0
   

We'll Never Be Happy Consumers Again -- No Stimulus Package Can Bring That Back

 
 
Reply Tue 10 Feb, 2009 05:57 pm
Another excellent piece by James Howard Kunstler. While I agree with most people that no longer having Bush as President was change that the country needed, but if the first three weeks of this administration and Congress proves anything is that Washington politics will be business as usual. The attempt to return to unlimited credit is not a change the country needs, and neither are highway projects or continued Pentagon pork.

Quote:

We'll Never Be Happy Consumers Again -- No Stimulus Package Can Bring That Back


By James Howard Kunstler, Kunstler.com. Posted February 10, 2009.

Venturing out each day into this land of strip malls, freeways, office parks, and McHousing pods, one can't help but be impressed at how America looks the same as it did a few years ago, while seemingly overnight we have become another country. All the old mechanisms that enabled our way of life are broken, especially endless revolving credit, at every level, from household to business to the banks to the US Treasury.

Peak energy has combined with the diminishing returns of over-investments in complexity to pull the "kill switch" on our vaunted "way of life" -- the set of arrangements that we won't apologize for or negotiate. So, the big question before the nation is: do we try to re-start the whole smoking, creaking hopeless, futureless machine? Or do we start behaving differently?

The attempted re-start of revolving debt consumerism is an exercise in futility. We've reached the limit of being able to create additional debt at any level without causing further damage, additional distortions, and new perversities of economy (and of society, too). We can't raise credit card ceilings for people with no ability make monthly payments. We can't promote more mortgages for people with no income. We can't crank up a home-building industry with our massive inventory of unsold, and over-priced houses built in the wrong places. We can't ramp back up the blue light special shopping fiesta. We can't return to the heyday of Happy Motoring, no matter how many bridges we fix or how many additional ring highways we build around our already-overblown and over-sprawled metroplexes. Mostly, we can't return to the now-complete "growth" cycle of "economic expansion." We're done with all that. History is done with our doing that, for now.

So far -- after two weeks in office -- the Obama team seems bent on a campaign to sustain the unsustainable at all costs, to attempt to do all the impossible things listed above. Mr. Obama is not the only one, of course, who is invoking the quest for renewed "growth." This is a tragic error in collective thinking. What we really face is a comprehensive contraction in our activities, especially the scale of our activities, and the pressing need to readjust the systems of everyday life to a level of decreased complexity.

For instance, the myth that we can become "energy independent and yet remain car-dependent is absurd. In terms of liquid fuels, we're simply trapped. We import two-thirds of the oil we use and there is absolutely no chance that drill-drill-drilling (or any other scheme) will change that. The public and our leaders can not face the reality of this. The great wish for "alternative" liquid fuels (bio fuels, algae excreta) will never be anything more than a wish at the scales required, and the parallel wish to keep all our cars running by other means -- hydrogen fuel cells, electric motors -- is equally idle and foolish. We cannot face the mandate of reality, which is to do everything possible to make our living places walkable, and connect them with public transit. The stimulus bills in congress clearly illustrate our failure to understand the situation.

The attempt to restart "consumerism" will be equally disappointing. It was a manifestation of the short peak energy decades of history, and now that we're past peak energy, it's over. That seventy percent of the economy is over, especially the part that allowed people to buy stuff with no money. From now on people will have to buy stuff with money they earn and save, and they will be buying a lot less stuff. For a while, a lot of stuff will circulate through the yard sales and Craigslist, and some resourceful people will get busy fixing broken stuff that still has value. But the other infrastructure of shopping is toast, especially the malls, the strip malls, the real estate investment trusts that own it all, many of the banks that lent money to the REITs, the chain-stores and chain eateries, of course, and, alas, the non-chain mom-and-pop boutiques in these highway-oriented venues.

Washington is evidently seized by panic right now. I don't know anyone who works in the White House, but I must suppose that they have learned in two weeks that these systems are absolutely tanking, that the previous way of life that everybody was so set on not apologizing for has reached the end of the line. We seem to be learning a new and interesting lesson: that even a team that promises change is actually petrified of too much change, especially change that they can't really control.

