But as others have mentioned, reckless / impulse spending can also be a sign of conditions like depression, BPD, ADHD, and the list goes on...
Many of my most memorable moments stem from from a bout of irrationality.
Games like these are everywhere.
I mean this comment is like the epitome of sweet summer child.
Please read the Price of Peace.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
There are also interesting efficiencies in there. Fixing a window is not as quick as just replacing it.
But that's also a toll to the environment.
Just encourage them to take part in some low-cost digital alternative like Sports Predictions.
Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this.
If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try.
Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc).
If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that.
And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.)
It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.
Expropriation mostly means taking from corporations and giving to everyone, and maybe you're in a more developed nation but in the USA that would just mean giving it to nearly the majority of the people there. E.g. clearing out grocery stores and giving people food, and moving people from slums into empty luxury condos. Plenty of housing to fit the homeless as well, but they're a small slice.
If the PRC isn't capitalist, neither is the USA. Market dynamics drive everything in the USA, they have a concept of private property (no 99 year rule has triggered), and the means of production are owned by a capital class that uses it to exploit labor for further profit. Just because they have strong regulations and the government injects money all over the place doesn't mean it's not capitalist. It's just like a supercharged version of some highly socialized version of a European nation, plus an oversized secret police operation, but that's more on the political side than the economic one.
> It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this?
Mostly corporations, so, capitalism over, so, nothing lol. If you mean their billionaire owners, I guess they would probably be keeping their heads down in this kind of situation. The idea is the improvement of quality of life for all people, even the billionaire class could hardly complain at a massive reduction in poverty and thus crime.
They've been stealing for the majority of people for so long I think it's only fair to expropriate it back.
But ok, how do you shift the entire world off fossil fuels without dismantling capitalism? What profit motive would drive someone to choose a more expensive energy solution that requires reconfiguring equipment?
It's not a relevant question, in the same way the desires of the Confederacy for independence were irrelevant when they lost the Civil War.
But also, I did answer it: Some would probably go along with it because of the obvious overall improvement to society that would result, which they would enjoy just as much as anyone else. After all, they already pay taxes so that roads exist and homeless are at least fed (and thus not harassing people as much). I said this in my previous comment.
Do you think the civil war was a pleasant or productive one for anyone?
The British did it a different way re: slavery, and notably did not burn half their country to the ground - and still banned it.
- it is currently doable
- china is working on it
- they will succeed
- while we flip the two insane political parties in power every 4 to 8 years that each kills everything previous one did just out of spite if for no other reason
And maybe in 20+ years we’ll be closer.
But that is not the same as what was being discussed.
They are not powering their industries with renewables. If you believe that, I don't know what to tell you.
Spending for the sake of spending is silly.