UCGal]

[quote=Arraya]
An article just came out saying that 2/3rd of all Americans don’t have $1000 dollars incase of an emergency. I bet you could put another 15 % on top of that with no significant savings. That is a social disaster waiting to happen regardless of fault.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a portion of these people are “over consuming” – have high debt loads and no savings because of this. What happens to employment(in a 70% consumption based economy) if that consumption goes away? Those “unhealthy” patterns of behavior might be saving a lot of jobs!

So, it appears, that “over consumption” and the anxiety that drives it serves a purpose? Are these people being irresponsible or doing what society asks of them?

Another interesting set of data came out. It said 75% of the people think the economy is headed in the wrong direction. While, at the same time, consumer spending was going up, markedly. What does this tell us? It’s either that people, knowing the economy is going into the toilet are trying to help out OR depressed people shop more!

It’s like a big debt-anxiety-consumption driven treadmill that is about to fly off the tracks.[/quote]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…

[Arraya]

[quote=UCGal]]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…[/quote]

Well I think number 2 is very likely and number one might even fit into some sort of compulsion category.

I would also say, that much of the middle class, is not middle class, they are poor and it is masked with debt or living beyond their means – enabled by easy money. Though, this segment probably constitutes very little to the overall economy in overall dollar value, but a big number of people. We just may also have a another big segment of people pushing it a little further than they should, which constitutes a good deal more to the economy. We also have a small percentage(25%?) living within their means and a small amount of them living very extravagant lifestyles that are worshipped with these “life-style images” showered, from every form of media source possible, over people 24/7. Constant imagery of the “good life” from birth to death must have some effect on people – if you are poor you have no dignity or respect and you are what you own, is our value system. As well as presidents telling people to GO SHOPPING. Why, I just don’t understand what is wrong with these people trying to “live beyond their means” there must be something wrong with them – these people need to be punished!

Coupled with the systemic wrecking ball the Elizabeth Warren describes makes it an even more precarious situation.

But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?

[Arraya]

[quote=UCGal]]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…[/quote]

Well I think number 2 is very likely and number one might even fit into some sort of compulsion category.

I would also say, that much of the middle class, is not middle class, they are poor and it is masked with debt or living beyond their means – enabled by easy money. Though, this segment probably constitutes very little to the overall economy in overall dollar value, but a big number of people. We just may also have a another big segment of people pushing it a little further than they should, which constitutes a good deal more to the economy. We also have a small percentage(25%?) living within their means and a small amount of them living very extravagant lifestyles that are worshipped with these “life-style images” showered, from every form of media source possible, over people 24/7. Constant imagery of the “good life” from birth to death must have some effect on people – if you are poor you have no dignity or respect and you are what you own, is our value system. As well as presidents telling people to GO SHOPPING. Why, I just don’t understand what is wrong with these people trying to “live beyond their means” there must be something wrong with them – these people need to be punished!

Coupled with the systemic wrecking ball the Elizabeth Warren describes makes it an even more precarious situation.

But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?

[Arraya]

[quote=UCGal]]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…[/quote]

Well I think number 2 is very likely and number one might even fit into some sort of compulsion category.

I would also say, that much of the middle class, is not middle class, they are poor and it is masked with debt or living beyond their means – enabled by easy money. Though, this segment probably constitutes very little to the overall economy in overall dollar value, but a big number of people. We just may also have a another big segment of people pushing it a little further than they should, which constitutes a good deal more to the economy. We also have a small percentage(25%?) living within their means and a small amount of them living very extravagant lifestyles that are worshipped with these “life-style images” showered, from every form of media source possible, over people 24/7. Constant imagery of the “good life” from birth to death must have some effect on people – if you are poor you have no dignity or respect and you are what you own, is our value system. As well as presidents telling people to GO SHOPPING. Why, I just don’t understand what is wrong with these people trying to “live beyond their means” there must be something wrong with them – these people need to be punished!

Coupled with the systemic wrecking ball the Elizabeth Warren describes makes it an even more precarious situation.

But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?

[Arraya]

[quote=UCGal]]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…[/quote]

Well I think number 2 is very likely and number one might even fit into some sort of compulsion category.

I would also say, that much of the middle class, is not middle class, they are poor and it is masked with debt or living beyond their means – enabled by easy money. Though, this segment probably constitutes very little to the overall economy in overall dollar value, but a big number of people. We just may also have a another big segment of people pushing it a little further than they should, which constitutes a good deal more to the economy. We also have a small percentage(25%?) living within their means and a small amount of them living very extravagant lifestyles that are worshipped with these “life-style images” showered, from every form of media source possible, over people 24/7. Constant imagery of the “good life” from birth to death must have some effect on people – if you are poor you have no dignity or respect and you are what you own, is our value system. As well as presidents telling people to GO SHOPPING. Why, I just don’t understand what is wrong with these people trying to “live beyond their means” there must be something wrong with them – these people need to be punished!

Coupled with the systemic wrecking ball the Elizabeth Warren describes makes it an even more precarious situation.

But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?

[Arraya]

[quote=UCGal]]

I wonder if the increased consumption is due to two subconscious thought patterns
* people realizing in their gut that there is no return on savings/investment in the current climate, so why save when that new item can be used/consumed right now.
* people realize that the economy is bad and unemployment is high.. but there is denial it could happen to them… they feel that their jobs are secure/immune…[/quote]

Well I think number 2 is very likely and number one might even fit into some sort of compulsion category.

I would also say, that much of the middle class, is not middle class, they are poor and it is masked with debt or living beyond their means – enabled by easy money. Though, this segment probably constitutes very little to the overall economy in overall dollar value, but a big number of people. We just may also have a another big segment of people pushing it a little further than they should, which constitutes a good deal more to the economy. We also have a small percentage(25%?) living within their means and a small amount of them living very extravagant lifestyles that are worshipped with these “life-style images” showered, from every form of media source possible, over people 24/7. Constant imagery of the “good life” from birth to death must have some effect on people – if you are poor you have no dignity or respect and you are what you own, is our value system. As well as presidents telling people to GO SHOPPING. Why, I just don’t understand what is wrong with these people trying to “live beyond their means” there must be something wrong with them – these people need to be punished!

Coupled with the systemic wrecking ball the Elizabeth Warren describes makes it an even more precarious situation.

But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Author]

Posts