The argument about "change" during the election was sufficiently vague that no one was really challenged to articulate a future that wasn't, materially, more-of-the-same. I suppose the Obama team may have thought they would only administer it differently than the Bush team -- but basically life in the USA would continue being about all those trips to the mall, and the cubicle jobs to support that, and the family safaris to visit Grandma in Lansing, and the vacations at Sea World, and Skipper's $20,000 college loan, and Dad's yearly junket to Las Vegas, and refinancing the house, and rolling over this loan and that loan? and that has all led to a very dead end in a dark place.

If this nation wants to survive without an intense political convulsion, there's a lot we can do, but none of it is being voiced in any corner of Washington at this time. We have to get off of petro-agriculture and grow our food locally, at a smaller scale, with more people working on it and fewer machines. This is an enormous project, which implies change in everything from property allocation to farming methods to new social relations. But if we don't focus on it right away, a lot of Americans will end up starving, and rather soon. We have to rebuild the railroad system in the US, and electrify it, and make it every bit as good as the system we once had that was the envy of the world. If we don't get started on this right away, we're screwed. We will have tremendous trouble moving people and goods around this continent-sized nation. We have to reactivate our small towns and cities because the metroplexes are going to fail at their current scale of operation. We have to prepare for manufacturing at a much smaller (and local) scale than the scale represented by General Motors.

The political theater of the moment in Washington is not focused on any of this, but on the illusion that we can find new ways of keeping the old ways going. Many observers have noted lately how passive the American public is in the face of their dreadful accelerating losses. It's a tragic mistake to tell them that they can have it all back again. We'll see a striking illustration of "phase change" as the public mood goes from cow-like incomprehension to grizzly bear-like rage. Not only will they discover the impossibility of getting back to where they were, but they will see the panicked actions of Washington drive what remains of our capital resources down a rat hole.

A consensus is firming up on each side of the "stimulus" question, largely along party lines -- simply those who are for it and those who are against it, mostly by degrees. Nobody in either party -- including supposed independents such as Bernie Sanders or John McCain, not to mention President Obama -- has a position for directing public resources and effort at any of the things I mentioned above: future food security, future travel-and-transport security, or the future security of livable, walkable dwelling places based on local networks of economic interdependency. This striking poverty of imagination may lead to change that will tear the nation to pieces.


We'll Never Be Happy Consumers Again -- No Stimulus Package Can Bring That Back | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,139 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:32 am
@Theaetetus,
Constant growth is a political dream and a nightmare for the world.The world economy has to formed on morals not constant greed for more.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 07:04 am
@Theaetetus,
Maybe the world does not have enough, and yet it has had enough rationally to survive... But look: We had production...Because producers wanted higher profit, and the government sought empire we have exported industry, and we imported products until we are ruined as a market... Throwing some of our own money at us is supposed to make a market of us again.... The debt load is so severe, and our wealth personal and public is all in the hands of a single class, so there will be no recovery..

Does it do the third world any good to export our production to them... Any capital they have might in time help them, but for now it is only turning their lives to profit, polluting their environments and dividing their societies...

We can see now what good it does us to lose all our capital...When people buy their own products and build up the capital of their country by exporting they can grow wealthy and strong...If they cannot export the wealth of the country will grow in the hands of the rich... But if they have no production and have to survive on imports the bottom is out of the bucket, and it does not matter what is put in because all will go out...This stimulus is the last gasp of American capitalism...Either we will revolt, or in short order will find ourselves reduced to grinding poverty in a third world country... There is no economy to our economy...
0 Replies
 
Grim phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:41 pm
@Theaetetus,
Often consumption is a cover for personal displeasure, people who consume the most are not necessarily the happiest nor the most worthy members of western society. What makes you think that people will suddenly loose all happiness now that their problems are being fixed for them? Consumerism is in no way dead, and I feel that tightening the belt is always a positive, healthy action. I honestly couldn't be happier with a decline in consumerism.

:research:
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 06:13 pm
@Theaetetus,
Mindless consumption is not the same thing as consumerism, in my opinion... When people working hard demand good quality from the products they consume it is a good thing, a positive thing and even perhaps a step toward socialism and social justice....
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 03:45 am
@Fido,
Its how we balance the right to work and out of hand greed in society.I find the drive and adoration of wealth in itself a dated concept.A taxation system to balance these inequalities is the only way we can have achievement without greed.This just one more holiday, one bigger car or tv is not healthy for the long term economy of the world.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 09:06 am
@Theaetetus,
I don't know if increased human involvement in agricultural production is a great idea, but otherwise a very good article.

xris wrote:

Constant growth is a political dream and a nightmare for the world.The world economy has to formed on morals not constant greed for more.


Constant growth can be supported by education, creativity, and technology.

Growth in consumption that is linked to growth in productivity is perfectly fine.

The problem we should have is when government manipulates financial markets to increase consumption, as that is what results in overproduction and waste.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:54 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I don't know if increased human involvement in agricultural production is a great idea, but otherwise a very good article.



Constant growth can be supported by education, creativity, and technology.

Growth in consumption that is linked to growth in productivity is perfectly fine.

The problem we should have is when government manipulates financial markets to increase consumption, as that is what results in overproduction and waste.
You always have to use more raw materials to have growth without this you cant have growth .Electricity is the prime example however much you become more efficient growth will always outstrip efficiency.Just work it out yourself 2% growth each year over twenty years and see how growth is killing this planet.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:21 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
You always have to use more raw materials to have growth without this you cant have growth .Electricity is the prime example however much you become more efficient growth will always outstrip efficiency.


There is absolutely no reason to say that growth in consumption requires a growth in raw material use. Technology and expertise is making production and distribution more and more efficient all the time.

I recognize that outstretching our resources is dangerous, but railing against growth itself is dangerous as well.
Grim phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:06 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Mindless consumption is not the same thing as consumerism, in my opinion... When people working hard demand good quality from the products they consume it is a good thing, a positive thing and even perhaps a step toward socialism and social justice....


Yes well two people trying to draw the same line will inevitably come up with two distinct figures. Consume consumer consumption.....I find it had to tell the difference in any meaningful way myself. People working hard spending all their money and borrowing more to buy cheaply produced goods from the third world while ignoring environmental degradation until it becomes a serious problem....a positive thing? I suppose some people have simply lost they belt they need to tighten. A step towards socialism is never a good thing and I don't really understand your connection with that to individual profiteering and consumption.

:research:
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:31 pm
@Theaetetus,
I would say the object of socialism is a governed economy which should mean less work for more quality... Junk that falls apart and ends up in a land fill just keeps humanity on a treadmill for nothing for ever...
Grim phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 07:36 pm
@Fido,
Oh your referring to the welfare state or the more radical democratic socialism which is along the same lines. You had me nervous for a moment there.

:research:
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:25 am
@Grim phil,
Grim wrote:
Yes well two people trying to draw the same line will inevitably come up with two distinct figures. Consume consumer consumption.....I find it had to tell the difference in any meaningful way myself. People working hard spending all their money and borrowing more to buy cheaply produced goods from the third world while ignoring environmental degradation until it becomes a serious problem....a positive thing? I suppose some people have simply lost they belt they need to tighten. A step towards socialism is never a good thing and I don't really understand your connection with that to individual profiteering and consumption.

:research:
A step towards socialism is always a bad thing..is that an opinion or a fact ?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:29 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to say that growth in consumption requires a growth in raw material use. Technology and expertise is making production and distribution more and more efficient all the time.

I recognize that outstretching our resources is dangerous, but railing against growth itself is dangerous as well.
I think your living in noddy land if you think technology can provide raw materials for consumption and constant growth.The raw materials are running out at a faster and faster rate if we dont stop the inevitable will mean we have to mine our waste dumps because that will be all thats left.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:29 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I think your living in noddy land if you think technology can provide raw materials for consumption and constant growth.The raw materials are running out at a faster and faster rate if we dont stop the inevitable will mean we have to mine our waste dumps because that will be all thats left.


So are you just taking some random unobtainable growth rate and assigning the consequences of that growth rate to all possible growth rates?

I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said, I just don't see where anything you said implies that growth itself is absolutely bad.

Are we growing too quickly in population and resource use? Of course.

Is growth that isn't excessive and dangerous possible? Of course.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 06:46 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
So are you just taking some random unobtainable growth rate and assigning the consequences of that growth rate to all possible growth rates?

I have agreed with pretty much everything you have said, I just don't see where anything you said implies that growth itself is absolutely bad.

Are we growing too quickly in population and resource use? Of course.

Is growth that isn't excessive and dangerous possible? Of course.
I cant see why we need growth as a political objective.What is a nations growth what does it represent ? does it mean next year we will be a little richer more money to spend on crap we dont really need. I read about Manhattan island being bought from the red Indians for about 15 dollars , icant remember the exact amount, if the indians had put the money in a bank account at 5% and left it there they could buy Manhattan back now and have money over.When people talk about constant growth it alarms me and i can see us regretting this political attitude before very long.
0 Replies
 
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 07:06 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Another excellent piece by James Howard Kunstler. While I agree with most people that no longer having Bush as President was change that the country needed, but if the first three weeks of this administration and Congress proves anything is that Washington politics will be business as usual. The attempt to return to unlimited credit is not a change the country needs, and neither are highway projects or continued Pentagon pork.



We'll Never Be Happy Consumers Again -- No Stimulus Package Can Bring That Back | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

This may be off topic but I was just thinking, has anyone ever thought about the American way of life? Our incessant craving for things? Seems to me, that our economy is shaped by this desire for things. The big screen tv, the two or three four wheelers, in the case of the CEO, the vacation house in the Bahamas.

There will never be a balance in the economy unless people quit gorging themselves with "things".
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 09:59 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I don't know if increased human involvement in agricultural production is a great idea, but otherwise a very good article.



Constant growth can be supported by education, creativity, and technology.

Growth in consumption that is linked to growth in productivity is perfectly fine.

The problem we should have is when government manipulates financial markets to increase consumption, as that is what results in overproduction and waste.


I don't understand why growth in consumption is considered a good thing or even a desirable thing. Unless, consumers start buying things that are intended to last lifetimes, or at least efficient to recycle with very little waste, there is no way that growth in consumption can be sustainable, much less good.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:05 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
This may be off topic but I was just thinking, has anyone ever thought about the American way of life? Our incessant craving for things? Seems to me, that our economy is shaped by this desire for things. The big screen tv, the two or three four wheelers, in the case of the CEO, the vacation house in the Bahamas.

There will never be a balance in the economy unless people quit gorging themselves with "things".

****; we should have things and the time to enjoy them... Damned savages never had to work as hard as us an they had their lives, and their houses... We all ought to be able to get by fine working two hours a day max... That is what our increases in technology should give us if it were not given to feed some *****s incessent craving for profit... All we get to buy is junk... All our lives are wasted at work... We wish our lives away until we have nothing left to wish...If unhappiness was the desired end product of capitalism it could be called a success... Since we only have to work so to feed profit, and because our wages are forced so low they cannot support us, the blessing of capitalism will never be known until capitalism has been swept away... So production to glut on limited resources is pure stupidity...
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 12:32 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
****; we should have things and the time to enjoy them... Damned savages never had to work as hard as us an they had their lives, and their houses... We all ought to be able to get by fine working two hours a day max... That is what our increases in technology should give us if it were not given to feed some *****s incessent craving for profit... All we get to buy is junk... All our lives are wasted at work... We wish our lives away until we have nothing left to wish...If unhappiness was the desired end product of capitalism it could be called a success... Since we only have to work so to feed profit, and because our wages are forced so low they cannot support us, the blessing of capitalism will never be known until capitalism has been swept away... So production to glut on limited resources is pure stupidity...

That was peeerty good Mr. Fido. LOL
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We'll Never Be Happy Consumers Again -- No Stimulus Package Can Bring That Back
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/26/2026 at 09:37:00